Disgusting Alex Jones Misogynist Attack on @Alyssa_Milano

So, on Twitter this afternoon Becca Lower tweets her post on Alyssa Milano's sex tape. It's a Funny or Die joint (and not really a "sex tape"). But I checked Google to find a YouTube copy and up pops this vile segment featuring the despicable Infowars assclown Alex Jones.

I'd rather not repeat all the misogynist slurs he flings at the lovely Ms. Milano, who for all her "liberal" views is a nice lady and an ambassador for Major League Baseball. She's cool on Twitter too.

In any case, Robert Stacy McCain long ago befriended Ms. Milano on Twitter. I suggested he might defend the lady's honor with a smackdown of the woman-hating Infowars ghoul. And so he has, "@Alyssa_Milano Releases Sex Tape as ‘Social Statement’ (Alex Jones Is Nuts)." To wit:

“War whore”? Alex Jones is a despicable conspiracy theorist who spent years pushing 9/11 Truther nonsense. At the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Alex Jones spotted Michelle Malkin at a protest and he started shouting “neocon” and a bunch of other stuff, which incited some protesters to start chanting, “Kill Michelle Malkin.”

If it hadn’t been for Charlie Martin and Jim Hoft being there to defend her, who knows what might have happened?

I’ve hated that dangerous kookball ever since, and the fact that Alex Jones is now smearing a liberal like Alyssa Milano (while, characteristically, ranting about the “New World Order”) goes to show just how little Alex Jones’s paranoid anger has to do with actual politics.

Alex Jones is worse than those idiot liberals who were raging because Alyssa Milano appeared on Fox and Friends this week.

If anybody needs rational arguments against the Syria intervention, I’ll be happy to provide them, but you’re not going to get any rational arguments from Alex Jones about anything.

More at the link.

And follow R.S. McCain on Twitter.

The Libertarian Case Against Intervening in Syria

It's Nick Gillespie on C-SPAN, via Reason.

Unfortunately, he's mischaracterizing Charles Krauthammer's positions at this shorter clip below (full interview at that top link). And his overall critique might as well have been cribbed off Lawyers, Bungholes and Murderers, to say nothing of the racist misogynist TBogg at Hammering Jane Hamsher's skeezy stink hole.



More Gillespie here, FWIW, "3 Reasons Not to Go to War with Syria."

Lisa Kennedy Montgomery

That's former MTV VJ "Kennedy," who is interviewed by Ed Driscoll, at PJ Media, "Interview: Former VJ Kennedy Looks Back at the Golden Age of MTV Through Rose-Colored Glasses."

Almost 30 Minutes with Kennedy!

Well, it's Kennedy and this Andy Schuon, but still.

At Reason, "Kennedy and Producer Andy Schuon on the Golden Age of MTV."

Glenn Greenwald on 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos'

I've been finishing up my semester grading today, but following news developments on Twitter.

The Guardian broke the story of the NSA leaker, as readers are no doubt aware, "Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations." (At Memeorandum.)

At the clip below, the interview was apparently taped before the Snowden story went live, or thereabouts, because Greenwald doesn't discuss the leaker, and in fact implies that there are others.

I'll have more on this. There's a big split between the hardline civil libertarians and the national security hawks. And the ideological lines are blurring in a lot of interesting ways. I lean more toward the Wall Street Journal position I cited the other day, although it's the piling on of Obama administration scandals, along with the hypocrisy, that's my issue with all of this. And frankly, I just can't stand this president and enjoy watching him squirm. Screw 'em.

Libertarian Populism and Its Limits

See Ross Douthat, at the New York Times (and the links therein).

It's a debate about "reform conservatism," whatever that is. I recall going through this back in 2008 when the Barackalypse was first elected. And this latest iteration too shall pass.

Meanwhile, see the Other McCain for more, "Damn You, Josh Barro!"

@jbarro Hey, I'm not exactly president of the @ewerickson Fan Club, but ... "derpy"? That's all you got, "derpy"? businessinsider.com/erick-erickson…
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 4, 2013

Yeah, that was a bit much with the "derpy."

