Bobby Jindal Interview, part 2

Still loving the Exceptional America

Bobby Jindal on Immigration Policy

There he goes again, loving America.

Evangelical Legalism

Reclaiming the Doctrine of Justification

Here's what ails us...

This, however, did not bring him assurance, but only doubts. For his assurance depended, not so much on God's promise to the ungodly as ungodly (Rom.4:5), but on his ability to see growth and improvement in his Christian walk."
[...]
A few years ago Will Herberg and other commentators noted that a predominant aspect of North American religion was that we have faith in faith. One American evangelist, in fact, wrote a booklet, "How To Have Faith In Your Faith."
[...]
Some of the preaching in evangelicalism--certainly some of the Sunday school material, some of the primary addresses by retreat speakers and Christian leaders--all taken together as the basic spiritual diet, tend to reinforce that old intuition that good people are the ones who are saved and that those who are not so good are the ones who are lost.

Here's the cure...

The motif in the New Testament, and in the Reformation is that Christ's death was outside of me and for me. It is not primarily something that changes us. After one has been declared righteous by grace through faith, this grace will begin to change us (sanctification); nevertheless its changing us is certainly not what justifies us. In Roman Catholicism, and in John Wesley's work, what makes us acceptable to God is his internal work of renovation within our hearts and lives.
[...]
[T]he Reformation tradition acknowledges that there are biblical texts that speak of sanctification as complete already. This is not a perfection which is empirical or observable, but a definitive declaration that because we are "in Christ," we are set apart and holy by his sacrifice (1 Cor.1:30; Heb.10, etc.). Anybody who is in Christ is sanctified because his holiness is imputed to the Christian believer, just as Jesus says in John chapter seventeen, "For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified." God sees the believer as holy. That means that Wesley should not have terrified Christian brethren with texts such as, "Without holiness, no one will see the Lord." The Christian is holy--it's all imputed. And then there are texts that say, "Be holy as I am holy." What would the reformers do with that? They would say we are called to be holy. But why should we be holy if we are already perfect in Christ? Because we are saved unto good works, not unto licentiousness, according to Romans chapter six; the question has been asked before.
[...]
In other words, even a Christian can be saved.

You Get What You Vote For

This is what happens when the world carefully concludes that the U.S. president has no great love for America or for liberty. It's only natural that communist tyrants are emboldened when a communist lives in the White House.

North Korea fires artillery barrage on South

North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells onto a South Korean island on Tuesday, killing one person, setting homes ablaze and triggering an exchange of fire as the South's military went on top alert.

Congressional Treason

Treason in America: Move Over ‘Hanoi Jane’ – Meet ‘Baghdad Barbara,’ ‘Weasel Waxman,’ and ‘Jihad Jodie’

Shockingly and tragically, at the same time our servicemen were staring into the eyes of evil, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman were conspiring with radical leftist groups Code Pink and Global Exchange. Groups who were committed to America’s defeat in Iraq and were providing aid and support to our nation’s enemies. In December 2004, Boxer and Waxman (along with fellow congressmen Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Raul Grijalva of Arizona) signed letters of diplomatic courtesy to the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, facilitating the transfer of more than $600,000 in cash and supplies to the insurgents and their families who were fighting and murdering U.S. servicemen and contractors in Fallujah. Henry Waxman’s letter, dated December 14, 2004, was addressed to American Consul General Daniel Goodspeed and requested assistance on behalf of radical anti-war groups Palisadians for Peace and Global Exchange.

The Conspiracy to Shakedown Chevron

Outtakes from so-called documentary prove the movie maker a fraud, litigants conspirators, and Chevron innocent.

‘Crude’ Footage Reveals Lies Behind Trial Lawyers’ Suit Against Chevron

The damning revelations are the result of Chevron’s successful legal efforts to gain access to outtakes from the movie, “Crude,” which the director, Joe Berlinger, claimed to be a fair and balanced effort to show both sides in the litigation over Texaco’s operations in Ecuador between 1964 and 1990. Chevron purchased Texaco in 2001. Berlinger claimed journalistic privilege and fought to keep control of the footage, but was ordered by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on July 15 to turn over relevant material. The review by Chevron’s lawyers of the first batch of outtakes shows that not only that the legal case against Chevron is built on lies, but that Berlinger’s reputation as a serious, fair-minded documentarian is hollow.

Breaking Point

H/T Conservative Latina

Chicago Press Protects Political Machinist Rahm Emmanuel

Chicago press attempts to deny freedom of the... PRESS!

They try to drive away and even threaten violence against a reporter who is there to interview rather than for the purpose of creating good public relations in support of Chicago Political Machine veteran Rahm Emmanuel.

Manchurian Candidate Must Be Impeached

Democrats Keep Trying to Corrupt Elections

Now that the Tea Party is revolting against the Republican establishment, Democrats find it isn't enough to have subverted and corrupted the Republican party establishment with the likes of John McCain, Arlen Specter, etc. They must now find ways to infiltrate the Tea Party as well.

Dems Admit Rep. John Adler Planted Fake Tea Party Candidate

In May, Geoff Mackler, Adler’s Campaign Manager, along with Democratic consultant Steve Ayscue gave a presentation outlining the “DeStefano Plan” at the Camden County Democratic Committee headquarters:


"The goal was to take 5 percent of (Republican Jon) Runyan’s vote," said a Democrat with direct knowledge of the Adler campaign and CCDC operations.

"Steve Ayscue designed the plan with Geoff Mackler following his lead."

Like, You Know, Brilliant?

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Self-Inflicted October Surprise?

Perhaps not, but in its attempt to top a rally by American Patriots on 8/28/10, the Coalition of Tyranny led by the NAACP embarrasses its D.C. puppets.

One Trillion attend One Nation Rally
By Connie Hair

Speaker after speaker at the event demanded more government giveaways and wealth re-distribution from their leaders. And gay rights. And amnesty. And free education throughout everyone's lifetime from cradle to great grandma getting her Ph.D.
[...]
Favorite signs included: "Tax the Rich, Socialist Party U.S.A." and "Jobs for Justice"
[...]
The event organizers included such noble American groups as the Communist Party U.S.A., Democratic Socialists of America and the International Socialist Organization.
[...]
And as is always the case when the hard core environmentalists protest in the streets, they leave their trash behind for someone else to pick up.



