Google's Blue-Chip Insider Access to the Obama White House

Hypocrisy thy name is Democrat.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House":

WASHINGTON—As the federal government was wrapping up its antitrust investigation of Google Inc., company executives had a flurry of meetings with top officials at the White House and Federal Trade Commission, the agency running the probe.

Google co-founder Larry Page met with FTC officials to discuss settlement talks, according to visitor logs and emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt met with Pete Rouse, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, in the White House.

The documents don’t show exactly what was discussed in late 2012. Soon afterward, the FTC closed its investigation after Google agreed to make voluntary changes to its business practices. (See the FTC document on Google).

Google’s access to high-ranking Obama administration officials during a critical phase of the antitrust probe is one sign of the Internet giant’s reach in Washington. Since Mr. Obama took office, employees of the Mountain View, Calif., company have visited the White House for meetings with senior officials about 230 times, or an average of roughly once a week, according to the visitor logs reviewed by the Journal.

One top lobbyist at Google, Johanna Shelton, has had more than 60 meetings at the White House. In comparison, employees of rival Comcast Corp., also known as a force in Washington, have visited the White House a total of about 20 times since Mr. Obama took office.

“We think it is important to have a strong voice in the debate and help policy makers understand our business and the work we do to keep the Internet open, to build great products, and to fuel economic growth,” says Google spokeswoman Niki Christoff.

Jennifer Friedman, a White House spokeswoman, said the FTC “is an independent agency and we respect their independent decision-making.”

She added: “White House officials meet with business executives on a range of issues on a regular basis. These meetings help keep the White House apprised of outside perspectives on important policy issues. Our staff is cognizant that it is inappropriate to discuss issues relating to regulatory enforcement.”

Justin Cole, an FTC spokesman, said: “The FTC is an independent law enforcement agency. Its enforcement decisions are driven by the applicable law and evidence in each case.”

Google’s knack for getting in the room with important government officials is gaining new relevance as scrutiny grows over how the company avoided being hit by the FTC with a potentially damaging antitrust lawsuit. Last week, the Journal reported that the FTC’s competition staff concluded that Google used anticompetitive tactics and abused its monopoly power in ways that harmed Internet users and rivals.

The staff recommended a lawsuit, which would have triggered one of the highest-profile antitrust cases since the Justice Department sued Microsoft Corp. in the 1990s. FTC commissioners voted unanimously to end the probe.

Visitor logs and internal emails reviewed by the Journal describe meetings involving Google, senior White House advisers and top FTC officials between the staff’s recommendation in August 2012 and the vote in January 2013.

On Nov. 6, 2012, the night of Mr. Obama’s re-election, Mr. Schmidt was personally overseeing a voter-turnout software system for Mr. Obama. A few weeks later, Ms. Shelton and a senior antitrust lawyer at Google went to the White House to meet with one of Mr. Obama’s technology advisers.

By the end of the month, the FTC had decided not to file an antitrust lawsuit against the company, according to the agency’s internal emails.

It is unusual for White House aides to talk with officials at a company or agency about law-enforcement matters involving the company or agency. Officials in the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division typically don’t meet with the White House during major investigations.

Google’s efforts in Washington also include a well-funded lobbying operation. Last year, Google spent $16.8 million on lobbyists, more than any other company except for Comcast, according to lobbying disclosures...

Keep reading.

President Obama Pushes Pre-K and 'Free' College Because He's Got Jack for K-12

Heh.

From Amy Otto, at the Federalist:

The escalation of nationalized education standards, the push for preschool teachers to have more degrees, and the Obama administration’s overall push for more school before and after K-12 is a way to avoid solving the real problem. When their party’s largest donors are the Service Employees International Union, National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, Democrats have millions of reasons to avoid addressing the challenges of our K-12 education system...

Word.

South Carolina DMV Makes Transgender Teen Remove Makeup Before Taking Driver's License Photo

Here we go, at the "tipping point" of the civil rights agenda.

At the New York Daily News, "DMV forces gender non-conforming South Carolina teen to remove makeup for license photo: activists."