And speaking of "derpy," click through for some "derpy" RAWMUSCLEGLUTES at the link:

Wow, I just got my second "Malkin Award" nomination of the year. dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/04/mal… I must be doing something right.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 4, 2013

UK Independence Party Surges to Best Showing Ever, Winning 150 Local Council Elections

From Tim Stanley, at Telegraph UK, "Ukip is a very British revolution":

The results aren’t all in yet, but it’s obvious what’s happening: Ukip are the moral victors in yesterday’s local elections. A party that was just two men on a golf cart ten years ago has placed second in South Shields and won county seats across the country. A few early observations:

1. The Lib Dems are at risk of becoming politically irrelevant. In South Shields they came seventh, a pathetic result for a governing party.

2. Ukip have helped to smash the BNP. By providing a non-racist Right-wing alternative, they reduced the BNP’s result in the Spalding East and Moulton ward in Lincolnshire from 20.5 per cent in 2009 to just 3.9 per cent today.

3. Labour did well but its gains were only modest. It held South Shields (the kind of seat that a donkey in a red rosette could win) but on a lower majority. Miliband is not popular in southern England and that will prove a problem in 2015.

4. Dan Hannan’s dream of a Ukip/Conservative coalition might actually happen in Lincolnshire and Gloucestershire – a fascinating laboratory for any future pact.

But the big story is the rise and rise of a tiny party once derided by its critics as full of fruitcakes and closet racists. It probably won’t gain any parliamentary seats in 2015: the electoral system is stacked against it and while Ukip’s support is broad, it isn’t deep enough in individual constituencies to win anything. This doesn’t seem to trouble Nigel Farage who says that he sees his party as playing the same role that the SDP played in the 1980s – driving the political agenda in his preferred direction.

RTWT.

Plus, "Ed Miliband needs to fear Ukip, too: Right-wing populism is in the ascendant."

Dumping DOMA

I listened to yesterday's Prop 8 arguments before I went to bed. It's time consuming, so I don't know when I'll listen to today's arguments in Windsor. I'm going to read around the horn for awhile. Perhaps again late tonight I'll take the time. That said, what I've read thus far confirms my suspicion that repealing DOMA won't simply leave the issue to the states --- in line with a liberty-driven federalism argument --- but will have the de facto effect of nationalizing the right to homosexual marriage.

So for now, here's Emily Bazalon, who's convinced DOMA's going down, "Ditching DOMA":

Why did Congress pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? Before I went to the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, I thought the answer was obvious: to prevent gay couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, as a signal of condemnation or at least displeasure.

So it was a surprise to hear Paul Clement, defending DOMA on behalf of House Republicans, stay as far from that rationale as possible. Clement’s central argument was this: Congress was merely striving for “uniformity,” ensuring that gay couples would be treated the same throughout the country. “We want to treat same-sex couples in New York the same as in Oklahoma,” Clement said. It was a thin, implausible reed to cling to. And it won’t support five votes for upholding DOMA’s definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“It’s not really uniformity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in response to Clement. Kennedy, the crucial swing voter, framed the case differently: “The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage.” That’s the genius of this particular court challenge, United States v. Windsor, as an incremental step toward federal rights for gay couples. The case aligns state sovereignty (a cause close to Kennedy’s heart) with gay couples’ sovereignty over their lives (ditto). On the table today was not a broad proclamation of gay marriage throughout the land—the grander vision that animated, but also could sink, the challenge to California’s ban, which was argued Tuesday. Today, the court focused only on whether Congress has the power to define marriage for the purpose of denying federal benefits to gay couples in the nine states and the District of Columbia that now fully recognize their marriages. Can Congress exclude gay couples whom states have included?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had the laugh line of the day when she scolded DOMA for creating “two kinds of marriage, full marriage and the skim-milk marriage.” It was easy to see which one you’d want in your coffee. But Clement’s diciest moment came when Justice Elena Kagan faced him down. She said that “for the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the federal government has pursued” is uniform recognition of marriages recognized by the states. Federal law has followed state law. “This statute does something that’s really never been done before,” Kagan continued, and the question is whether “that sends up a pretty red flag.”