This video was taken after the One Nation rally on 10/2/2010 in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. They left our Mall littered with their pre-printed Union signs and garbage. Very classy.

It's not about the environment. It never has been. Going green is all about wealth re-distribution and control by "elites" over every aspect of our lives and businesses through energy regulation.
[...]
All in all, the rally presentation and signs will give Democratic candidates heartburn nationwide with one month left until America speaks at the polls.

Hollywood's Favorite Butcher

H/T Babalu

Legacy News Covers Up SEIU Terrorist Connection

Chicago Media Omit Fact That FBI Terror Suspect is Chief Steward for SEIU

One might think it would be big news that a Chief Steward for a local chapter of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is being investigated by the FBI for possible connection to overseas terror networks. Apparently, though, several Chicago news outlets didn’t see a reason to add this little fact to their stories.
[...]
But it isn’t just TV that missed this fact. The Associated Press also seems to be blind to the fact that Iosbaker is a union operative.
[...]
The fact seems to be that Iosbaker is not just a little fish in the big union pond. He is at least a middle-manager and local union muckety-muck. So why did so many news outlets somehow forget to mention this fact? Isn’t his status as a union operative with some station and position significant?
One is tempted to think that these news outlets were trying to cover for the SEIU.

Our Anti-American President

Obama's Arizona Jihad - HUMAN EVENTS

The Obama Administration’s jihad against Arizona continues to rage. Most recently, it included SB 1070 (Arizona’s new immigration law) in a report to the United Nations on human rights abuses.
[...]
I didn’t think it could get any worse than the Obama Administration suing a sovereign state for simply enforcing federal immigration law—indeed, for simply defending its citizens—but it has.
President Obama has decided to have the United Nations review the law of Arizona. You have got to be kidding! We’re now going to have countries like Cuba, Libya and Uganda sitting in judgment on Arizona’s laws? Enough is enough!
[...]
Sheriff Joe’s crack down on illegal immigration led the Mexican drug cartels to put a $1 million bounty on his head last month.

When the sheriff of America’s fourth-largest county is threatened by foreign enemies, you would think that the President would assist him. Instead, Obama is siding with the cartels. While they are sending their guns against Sheriff Joe, Obama is sending his lawyers.
[...]
Americans need to wake up! Obama’s assault on SB 1070 and Sheriff Joe has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, civil rights, or even the relationship between federal vs. state authority on immigration.

It is about Obama’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws. He won’t let the federal government enforce the law. And if a state tries to pick up their slack and protect its citizens, he sues them.

This is the Obama’s Civil Rights Division of $145 million and 399 attorneys attacking Arizona and its citizens. This is a battle of epic proportions. They have the support of highly funded left-wing open-borders legal advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Bring it on!!

The Last Best Hope: Pass it On!

H/T: The Borg Conspiracy

"My Yoke is Easy and My Burden is Light"

How Many Times Did Goldwater Run For President Again?
By Ann Coulter

Unlike abortion-loving Goldwater, Reagan said, "We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."

And unlike gay-marriage-loving Goldwater, Reagan said: "Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. ... We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."

Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

CNN's Borger contrasted Goldwater with Ronald Reagan by precisely reversing their differences, claiming Reagan "was probably the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

Yes, the man who called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," who wrote a book against abortion as a sitting president, and who said that our government's founding documents "speak of man being created, of a creator, that we are a nation under God" -- that's the one Borger calls "the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

By "most secular," I gather she means "most deeply religious."

Establishment Republicans are always telling Christian conservatives to put our issues aside because they're not popular -- and then moderate Republicans go on to lose elections, while conservative Republicans win in landslides.

RINO Hunting

Jim DeMint's courage and Lisa Murkowski's betrayal
By Mark Thiessen

The idea that DeMint and the Tea Party are threatening the GOP's chances for reclaiming the majority is absurd. Republicans wouldn't have a shot at taking back either the House or Senate were it not for the Tea Party movement, which has both energized the conservative base and attracted independents to the GOP by promising to reform the party and restore fiscal sanity in Washington. The best way to dispirit the conservative base and lose those independents would be to take back the majority and go back to business as usual.

This may be why DeMint is less concerned with changing who controls the Senate than he is with changing the way the Senate does business -- by electing outsiders who are committed to restoring the GOP's reputation as the party of limited government and fiscal discipline.

Regardless of the outcome in Alaska -- or who controls the upper chamber after November -- there is likely to be a wave of new insurgent senators arriving in Washington. The question is: When those insurgents arrive, will they remember how the Republican leadership fought them -- or how the Republican leadership fought for them?

Marc A. Thiessen is a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and writes a weekly column for The Post.

Dim Bulbs in D.C.

Not only is it morally wrong for the government to try to run your life, but also the government is simply very bad at doing it.

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs: Proceed with Caution
By Peter Wilson

Many people, however, don't like curlicue light bulbs, and not because these people are uninformed, shortsighted, or on the payroll of Big Carbon. The list of objections is long, but here are a few:



• CFL manufacturers claim that a 13-watt CFL emits the same amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent, but it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. I've been in CFL-lit hotel rooms where I need a flashlight to read my dog-eared copy of The Road to Serfdom.


• Warm-up time: it takes up to 5 minutes for a CFL to reach full strength, which may be related to the point above (why CFLs seem less bright). My friend has installed them in a hallway where illumination is needed only for the thirty seconds it takes to navigate the staircase. Not ideal when Grandma visits and can't see the skateboard on the stairs.


• Few CFLs last for their advertised lifetimes of five years or more. Many people report replacing them after one year, making those return on investment numbers a bit less rosy. Using them in ceiling fixtures, on dimmers or timers, and for less than fifteen minutes per use reduce their life.


• CFLs contain mercury and should be returned to a hazardous waste center for disposal. Studies assume a 25% recycling rate, with the rest going into landfills. (The Westinghouse website recommends recycling only when disposing of "a large quantity" of fluorescent tubes and doesn't mention how to dispose of their CFLs.) According to a 2008 Yale study, burning coal to supply electricity to incandescent bulbs emits more mercury per bulb than a CFL contains, but regions that rely on cleaner fuels like natural gas experience greater mercury contamination with the introduction of CFLs. Why would environmentalists advocate to bring a toxic product into every home?