Click through at NYDN for the selfie Culpepper took right before removing his makeup.



Also at the Los Angeles Times, "Gender group asks South Carolina to let teen wear makeup for DMV photo."

The Wisconsin Gestapo

From George Will, at the Washington Post, "Wis. prosecutors abuse the law for partisan ends" (with the headline snagged from Elizabeth Price Foley at Instapundit).

The piece excoriates the Wisconsin Democrats' now-curtailed "John Doe" campaign finance investigations, which had virtually no chance of obtaining convictions. Their purpose was pure intimidation:

Liberals inveighing against “dark money” in politics mean money contributed anonymously to finance political advocacy. Donors’ anonymity thwarts liberals’ efforts to injure the livelihoods of identifiable conservatives by punishing them for their political participation and thereby deterring others from participating...

RTWT.

Rep. Louie Gohmert Compares Hateful Homosexuals to Nazis

The video is here (hat tip: Memeorandum).

And it sounds like Gohmert briefly mentions the Benham brothers' show cancellation, discussed at London's Daily Mail, "HGTV cancels home-flipping show before it even airs after twin hosts are exposed as anti-gay activists."

Sure, intolerant leftists are Nazis, but better to just describe them as murderous fascists to avoid going full Godwin.

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Sterling's a 'Typical Hollywood Liberal...'

Heh, Rush Limbaugh nails it!

See, "Mock Shock: Donald Sterling is a Typical Hollywood Racist -- and Everyone Knew It."



Actually, I'm just calling out Sterling as the ultimate RINO, lol.

.@hiltzikm #DonaldSterling is literally RINO, since ALL his contributions go to #DEMS AND far-left ballot measures: http://t.co/569f1LsTgs

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 29, 2014

PREVIOUSLY: "Desperate Leftists: Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling Is 'Registered Republican' OMG! TAKE THAT!! BLARGH!! OMG!!!"

#NBA Expected to Fine and Suspend Racist Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling

Sterling's eventually gonna go the Marge Schott route. It's only a matter of time.

It's like Charles Barkley said: It's a "black league."

What can I say? Couldn't happen to a more classic West Los Angeles liberal.

At LAT, "Table set for NBA action on Sterling as sponsors flee":

A stream of sponsors cut ties with the Los Angeles Clippers, and Mayor Eric Garcetti called for the harshest possible punishment Monday as NBA Commissioner Adam Silver prepared to announce the results of his investigation into remarks about blacks attributed to team owner Donald Sterling.

Sterling's purported comments were widely condemned, and the commissioner, after three months as leader of the 30-team league, confronts one of the most unsettling crises the NBA has faced in recent years.

Although NBA bylaws give the pro basketball league the power to oust owners in limited circumstances, experts said Silver would more likely hit the Clippers' owner with a sizable fine and a lengthy suspension, perhaps with the intent of pressuring the real estate magnate into selling the franchise he has owned for 33 years.

"He'll tell Sterling, 'If you choose to stay, I won't let you go to any games,' " predicted Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economics professor and a former consultant to the NBA players association. "'I won't let you make any personnel decisions. I won't let you communicate with the general manager, hire anybody in the front office, or talk to the media. You could do that, or sell the team … and walk away with a $700-million capital gain.' "

Sterling paid $12 million in 1981 for the team in San Diego and three years later moved the Clippers to Los Angeles. Years of losing would ensue, but the team's fortunes and value have risen precipitously in the last few years. Forbes magazine recently valued the team at $575 million, though some in the sports world think the franchise could sell for as much as $700 million.

The websites TMZ and Deadspin posted audio recordings over the weekend of a man they identified as Sterling chastising a female friend for making public her association with blacks. The conversation took place after the woman, V. Stiviano, posted an Instagram photo of herself posing with Lakers great Magic Johnson.

On Monday, 15 Clippers advertisers said they have terminated or suspended their sponsorship, although most expressed their continued support for the team's players, coaches and fans...

Continue reading.

Previously Donald Sterling liberal racism blogging here.