Then she hoisted that flag for all to see. “I’m going to quote from the House report here: ‘Congress decided to reflect and honor collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’ ”

“Does the House report say that?” Clement asked, before catching himself: “Of course the House report says that. And if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute.” Maybe that’s the whole case right there.

More at that top link, and at SCOTUS Blog, "Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE)." (Via Memeorandum.)

Oral Arguments in United States v. Windsor

It's still early, but the Court heard arguments on the DOMA today.

The New York Times has this, "Justices Weigh Law Denying U.S. Benefits to Gay Spouses." And at the Washington Post, "Supreme Court considers DOMA case."

And check SCOTUS Blog for updates. I'm heading to work and will blogging developments later tonight.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon, "Regardless of How SCOTUS Rules on 'Marriage Equality' Marriage Can Never Actually Be Redefined."

'Marriage is not an ancient country club based on bigotry...'

Per Aleister, who, at American Glob, made a libertarian argument in favor of homosexual marriage, a reader responds:

Usually enjoy your Glob posts in my inbox, but this one really disappointed and offended me. This “Hey I’m cool, whatever floats your boat” attitude re: changing the fundamental building block of society, traditional marriage, is where libertarians will lose many conservatives and sink our chances in 2016.

Marriage is not an ancient country club based on bigotry. You need to readjust your goggles, amigo. This issue could sink civilization, not just America, for good.

RTWT, "In Which Iowahawk Describes My Position On Gay Marriage."

GOP After-Action Report Calls for Major Changes

Pardon my language, but the Republican Party is f-ked.

The New York Times reports, "G.O.P. Report Is Blunt in Its Call for New Direction."

And at Townhall, "Post Mortem: RNC Report Calls for Major GOP Overhaul":

Republicans have gotten their backsides kicked in the last two presidential election cycles, which are essentially the "Super Bowls" of American politics. The party's standard-bearers have lost the popular vote in five of the last six contests, with the lone exception of President Bush's 2004 re-election. Bluntly stated, the GOP's national political model is broken. The Republican National Committee has just published an exhaustive report about what went wrong in 2012, when a Democratic president with mediocre approval ratings and historically poor economic indicators won a second term by a comfortable, 3.5 million vote margin. The political bubble and its inhabitants are infamous for self serving ass-covering, which is why the RNC's new autopsy deserves significant credit for its refreshing -- and at times startling -- frankness. Though various elements within the conservative coalition will surely identify elements to criticize, the 100-page report advances some hard, unvarnished truths about the party's deficient mechanics, assumptions and strategies -- as well as the changing face of the electorate. It draws conclusions based upon raw data and feedback from tens of thousands party organizers, political practitioners, pollsters, candidates and elected officials, technology experts, grassroots activists, and swing state focus group participants.

Here's the report: "Growth and Opportunity Project."

More at WSJ, "GOP Issues Scathing Self-Analysis." (Via Memeorandum.)

And see especially, at the Washington Examiner, "RNC chief retreats after report endorses immigration reform." Like I said, these people are completely screwed.

Libertarians Rising at #CPAC2013

I think this is all pretty fascinating.

From Reason.tv:

It's going to be even more fascinating to see how this all plays out politically. To be honest, to the extent that CPAC goes more libertarian it becomes more leftist. Rand Paul is a special case being a U.S. Senator who's speaking out on national security and the Constitution. I doubt he'll get so much widespread support if he launches a high-profile campaign to legalize marijuana nationwide or if he becomes Congress' most vocal advocate for legalizing homosexual marriage. Those positions are consistent with Paul's ideological persuasions, but it'll stretch the conservative movement even further should he be the one to champion those issues on the national stage, and likely as well, on the presidential nomination stage. Time will tell...

Homosexuals Infiltrating #CPAC2013

Bryan Fischer interviews Cliff Kincaid following the "gay conservative" controversy:

And my earlier comments, "The 'Gay Conservative' Oxymoron."