• Cleaning up a broken CFL doesn't require a haz-mat team, but you have to take significant precautions to avoid mercury contamination of living areas.


• Manufacturing CFLs is labor-intensive. No CFLs are made with expensive U.S. labor; most are made in China, where hundreds of factory workers in CFL plants have been hospitalized for mercury poisoning. The last major light bulb factory in the U.S., a GE plant in Winchester, VA, closed earlier this month.


• CFLs require six times as much energy to manufacture as incandescent bulbs, not to mention -- if you're concerned about such things -- the carbon footprint of shipping them from China.


• CFLs appear to cause migraines and epileptic seizures in a small number of people. Other health risks are being studied.


• CFLs work poorly in cold temperatures -- as a wintertime front porch light, for example. In cold climates, the heat of incandescent bulbs is a useful -- if inefficient -- byproduct.


• CFLs degrade the quality of the electric current (so-called "dirty electricity" with uneven sine waves) on a circuit into which they are plugged, causing problems for other electronic devices and possible health hazards to humans.

History in the Making

I was pretty sure I understood the meaning, but I looked it up just to be sure.

Pyrrhic
1885, from Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who defeated Roman armies at Asculum, 280 B.C.E., but at such cost to his own troops that he was unable to follow up and attack Rome itself, and is said to have remarked, "one more such victory and we are lost."

Pyrrhic Victory? Right Diagnosis, Wrong Patient
By Randall Hoven

Assume the geniuses are right. In fact, assume the worst case: O'Donnell loses the general election and the Senate ends up 50-50, with the tie-breaking vote going to Joe Biden. If we wing-nuts hadn't screwed things up by electing O'Donnell in the primary, the Senate would be majority Republican in 2011-12. How much better would a majority-by-one outcome be?

We do not have to hypothesize such a situation. Exactly that happened in 2001. And this is what happened: Jim Jeffords, nominal Republican, left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats, putting them in majority control for the remainder of that Senate term.
[...]
When we really, really needed him, Jumpin' Jim jumped. To be clear, all of the good do-bee Republicans who supported our "moderate" Republicans from the Northeast still got screwed. They lost the money they sent him and lost the Senate anyway. Strike one.

Move to the next northeast state, Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey ran against Arlen Specter in the GOP primary in 2004. There was nothing wrong or "wing-nut" about Toomey. He had served in the House for the previous six years. He was a Harvard graduate for goodness sake. But, he wasn't the choice of the Republican Party geniuses. The geniuses knew their incumbent, Arlen. And Arlen proved, if nothing else, that he could win elections in Pennsylvania. So Arlen got the GOP money, the GOP backing and President Bush's endorsement.

Then, when we really, really needed it -- when it might have been possible to filibuster Obama's stimulus in 2009 if a mere 41 GOP senators could hang together -- three GOP senators, all from the Northeast, broke ranks: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. Strike two.

Then, when we really, really, really needed him, to defeat ObamaCare by filibuster, Arlen did Jumpin' Jim one better and became an out-and-out Democrat. He ended up voting for ObamaCare as a Democrat. He took GOP money when he ran in 2004, and then voted against the GOP when it counted most. Strike three. And I'm out.

Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Era
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

There isn't a Tea Partier who doesn't understand the danger of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda. Any Republican taking any title for granted, however, is a problem. Now, you've got to earn it. With this first federal election of the Tea Party era, the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils.

Christine O'Donnell is that lesson. At Friday's Values Voter Summit in Washington, she said, "They don't get it. We're not trying to take back our country. We are our country." That reminded me of another outsider derided by the establishment: Ronald Reagan.

With Democrats on the run in so many races, their resources are stretched. Democrats will need to rely on bitter Republicans to fend off O'Donnell's run in Delaware. Conservatives mustn't allow the bitter Republicans to destroy the chance to take the Senate by backing down from, or making excuses for, their establishment "friends."

The 2010 elections will show who's on our side. It's up to the people who care too much about America to no longer care what the establishment thinks of them.

More relevant words for this week:

wa·ter·shed   
[waw-ter-shed, wot-er-]

–noun

1. Chiefly British . the ridge or crest line dividing two drainage areas; water parting; divide.


2. the region or area drained by a river, stream, etc.; drainage area.


3. Architecture . wash ( def. 44 ) .


4. an important point of division or transition between two phases, conditions, etc.: The treaty to ban war in space may prove to be one of history's great watersheds.

mile·stone   
[mahyl-stohn]

–noun

1. a stone functioning as a milepost.


2. a significant event or stage in the life, progress, development, or the like of a person, nation, etc.: Her getting the job of supervisor was a milestone in her career.

sea change 
–noun

1. a striking change, as in appearance, often for the better.


2. any major transformation or alteration.


3. a transformation brought about by the sea.

Boston Govenment School Takes Children to Pray at Terrorist Mosque

Smoking Bazooka

The Democrats' Fannie is Showing

After the global financial crisis, no politician would dare chide another for too much "safety and soundness." But in 2004, 76 Democrats actually asked President Bush not to manage Fannie Mae responsibly.

There are smoking guns and then there are smoking bazookas. The June 28, 2004, letter from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and dozens of other House Democrats to President Bush, posted by Moe Lane on Redstate.com last week, forever squashes Democratic claims about the mortgage crisis not being their fault.

"We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page and a half, signed by a rogues' gallery of 76 House Democrats.

Tito "The Builder" Munoz Makes This Native Proud to Be an American

When I see people like this man gathering under our flag, I feel encouraged that God does indeed still bless America.

Bonfire of the Insanities - HUMAN EVENTS

Bonfire of the Insanities - HUMAN EVENTS

by Ann Coulter
09/08/2010

In response to Gen David Petraeus' denunciation of Florida pastor Terry Jones' right to engage in a symbolic protest of the 9/11 attacks by burning copies of the Quran this Sept. 11, President Obama said: "Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that members of the Dove World Outreach Center have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as anyone else in this country."

Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida lauded Obama's remarks, saying America is "a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Obama's words a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion" -- and also claimed that he had recently run into a filthy jihadist who actually supported the Quran-burning!