Daily Beast Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi: 'I really don't care about this debate very much..." — #DonaldSterling

LOL!

Leftists don't really seem to "care about this" anymore when the facts show that racist Donald Sterling contributes exclusively to Democrats and far-left ballot measures.

@AmPowerBlog I really don't care about this debate very much. Please direct tweets elsewhere.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) April 29, 2014

PREVIOUSLY: "Desperate Leftists: Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling Is 'Registered Republican' OMG! TAKE THAT!! BLARGH!! OMG!!!"

Desperate Leftists: Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling Is 'Registered Republican' OMG! TAKE THAT!! BLARGH!! OMG!!!

OMG this is hilarious!

Desperate, depraved and deluded leftists have "proved" that racist Democrat Donald Sterling's actually a "registered Republican."

And how do we know? Well, for one thing idiot leftists have been swarming my Twitter feed today, attempting to flay me with OMG! RACIST!! REPUBLICAN!!! taunting neener-neener tweets for hours.

Here's the big "gotcha" post from some brainless leftist at Mother Jones, "Donald Sterling Is a Registered Republican." If you follow the links, you can go to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters and plug in Sterling's information --- and up pops search results that claim the Clippers owner is a "registered Republican"!!

Who knows what party he's registered with, really? Maybe he registered Republican when he was depressed a few years and never punched a single ticket for a GOP candidate? He's had loads of legal and marital problems. He's been sued for his Democrat "plantation style" racism before. And only changed his registration to Republican in 2008? Maybe the far-left Democrat primaries that year --- with all the attendant collectivist, confiscatory socialist proposals --- freaked him out like he was going to lose his assets.

Whatever. That fact is, as I've been saying for days now, Sterling's a dyed-in-the-wool far-left Beverly Hills liberal of the first order. All --- and I mean all --- of his political campaign finance contributions have been to Democrat candidates, and not just "25 years ago" like the loser leftists are screaming until the cows come home.

Indeed, Jaime Fuller at the Washington Post, has a beautiful rundown of Sterling's political giving to far-left Democrats and liberal environmental causes:

Although Sterling is a registered Republican he has supported Democratic candidates in the past. He gave $5,000 to Gray Davis' gubernatorial campaign in 2002, and $1,000 in support of a group pushing for Proposition 2 in 2008, which sought to give farm animals larger living quarters. He gave another $1,000 to Davis in 1991, a year when he also gave $1,000 to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy. In 1989, he gave $2,000 to former basketball player and Democratic senator from New Jersey Bill Bradley. If Republicans wanted to go really deep, they could also mention that Sterling attended the wedding of Jeff Greene in 2007, who ran in the 2010 Democratic Senate primaries in Florida -- to disastrous result.

In 2009, the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP gave Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award, and he won the NAACP Presidents Award in 2008. His 2009 award coincided with Baylor's lawsuit. The NAACP chapter's president told the Los Angeles Times, "We can't speak to the allegations, but what we do know is that for the most part [Sterling] has been very, very kind to the minority youth community." He was scheduled to receive another Lifetime Achievement Award this week, but the chapter changed its mind.

Typically, WaPo's Fuller draws unsubstantiated conclusions when she closes by arguing, "What does all of this say about Sterling's political affiliation?"

Actually, we can say a lot about Sterling's "political affiliation" from the information she's provided. I mean, seriously. Sterling gave "$1,000 in support of a group pushing for Proposition 2 in 2008"?

Right. Well, according to Ballotpedia, "Proposition 2, or the Standards for Confining Farm Animals, was on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved."

Oh, Prop. 2 was on the ballot in November 2008, six months after Sterling supposedly registered for the "Republican" primary? Again, Sterling was probably depressed and registered in the GOP primary without a second thought. But when it comes to making political donations, well money talks, as they say. And what "group" did Sterling support with that $1000 contribution? Fuller doesn't say, but Ballotpedia lists Proposition 2's major sponsors, which lists like a who's who of far-left interest group organizations:

The YES! on Prop 2 campaign was run by Californians for Humane Farms, sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and other animal protection groups, family farmers, veterinarians and public health professionals.