Keith Olbermann read the poem "First they came ..." on air in defense of the Quran-burners, nearly bringing himself to tears at his own profundity.


No wait, my mistake. This is what liberals said about the ground zero mosque only five minutes ago when they were posing as First Amendment absolutists. Suddenly, they've developed amnesia when it comes to the free-speech right to burn a Quran.

Weirdly, conservatives who opposed building the mosque at ground zero are also against the Quran burning. (Except in my case. It turns out I'm for it, but mostly because burning Qurans will contribute to global warming.)

Liberals couldn't care less about the First Amendment. To the contrary, censoring speech and religion is the left's specialty! (Any religion other than Islam.)

They promote speech codes, hate crimes, free speech zones (known as "America" off college campuses), and go around the country yanking every reference to God from the public square via endless lawsuits by the ACLU.

Whenever you see a liberal choking up over our precious constitutional rights, you can be sure we're talking about the rights of Muslims at ground zero, "God Hates Fags" funeral protesters, strippers, The New York Times publishing classified documents, pornographers, child molesters, murderers, traitors, saboteurs, terrorists, flag-burners (but not Quran-burners!) or women living on National Endowment of the Arts grants by stuffing yams into their orifices on stage.

Speaking of lying dwarfs, last week on "The Daily Show" Bloomberg claimed he was having a hamburger with his "girlfriend" when a man came up to him and said of the ground zero mosque: "I just got back from two tours fighting overseas for America. This is what we were all fighting for. You go and keep at it."

We're fighting for the right of Muslims to build mosques at ground zero? I thought we were trying to keep Muslims AWAY from our skyscrapers. (What an embarrassing misunderstanding.) PLEASE PULL THE TROOPS OUT IMMEDIATELY.

But back to the main issue: Was Bloomberg having a $150 Burger Double Truffle at DB Bistro Moderne or a more sensible $30 burger at the 21 Club when he bumped into his imaginary veteran? With the pint-sized mayor shrieking at the sight of a saltshaker, I assume he wasn't having a Hardee's No. 4 Combo Meal.

Adding an element of realism to his little vignette, Bloomberg said: "I got a hamburger and a pickle and a potato chip or something."

A potato chip? Translation: "I don't know what I was eating, because I'm making this whole story up -- I wouldn't be caught dead eating 'a potato chip' or any other picaresque garnish favored by the peasants." At least Bloomberg didn't claim the man who walked up to him took credit for setting the Times Square bomb because he was a tea partier upset about ObamaCare -- as Sherlock Bloomberg had so presciently speculated at the time.

Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.

This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy -- invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?

If the general's main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists' recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!

But wait -- weren't we assured by Fire Island's head of national security, Andrew Sullivan, that if America elected a "brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy," the terrorists would look like a bunch of lunkheads and be unable to recruit?

It didn't work out that way. There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama's first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.

Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the "it will help them recruit" argument yet?

The reason not to burn Qurans is that it's unkind -- not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero -- in both cases, it's not a question of anyone's "rights," it's just a nasty thing to do.

The Tyranny of Sexual Perversion

Liberty is a moral value. Homosexuality, or any other immoral behavior, is in opposition to liberty.
Open letter to conservatives who back same-sex marriage

Judaism, he explains, and later Christianity, "placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was to be sanctified – which in Hebrew means 'separated' – from the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife."

In short, he explains, "Judaism's restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress. Along with ethical monotheism, the revolution begun by the Torah when it declared war on the sexual practices of the world wrought the most far-reaching changes in history."

Do you understand what he's saying? Our sexual mores in large part determine our society's destiny.

Now, fast-forward to America's founding: It's no accident that this nation has flowered more than any other in world history. But that didn't happen, my dear "libertarian-leaning conservative" friends, because the founding generation resented government, wanted lower taxes and wanted to be left alone. No, America flowered because it was steeped in a faith-based morality and a love of freedom that were wedded together into a rare and priceless alloy the world had never seen.

"Never Gonna Stand for This!"

H/T Wizbang

Bureaucratic Tyranny

I pay property taxes to the county in which I live. This is a good thing. The taxes paid by residents are used to provide services, one of which is the use of the county dump sites.

But now we have a problem. Only county residents have paid taxes which provide for the dump. Each county has its own dump(s). Residents of other counties should not be using the dump in my county. For this reason, as well as many others including the orderly management of personnel, land, and waste, we suddenly need to provide for the management of these facilities. And this also has a cost that must be borne by taxpayers.

But as is typical, the policing of the use of the county dump is done preventively rather than punitively. That is, rather than penalize those who misuse the dump, provision is made to prevent the misuse of the dump. In some cases, this approach is appropriate. It may be in this case, in which the goal is to prevent non-county residents from using the dump. The way this is pursued (though not achieved) in my county is through the issuance of decals that can be applied to the vehicle window belonging to county residents and must be displayed when discarding waste at the dump site. Naturally, these decals also cost money.

This approach does not prevent non-county residents from using the dump. Obviously, through a variety of methods, a non-county resident might obtain a decal that will allow him to illegally use the county dump. This is actually a little humorous to me because a much more effective method is so easily available. Any proof of residency like a driver's license could easily be used to authorize use of the county dump. And such a method would save money to the taxpayer and the county.

However, what bureaucrat could conceive of such an elegant solution? Bureaucrats tend to be 'little kings' running their own fiefdoms and enjoying the opportunity to enforce upon the unwashed peasants the rules which they majestically devise. Examples abound, most notably and frighteningly at the Federal level. I won't cite them here. Be on the lookout.

In addition, bureaucrats provide never ending excuses to add tax after tax in order to pay for their endless and typically needless, poorly designed, and inefficiently managed programs. Quite obviously, these endeavors are designed to generate revenue in many cases, not merely to pay for themselves.

As for me, when traveling to the dump I place the decal, still stuck to its original backing, on the dashboard of my vehicle so that it can be seen by the dump attendant. This has always been acceptable. I find repugnant the idea that I should drive around my whole life displaying a decal that I only use a few minutes every other week or so. That's just silly. Also, I sometimes borrow a pickup truck from a family member or a friend, who may or may not be a resident of my county, in order to deliver refuse too large or too numerous to fit in my sedan.