Joe Ramsey was the official sponsor of the initiative. In addition to humane societies and animal welfare groups, the measure was also backed by the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Federation of America, Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club, the United Farm Workers, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Proposition 2 was also endorsed by several politicians, including the California Democratic Party and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Jennifer Fearing was the campaign manager for the "Yes on Prop 2" campaign...

OMG! totally Republican or something!!

Radical leftist Jennifer Fearing is the California Senior State Director for the Humane Society of the United States. And here's the list of Prop. 2's far-left supporters, including the California Democrat Party.

But TOTALLY MAN! Donald Sterling is really a "registered Republican" OMG!! BLARGH! RACIST!!!

LMFAO: Racist Clippers Owner Is Far, Far Left #Dem About to Be Given NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award http://t.co/cUUgsxBhvx via @PatDollard
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 27, 2014

.@Stinarichard OMG! It's Westside L.A. LOL! It's veritable liberal land ROTFLMFAO. But don't change. Reality is hard, lol!
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 27, 2014

The truth is that the racist Clippers owner is a classic, typically far-left liberal from L.A.'s typically progressive westside.

Desperate leftists can take that to the bank the idiot losers.

Scapegoating the Koch brothers

I'm surprised the editors at LAT even published this letter, much less at the top of the letters section. From yesterday's paper, "Letters: Scapegoating the Koch brothers":

Re "In campaigns, Democrats target Kochs," April 4.

So the mudslinging begins.

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are no more guilty of buying influence or pushing a partisan agenda than are George Soros, big labor, the Hollywood elites or any number of others who wish to advance the Democratic Party's agenda.

In any case, why are the Democrats so worried about the Koch brothers? Is their collective memory so short that they've forgotten that President Obama raised and spent more than $1 billion in the 2012 election, and that he has twice eschewed public financing because of the restrictions it would impose on his own fundraising efforts?

W. Adrian Sauvageot
Tustin

More.

Charles Koch: 'I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society...'

At WSJ, "Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination":

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism....

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal...

Keep reading.

Interesting timing in light of today's ruling in McCutcheon.

Perhaps Mr. Koch was all ready to go with the op-ed in expectation of the Court's decision. Either way, the leftists are howling. Here's the headline at the (ironically billionaire-backed) Think Progress, "How The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors." And the no-surprise headline from Politico, "Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling."

Right. Democrats are collectivists who oppose free speech, want to control people's lives, and advocate the expansion of government to give more power to leftist bureaucrats and regressive politicos. They're un-American and depraved.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Campaign Contributions

Wow. Another blow to leftist hypocrite speech muzzlers.

Headline via Puff Ho.

And at WaPo, "Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations":

Here's the SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling striking down aggregate campaign donation limits ==> http://t.co/CeahbeetCA

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) April 2, 2014

Free speech wins again! http://t.co/chgOfgMgku #tcot

— David Bossie (@David_Bossie) April 2, 2014

Looks like Koch-mas came early this year! http://t.co/zB68IT28M8

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) April 2, 2014

The 5 to 4 decision sparked a sharp dissent from liberal justices, who said the decision reflects a wrong-headed hostility to campaign finance laws that the court’s conservatives showed in Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed corporate spending on elections.

“If Citizens United opened a door,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in reading his dissent from the bench, “today’s decision we fear will open a floodgate.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion striking down the aggregate limits of what an individual may spend on candidates and political committees. He noted that the limit on individual contributions to a specific candidate was not affected by the ruling.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The aggregate totals that the court struck down in the case — McCutcheon v. FEC --imposed a $48,600 limit on contributions to candidates during a two-year election cycle, plus $74,600 total on giving to political parties and committees.

The base limits on contributions left unchanged by the ruling allow donations to candidates of $2,600 for both primary and general elections.

The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.

I love it! What a fabulous victory for money in politics.

And at Twitchy, "‘Koch-mas came early!’ SCOTUS upholds 1st Amendment, crazy Harry Reid hardest hit."

ScarJo Pregnant!

Hey, I'm very happy for her --- even more so in light of her stand against the BDS Israel-haters.

At E!, "Scarlett Johansson Pregnant! Actress Expecting First Child With Fiancé Romain Dauriac."

PREVIOUSLY: "The Israel Project Celebrates Scarlett Johansson" (and here as well).

The Israel Project Celebrates Scarlett Johansson

At the New York Times, "Countering Israel Boycotts, With Glamour."

Scarlett Johansson will not speak at Aipac meeting, but she will be there in spirit http://t.co/j7v1Z49JXN pic.twitter.com/A6ZZO2YaGh

— The Caucus (@thecaucus) February 28, 2014

And at the Israel Project, "Tell Scarlett Thank You!"

Laura Ingraham Slams George Will on Immigration (VIDEO)

Trending yesterday at Memeorandum, "Laura Ingraham battles George Will as conservative civil war over immigration intensifies [VIDEO]."

And from Linkmaster Smith, "Laura Ingraham Fights the Good Fight, George Will Looks a Tool."

Conservative Indiana is Turning Point for Homosexual Marriage Movement

I'm not sure why folks over there think that can preserve marriage, considering how polygamy's already gaining ground in the wake of this summer's homosexual marriage rulings. Utah's fighting a losing battle right now, in the state of the Mormon Church.

So, we'll see.

In any case, at the New York Times, "Indiana Finds It’s Not So Easy to Buck Gay Marriage Trend":

INDIANAPOLIS — Dominated by Republicans and steeped in traditional values, Indiana seemed among the least likely places to become a battleground in the nation’s debate over same-sex marriage when the legislature overwhelmingly chose in 2011 to push forward a state constitutional amendment barring gay couples from marrying.

But in the two years since, the landscape has shifted as voters, lawmakers and courts began recognizing same-sex marriage in places like Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New Mexico and as the United States Supreme Court declared parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. In just the past few days, a federal judge struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in Utah, home of the Mormon Church, and a federal appeals court rejected a request to halt the marriages on Tuesday. A federal judge in Ohio found that same-sex marriages should be recognized on death certificates.

So suddenly Indiana, where lawmakers in the coming weeks are expected to call for the second vote needed to put a ban before voters in the fall elections, is now in a far more tense, unpredictable and closely watched spot than anyone here had imagined — a test case in whether a state will impose new limits on same-sex marriage in this fast-moving political and legal environment.

“What happens in Indiana is critical,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage. He and other opponents hope the outcome here will reveal that shifts in public sentiment over the last few years are not as widespread as some may think.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, however, are pouring money and effort into defeating the measure in Indiana, a possibility that seemed unthinkable not long ago but one that advocates now insist is conceivable. They say victory in a conservative place like Indiana would be a turning point in a fight that has largely been waged in more predictable, left-leaning states or in the courts. “That would send a clear message to opponents of marriage equality that it’s time to be done fighting this battle,” said Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign.

It's probably a done deal, what, with all the other events unraveling traditional marriage around the country.

More at the top link.

Shadow Speaker Jim DeMint

An excellent behind-the-scenes look at the grassroots influence on the GOP congressional agenda.

At Business Week, "Jim DeMint, Congressional Republicans' Shadow Speaker":

When most Americans look at Washington, they see a broken Congress, riven by partisanship and lurching from crisis to crisis. While the hostility between Republicans and Democrats is indeed severe, it isn’t the real reason the engine of government keeps seizing up. What’s causing the malfunction is a battle within the GOP over how to return the party to its former glory after two consecutive losses to Obama and setbacks in the House and Senate. It’s a fight that pits uncompromising, Heritage-style conservatives against more cautious Republican elders. What makes it so contentious is that both sides have radically different—and mutually exclusive—ideas about how to move forward.

This struggle heats up each time a major budget deadline approaches, and two huge ones loom in the days ahead: There’s the Sept. 30 government funding deadline and then, sometime in late October, the Department of the Treasury will reach the limit of its borrowing capacity and default unless Congress raises the debt ceiling. In crises precipitated by similar deadlines, Republican leaders have always managed to keep their party together—or at least keep it from coming apart.