So, as one might expect, the 'little kings' have decided the dump can no longer be used except by professed residents of the county who are driving vehicles with decals actually affixed. I will no longer be permitted to use the dump if I simply temporarily lay the decal on my dash for the very few minutes that I need it. The poor soul who lives across the road from the dump will not be permitted to simply walk across the street with his garbage.

What purpose does this serve? First, additional decals must be purchased for those residents who may use a variety of vehicles to deliver waste to the dump. It might also be assumed by some pencil pusher who lives in the city, has his garbage collected, and never actually uses the dump he oversees that requiring the decals to be affixed might prevent the loan of decals to non-residents. To any rational person with the most rudimentary experience in the real world, such a notion is laughable. But what rational person in touch with real life would aspire to the position of bureaucrat?

Prevention may be preferable to punishment in some cases when the consequences are life-threatening. But it has become the norm in every situation and it offers no exceptions to a sacrifice of our liberty. Most obvious and egregious is the case of our 2nd amendment.

When exposed to any discussion of regulation, certification, licensing, or qualification, consider the legal requirement in question and whether the approach is preventive or punitive. A preventive methodology will nearly always be observed. Then consider to what extent the preventive measures have curtailed your rights. Finally, decide whether the security gained by such prevention is worth the price you pay in the currency of your liberty.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, 1759

The Palestinianism Hoax

The historical record is too complete and irrefutable for the international fraud of a "Palestinian State" to be permitted to go on.

American Thinker: O, Palestine!

Inherent in Palestinianism, from its origins, is the rejection of a Jewish state in any form. That opposition is not negotiable and not open to compromise; it is essential.

Palestinianism was never for anything; its raison d'être was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. That purpose has never changed.
[...]
Local Arab uprisings against British rule were anti-colonial and anti-Zionist, not directed toward another independent Palestinian state. Arab riots and pogroms, like those in 1929 and 1936, for example, were not motivated by Palestinian nationalism; there were no calls for a Palestinian state. The battle cry was, "Kill the Jews."

In 1937, Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission, "There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"

Here the money quote:

Arab gangs that attacked Jews in 1948, composed of locals and Arabs from the region, were called the "Arab -- not Palestininian -- Army of Liberation." The reason is that prior to Israel's establishment, the notion of a "Palestinian people" simply did not exist, or was irrelevant, because Arab affiliations are primarily familial and tribal -- not national. And because "Palestinian" then meant something else.

Before 1948, those who were called (and called themselves) "Palestinians" were Jews, not Arabs, although both carried the same British passports. In fact, only after Jews in Palestine called themselves Israelis, in 1948, could Arabs adopt "Palestinian," as theirs exclusively.

And there's more:

The first attempt to define Palestinianism was in 1964, in the PLO Covenant, during Jordan's occupation of "the West Bank" (a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan River) and when Egypt held the Gaza Strip. On behalf of the "Palestinian Arab people," the Covenant declared their goal: a "holy war" (jihad) to "liberate Palestine," i.e. destroy Israel.
[...]
Dedicated to armed struggle, their goal has never changed; unable to defeat Israel militarily, however, the Arab strategy is to demonize and delegitimize, creating yet another Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan. In order to accomplish this, they concocted a narrative, an identity, and an ethos to compete with Zionism and Jewish history: Palestinianism.
[...]
"Palestinianism" lacks the basic requirements of legitimate national identity: a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or religious basis. It is nothing more than a political-military construct, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Yet it became legitimized by the U.N.

Despite PLO mega-terrorist attacks, and backed by the Arab League, Muslim and "non-aligned" countries, the PLO was accepted by the United Nations in 1974. The following year, the U.N. passed its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution, sanctioning Israel's demonization and setting the U.N. on a course of Israel's destruction.

Obama, Backstabber-in-Chief

'President' Barack Hussein Obama betrays his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and betrays his duty to the sovereign state of Arizona. How many impeachable offenses will he be allowed to commit?

CNSNews.com - State Dept Referring Arizona’s Immigration Law to U.N. is Rebuffed by Arizona Sheriff – ‘Regard for the U.N. as I Do the Vermin That Hides in the Rocks’

“Well, it’s just amazing to me,” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Course, I have about as much regard for the U.N. as I do the vermin that hides in the rocks around my house here and reaches out and tries to bite me every now and then.”

The Bush administration refused to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, citing lax membership criteria that allowed countries with poor human rights records to sit on the council, including countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt.

The Obama administration joined the council, citing its imperfections but made claims that U.S. efforts could change the organization for the better.

Now, the U.S. State Department is asking the council to review possible human rights violations that supposedly could occur under the Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law.

Canadian Death Panel in Action

Hospital withholds food, water from Christian pastor
Order requires seriously injured patient to ask for drink to live

He was revived successfully, although the apparent brain damage from the attack left him in a coma for a time. He was placed in intensive care where he regained consciousness. An eyewitness has reported he has regained movement in his arms and legs and that he recognizes the family he is living with.

According to Bernard Stephenson, another local pastor and friend who visits Mayandy daily, the injured man can speak some words.

But staff with Brampton Civic Hospital, which is part of the William Osler Health Center, disagree. According to Stephenson, doctors asserted all along that there was no hope of recovery.

The disagreement over his condition and capacity triggered in Ontario the involvement of the region's "Consent and Capacity" board, which by law determines the proper medical treatment for patients unable to make decisions themselves.
[...]
However, Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the board's decision simply is euthanasia by omission.

He also claims the hospital put pressure on Mayandy's friend, whose name has been redacted from the decision letter, to support its decision.

"Joshua, who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death. This is not the case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition because he is unlikely to recover from his disability," Schadenberg said.

He also believes Mayandy's friend and strategic decision-maker, chosen by the board, was pressured into supporting the hospital's position before he appeared before the Consent and Capacity board.

Schadenberg said, "It is deplorable that the Consent and Capacity Board in Ontario, the hospital and the lawyer for the hospital, who are all paid by the government and have nearly unlimited resources to pressure people to consent to their will, appeared to appoint a substitute decision maker to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that person's willingness to a agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person."

Somebody Had To Say It!

Michelle Malkin » Big Government Huckster John McCain’s bitter, clingy $21 million primary fight; Update: Election night results; Meghan McCain taunts Hayworth

To stave off Hayworth, the reborn conservative McCain not only had to throw $21 million down the drain. He had to thrown his own old “maverick” self off the bus, start talking like Tom Tancredo, appear on cable news non-stop, disavow all his good friends in the “Eastern press” whose approbation he thrives on in off-election years, and pander shamelessly to the grass-roots conservative base that he has despised, undermined, and spurned for more than two decades.

McLame stubbornly refused to admit his own individual responsibility for supporting the pre-socialization of the economy started under George W. Bush and continued under Obama. Fellow Republicans whitewashed McCain’s fiscal irresponsibility record, including his support for:

*The $700 billion all-purpose, earmark-stuffed TARP bailout;

*The $25 billion auto bailout;

*The $300 billion mortgage entitlement bailout; and

*The $85 billion AIG bailout; and

*The costly, intrusive, junk science-fueled Climate Change agenda.

McNasty attacked Hayworth with more verve and vitriol than he ever could muster up for that “decent man” that “you don’t have to be scared of” — Barack Obama.

The most notorious Johnny-come-lately on border security in Washington, McAmnesty couldn’t get enough of the very same fences he openly cursed in front of open-borders crowds.

His cynical embrace of Arizona’s SB1070 enforcement law fooled no one who is fully informed about his radical, sovereignty-sabotaging ties.

You Can Tell a Tree by its Fruit

American Thinker: The Civility Gap

One of the unspoken truths of the political and ideological wars which rage around us is the civility gap between the left and conservatives.
[...]
These leftists had the manners of Nazis, their Siamese twins ideologically. I would respond, always, politely -- much to their chagrin sometimes. I would also ask them, civilly, if there were any facts which I could present which would change their minds. In every single case, no facts, however well-documented, could sway their mind, which was marinated in noxious misology.

Conservatives have criticized my articles more often than leftists, but their critiques almost never have personal attacks. They discuss legislative votes, public statements, and philosophies of government and society. Conservatives are civil, even when they strongly disagree with me.
[...]
First, most conservatives are religious. They may be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, but within them burns real, living faith. Courtesy, kindness, and respect are ineradicably intertwined in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Treating people as you would like to be treated, among countless other rules the Blessed Creator has enjoined us to follow, simply prohibits the sort of savagery which pockmarks leftism.

Second, conservatives believe in markets.
[...]
Treating our neighbors decently, treating strangers decently, watching our language when around children, ladies, or the elderly -- these and countless other signal "transactions" in the marketplace of human interactions largely determine what sort of life we will lead.

The left dislikes all forms of markets and believes instead in coercion
[...] -- these people trust force and pressure more than liberty and choice.

Third, conservatives believe in truth. Leftists like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, Howard Dean, and Al Gore believe that ideology is truth. There is no point in really looking beyond ideology, and any facts which contradict their ideological reality must be false.
[...]
Those who seek truth behave entirely differently from those who seek to crush truth. We listen to the left because we want to hear what they have to say. Most of us can state the arguments of the left better than Howard Dean or Barack Obama could ever recapitulate conservative positions. When the left has a point, as with the corruption of Nixon, we agree with them (Nixon resigned when Republican leaders, including Goldwater, told him he must -- in stark contrast to Clinton when caught in a web of outlandish lies and perjury). Those who truly want the free flow of information do not invent "speech codes" for college campuses and do not try to create a climate in which the political or ideological impact of each word must be weighed before spoken. Conservatives, then, are like true Americans -- plain-talking, really listening, open-minded, but independent-thinking people.

Godless

FOXNews.com - Why Does Hollywood Hate 'To Save a Life'?

Preaching Christian salvation is to preach moral absolutes.

Hollywood no likey.

It seems that the snobs at The New York Times would rather see more teens go ahead and off themselves than find salvation through the Christian faith (imaginary or not). One has to wonder if the reviews would have been more glowing had Jake found his salvation through medical marijuana, the newest hip detox center, or by simply “believing in himself.”

Reagan vs. Tyrants

Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Congressional Report Blasts the Propaganda Presidency, Accuses Administration of Abuse of Office

Still more impeachable offenses....

Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Congressional Report Blasts the Propaganda Presidency, Accuses Administration of Abuse of Office

The most recent DHHS-related abuse is the cable television ad by retired actor Andy Griffith touting both Medicare and ObamaCare:


This year, as always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits. And with the new healthcare law, more good things are coming. Free check-ups, lower prescription costs and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud. … I think you’re gonna like it.

The DHHS paid for the ad, which cost $700,000. It was also featured on both the DHHS and White House websites. The commitee notes that the ad “was designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to support one of the Democrats’ major legislative initiatives,” and is therefore unlawful.

Both President Obama and Vice President Biden have touted Recovery.gov, a site Biden was publicly charged with creating, as evidence that the administration’s stimulus efforts have been successful — in effect, asking the public to ask them how well they think they are doing their jobs. Interestingly enough, the economic figures touted on the site and referred to by the administration have been revealed to be fraudulent. Once called upon the suspect numbers, Recovery.gov merely changed their criteria so that they would not be responsible for disclosing the fraudulent data. The committee concludes: “[W]asting those dollars by promoting false or misleading information is an abuse of the resources at the disposal of the White House and a betrayal of public trust.”

The worst abuse of propaganda is directly connected to the White House. BarackObama.com, run by the Democratic National Committee, has been featured during the president’s speeches. It has been used by the administration and the DNC as a mechanism to lobby Congress, again apparently illegally, and to use the president’s high profile to solicit funds for the DNC as part of what has been mocked by some as the president’s “permanent campaign.” Additional efforts by First Lady Michelle Obama, detailed in the report’s reporting on the “iParticipate” initiative, find that the administration skirted the Hatch Act and and federal anti-lobbying laws by using Mrs. Obama to support the presidents social and health care agendas with $240 million worth of free advertising.

Legislation from the Bench is No Less Than Tyranny

Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8 banning "same-sex marriage". Frank Turek breaks down the judge's fantastical assertions and hypocritical abandonment of law.