That will be much harder this time. While Boehner and the GOP leadership want mainly to navigate safe passage through the budget deadlines, DeMint and his cohort see the deadlines as crucial tests of party resolve and a key to the Republican resurgence they envision. DeMint views the impulse to avoid confrontation as the root of Republican woes: Only by engineering grand clashes and then standing resolutely on the side of small government can Republicans win this existential struggle.

“If I were speaker, I’d tell the president, ‘Mr. President, we funded the government, but we’re not going to fund your bill,’ ” says DeMint, who likes to make his point by acting out imagined confrontations. “ ‘We are not going to give in—one month, two months, three months. We are never going to give in. It’s just that important.’ And if the president wants to put the country through that to save a law that isn’t ready to go, well, then that’s a battle we have to have.”

When DeMint quit the Senate mid-term, it came as something of a shock in Washington, because a high-profile senator is presumed to have more power than a think tank president. There was plenty of snickering that he was cashing in: Heritage paid his predecessor more than $1 million last year. (The group won’t comment on DeMint’s salary.)

DeMint says he was just fed up. When he was first elected to Congress in 1998, insurrection wasn’t his goal. “I came to Washington as a businessman,” he says, “served six years in the House as a team player. Didn’t cause trouble. I was a policy nerd, introduced Social Security reform, tax reforms, all kinds of health-care reforms.” In 2005 he moved up to the Senate, where he began to lose patience with what he viewed as his party’s lack of commitment to first principles. “We had a lot of people who were great pretenders, talked real big about being conservatives,” he says. “But behind closed doors, they were driving the ball in the opposite direction.”

Continue reading.

'Pass the Torch' Super-Pac

Ainsley Earhardt interviews activist Sarah Ponn.

San Bernardino 'Mass Rainbow Wedding' Called Off After Nobody Shows Up

I guess the organizers thought God would part the skies and homosexuals would rain down like manna from heaven.

But not.

At the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, "Mass gay wedding in San Bernardino called off when no one shows":

SAN BERNARDINO -- A month after California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples once again, gay couples can get married, get divorced and even get cold feet.
A planned mass "Rainbow Wedding" ceremony at a gay community center in San Bernardino ended Saturday with the officiant being stood up at the altar when no one showed up more than an hour after the ceremony was scheduled to be held.

"It's a statement about equality," said P.J. Seleska, who runs Inland Empire Pride's Center on Waterman Avenue. "We had a big celebration" the night the Supreme Court struck down Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act "and kicked around ideas."

The center serves an impoverished region of thecity, and includes a food pantry and other services to help its largely poor clientele.

"It's so expensive to get married out there, are you kidding me?" Seleska said.

Marriage licenses alone cost $88 in San Bernardino County.

"Now I understand why people run out to Vegas," Seleska said.

Right.

It's "so expensive."

Damned freaks.

Moonbattery has more:

As this farcical episode illustrates, homosexual marriage was only an issue because the cultural Marxists who run the government and the media made it into one as a weapon to use against the traditional values that are the foundation of American civilization. The damage having been done to the institutions of marriage and Christianity, homosexuals are already returning to their bath houses. They tend to have hundreds of sex partners in the course of their often disease-shortened lives; blasphemous “marriages” are not likely to replace this lifestyle.

Word.

PREVIOUSLY: "Homosexual 'Marriage' Designed to Destroy the Institution of Marriage."

U.S./Mexico 'Secure Border Fence' at Penitas, Texas

You know, because all the conservative/tea party talk about securing the borders first is all grandstanding and "hostage taking." Remember, "We could have 20 divisions lining the border from San Ysidro to Brownsville and the GOP would still oppose comprehensive immigration reform," or some bull like that, squawked by all the Center for American Progress/Democrat Party open borders shills in D.C.

Via AoSHQ, "Must Watch: Alleged Border Wall Is Missing the Actual Wall Part, Creating Unobstructed Pathway From Mexico to Texas Town."