Top 10 gay marriage false 'facts'

When one judge overturned the will of more than seven million Californians last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed "findings of fact" (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They're lies or distortions.

Before we address the top ten false "facts" asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:


"The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples."

Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.

Second, Prop. 8 doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We're all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone "equal protection of the laws" because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.

What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker's first false "fact."

1. "Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group." (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker's entire case collapses without it. The "fact" is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.

Having certain sexual desires — whether you were "born" with them or acquired them sometime in life — does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn't allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker's false "fact" was a real fact, we'd have to redefine marriage to include not just same-sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are "sexual orientations" too.

In other words, there should be no legal class of "gay" or "straight," just a legal class called "person." And it doesn't matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that's a job for the people, not judges.

2. "California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California." (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. Statistics show that health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well) — a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That's exactly what same-sex marriage does — it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.

But won't same-sex marriage help reduce gay health issues? Not likely. See Judge Walker's next false fact.

3. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions." (FF 48) What does "successful" mean? It has nothing to do with children, according to Judge Walker. In his "the stork brings children" universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it. He thinks a "successful" marriage is merely about commitment, but he can't even support that case.

In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.) This is so well known it's a travesty that Judge Walker claims exactly the opposite is true. The Times reported, "None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage." Maybe Judge Walker was worried too, and that's why he didn't bother mentioning this real fact with his false facts.

4. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." (FF 55) Judge Walker cites just four years of data from Massachusetts to make that sweeping conclusion about the most important relationship in human civilization. The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. And the disastrous results of 40 years of liberalized divorce laws show how monumentally important marriage laws are to the health of marriages, children, and the nation.

5. "Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples." (FF 62) It's too bad Judge Walker didn't look to evidence from Massachusetts for this false fact. If he had he would have seen that court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same-sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.

Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught about homosexuality in grades as low as kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the morality that comes with same-sex marriage.

"But you can't legislate morality!" some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of morality supersedes our rights — rights that our founders declared self-evident.

Think I'm overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it's poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

6. "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." (FF 46) I guess thousands of ex-gays just don't exist in Judge Walker's special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary — a self-described "Jewish atheist," Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they've turned on him because he reported the truth.

Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study "has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it's helpful to them if they can present the view that once you're a homosexual you can never change."

When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change its position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, "I think they should, [but] they will not be....There's a gay activist group that's very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There's nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won't talk."

Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker's conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that's intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can't they be talked out of it?

Sexual orientation isn't like race either. You'll find many former homosexuals, but you'll never find a former African American.

Of course Walker's "fact" even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can't change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal "marriage" relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.

7. "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment." (FF 70) Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion "is accepted beyond serious debate." Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his "fact."

But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. "No respect at all — when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!"

Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.

Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain — if men and women are interchangeable — then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, "Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex"?

Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes: "[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them."

8. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.

9. "Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships." (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society's very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.


(1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

(2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn't thrive because it wouldn't even survive. It would end the human race!


This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.

If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality, not me. I didn't make up the facts of nature. I'm just admitting them — something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.

10. "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." (Conclusion) The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any "rational basis" for overturning Proposition 8 — no rational basis from the Constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their "private moral views" cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own "private moral view" that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.

He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage "exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed." If that's true, that's not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.

Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That's what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.

Mexican's Actually Did Take Over Laredo Ranch

Journalistic backbiting and one-upmanship while Mexicans invade.

Despite Naysayers, Reporters Get at the Truth about What Happened in Lardeo

This is a cautionary tale about reporters eagerly attacking other reporters working a developing story. Because it’s not possible to provide evidence as quickly as some might demand it doesn’t mean the story is false.

On July 24, Kimberly Dvorak, of the Examiner, and Don Amato, of the blog Digger’s Realm, broke the story about two Texas ranches outside of Laredo, Texas, being seized by members of Los Zetas drug cartel. Today, Ms. Dvorak posted a copy of the police blotter which provides a good deal of the information necessary to confirm her initial story’s claims:


After 16 days of denials by Laredo law enforcement and local officials regarding a Mexican drug cartel takeover of a Laredo area ranch, a Texas police blotter proves the alleged incident did in fact happen and that multiple agencies responded to the scene of a seized U.S. ranch...

“On Friday 7-23-10 Laredo Webb informed that their county SWAT Team is conducting an operation in the Mines Rd. area. According to LT. Garcia with LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) received a call from a ranch owner stating that the Zetas had taken over his ranch. As per the 17 (reporting person) he informed them that they stated La Compania (area business) was taking the ranch and no one was permitted on the ranch without permission. SO (Sheriff Office) will have an unmarked green Ford Taurus with two officers stationed at Los Compadres and a white Chevy Tahoe with two officers stationed at Mineral Rd. The LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) will maintain surveillance in the area and advise if action is taken. Susp (suspect) Veh (vehicle) are described as a gray or silver Audi, a BLK (black) Escalade or Navigator and a van truck with a logo of a car wash spot free on the side. Border Patrol also has their response team on scene. Also known info of BMW’s and Corvettes entering and leaving the area. Auth LT Lichtenberger if assistance is requested LPD (Laredo Police Department) will secure the outer perimeter. (07/24/10 07:42:10 NR1873)”


Dvorak’s latest post confirmed several details that I had been able to ascertain through other sources. One important detail was different: only one ranch was investigated and under surveillance, not the two originally reported.

The original story quoted multiple anonymous sources in law enforcement and was quickly picked up by Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report, Big Peace and DBKP among others. Almost as quickly, the story was branded an Internet rumor,” “conspiracy theory,” a “hoax” or outright lies by the usual suspects from the Progressive Left/amnesty crowd.

One expected this crew to crank out immediate rebuttals–without offering any proof–such as Right-Wingers Stand By Their Fabricated Mexican Drug Cartel Raid Story.” What one didn’t expect was for Soros-financed attack dog Media Matters to cite a right-leaning blogger as evidence the story was a “rumor”–not once, but twice.

Law enforcement was not denying the story. I tried six times to get the Laredo PD to flat-out deny the story, but received a host of “can’t confirm” and “can’t say anything.” A tip for the aspiring reporter: be aware of the “non-denial denial.” Spokesmen who are trying to keep a lid on a story –because of a continuing investigation, so as not to scare off targets of surveillance, for whatever reasons — will often offer a host of creative answers in lieu of a flat-out, simple “no.” It’s often not only advisable, but necessary, to parse carefully what spokesmen say.

Local media sources confirmed on July 28 that no written statement had been issued and that no local law enforcement officers had issued a simple denial. It’s telling that despite reports of “numerous media inquiries,” local law enforcement issued no written statement for nearly a week after the story broke.

The local paper, the Laredo Morning Times, reported on the story, confirming that no law enforcement agency had gone on the record with an outright denial. After speaking several times with the paper’s reporter, Nick Georgiou, I felt that his story was very fair — but it wasn‘t a rebuttal.

However, the LMT’s article was offered as proof that the story was a hoax. As one blogger put it, “You’d think the local paper would know, wouldn’t you?”

Not content with merely disagreeing with what local law enforcement was saying, within 24 hours of the story breaking, one blogger tagged those who had reported the story “Laredo Truthers” — which likely set a record for the quickest use of the discussion-quashing “truther” label. It was after this salvo that Big Journalism published The MSM in the Fog of War: What’s Going On in Laredo, Tex.? In it, I laid out several reasons why the story might well be true.

Pat Dollard — who covered aspects of the story — said, “Keep in mind the Top Two Big Scores for bloggers: 1. The Scoop and 2. The “I’m Superior Because I Didn’t Fall For A False Scoop” post. The myth-busting Laredo “debunkers”–who are citing a phone call to a heretofor-unknown-to-them source at a police department (a source who any reporter of police matters knows may have to issue denials of events in order to protect ongoing investigations, or ongoing operations pertaining to those events) as full and final evidence of the falsity of Dvorak’s story–are chasing the second, and at this point in the game are heavily invested in it.

The final irony? In this case the only people guilty of lazy, sloppy, shoddy, agenda-driven, factually incorrect reporting — the ones who owe the world a retraction, and who owe an apology to Kimberly Dvorak.

Another guess: there is a subset of the blogosphere which is terrified that they will report a “planted story” by the Left and, by the very act of reporting, will lose “credibility.” Their motto seems to be, “If it’s not on CNN, it didn’t happen."

Why even have a New Media, if it acts like the Old Legacy Media? Whatever happened to just reporting the story — especially one that’s developing, instead of hastily rushing to quash it? Sources who come forward with information may begin by remaining anonymous. However, they may encourage others to later come forward on the record. “Anonymous” sources doesn’t necessarily mean “not credible” sources.

With the 2010 and 2012 elections coming up, there will likely be stories that take longer to develop than a single blog post. Because the MSM doesn’t quickly confirm them, they shouldn’t be strangled in the cradle by those who come late to the story or disagree from afar.

Just ask Brad Thor.

Perfect Microcosm of U.S. Politics Today

This story demonstrates the vast chasm between a rational, free-thinking, freedom-respecting, market-based approach to a problem on the one hand and nothing more than tyranny on the other.

Feds threatened universities that used Kindles, claiming they violated the civil rights of the blind

Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: August 10, 2010 - 7:51 PM

Come on, this is so preposterous that it has to be the brainchild of the Onion, right? Nope, the feds really did threaten to sue the universities that allowed students to use Kindles for textbooks. Byron York wrote about it last week



Did you know the Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks?

Last year, the schools -- among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve -- wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.

It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.


Why would the federal government get so upset about something as innocuous as the Kindle? It goes to the heart of what makes the Obama administration tick:



The Civil Rights Division informed the schools they were under investigation. In subsequent talks, the Justice Department demanded the universities stop distributing the Kindle; if blind students couldn't use the device, then nobody could. The Federation made the same demand in a separate lawsuit against Arizona State.


This is what drives the Obama administration's redistributionist policies. If the poor don't have money, then the feds will just take it from the rich and give it to them. Same thing with votes for felons. However, since the feds can't seize the eyes from the sighted and hand them over to the blind, then the feds will just make sure the sighted are denied products the blind can't use. It's all done in the name of "fairness."

But as York noted, the market was at work and solved that problem on its own:


One obvious solution to the problem, of course, was to fix the Kindle. Early on, Amazon told federation officials it would apply text-to-speech technology to the Kindle's menu and function keys. And sure enough, last week the company announced a new generation of Kindles that are fully accessible to the blind. While the Justice Department was making demands, and Perez was making speeches, the market was working.


But don't worry, the feds under the Obama administration will find some way to punish the haves in the name of delivering justice to the have-nots.

Cross-posted at KimPriestap


<sub>About The Author: Kim Priestap is a freelance writer, blogger extraordinaire, columnist, and all around cool gal. Married to Steve for twelve years, they have three wild and wacky kids. Kim splits her time between south central Michigan during the school year and northern Michigan during the summer, where she and her husband own and operate a canoe livery and fly shop near the banks of the beautiful and historic Au Sable River.

In addition to blogging at Wizbang, she also writes at her personal political blog KimPriestap: No-nonsense conservative opinion.

You can follow Kim on Twitter at @KimPriestap and at her Facebook page.</sub>

Black Tea Party Members Stand Up to the Racist NAACP

Smears Against Tea Parties Are Contrived Political Strategy | NetRight Daily

Smears Against Tea Parties Are Contrived Political Strategy | NetRight Daily

The attacks on the tea party movement and other citizen activists are continuing. This time, the DNC has unveiled its latest effort to portray tea parties, and Republicans, as radicals and extremists.
This effort, www.republicanteapartycontract.com, is nothing more than a series of misrepresentations of popular ideas like repealing ObamaCare and the financial takeover, eliminating whole departments and agencies in the federal government, keeping taxes low, etc. but it is occurring in a highly charged media climate where the NAACP has accused the movement of being racist.

The DNC is attempting to ride that wave of coverage to discredit the movement once and for all. It has all of the appearances of a coordinated attack, but there is an even wider context than has been widely reported by the mainstream media that shows a clear pattern to sabotage, infiltrate, and to otherwise destroy the movement, which has been chronicled by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin.

H/T ARRA News Service

"Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man."

An elderly veteran straightens out whippersnapper Obama.

Pass It On
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited.. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

Snopes confirms as true
When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.