Also from Star Parker in 2011, "'Gay Conservative' Is an Oxymoron":

The idea of “gay conservative” is an oxymoron.

“Gay” is everything that “conservative” is not.

The foundation of the worldview that so-called “gay conservatives” embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism.

It’s a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. It is a worldview that rejects eternal truths passed on from the beginning of time. Although the worldview that “gay conservatives” choose to invent may diverge from the worldview of liberals, their common ground is that they make it all up.

And it is here where “gay conservatives” and “liberals” fundamentally depart from conservatives.

Conservatives believe that there are objective and eternal truths, not of the product of any individual human mind, that are transmitted through the generations. Culture is not like HDTV or iPhones where the newest model is the best.

These eternal truths provide the light in the fog that keeps us from crashing on the rocky shores where our base instincts lead us.

“Gay” is liberal, not conservative, regardless of what their stand may be on government spending or taxes.

More at the link.

Rand Paul Moves the Ball on Foreign Policy

From Matt Welch, at Reason, "Toward a Libertarian Foreign Policy."

I spoke about Rand Paul's foreign policy speech to the Heritage Foundation earlier (available here). He's proposing basically a pro-Israel realism, which is very attractive after more than 10 years of war. I'm not a libertarian, however. I would support more forceful U.S. foreign policy on Syria and al-Qaeda in Africa. But again, Rand Paul is striking some very appealing positions, and he's someone I could support in 2016.

RELATED: ICYMI, an outstanding essay from AoSHQ, "McCain, Graham Need to End the Super-Hawk Crap If They Want Any Kind of Hawkishness In American Foreign Policy at All."

Dorian Electra

A Reason.tv interview with the lovely little libertarian. Smart and articulate:

And watch: "I'm in Love with Friedrich Hayek."

McCain and Graham Try to Ruin the Party

Well, there's still lots more buzz on Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster. The Old Guard's feathers are ruffled. Chris Stirewalt reports, at Fox News, "Can GOP Learn to Live With Libertarianism?"

(Plus, at the Daily Caller, "Mark Steyn: McCain, Graham ‘mercurial figures,’ ‘not helpful to the Republican Party cause’."

And you gotta love how the McRINO senators are the ultimate useful idiots for the progressive hacks at MSNBC. Seriously. This is a news channel?

Here's That Video of Ann Coulter Slamming Libertarians as 'Pussies'

This is very entertaining. And I'll tell you, Ann Coulter pretty much nails it on the idiocy of libertine libertarians (on a host of issues, they're interchangeable with radical leftists).

Via Erika Johnson, at Hot Air, and Memeorandum:

BONUS: At Legal Insurrection, "Coulter on Stossel shows foolishness of Fordham’s cancellation."

Milton Friedman on C-Span's 'Book Notes' in 1994

I hadn't planned to watch the whole thing --- and this interview's an hour long --- but I got sucked in after just a couple of minutes listening to Dr. Friedman. The other day, when I was renewing my kid's colonial history books at the library, I bought a paperback copy of Friedman's "Free to Choose" for 25 cents at the library's bookstore. I'm just getting into the book, but I've been watching videos online and came across this one. Friedman's lamentations about the creeping socialization of democratic societies --- a trend seemingly inexplicable in 1994, since "everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure" --- are particularly relevant in the age of Obama.

Watch this video in full. If you don't have time, bookmark it for later. It's amazing.

And buy the book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.

3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline

From Reason TV:

RELATED: At PuffHo, "Obama Golfed With Oil Men as Climate Protesters Descended on White House."

Funny that.

Rand Paul on Fox News Sunday: Can Obama Kill Americans on American Soil With Drone Strikes?

A great segment with Senator Paul:

As always, it's more about the left's hypocrisy with me, although I just can't reconcile killing Awlaki's 16-year-old kid.

Also at Fox News, "Graham, Paul split on U.S. drone strikes, impact of upcoming $85B spending cuts." And more video here, "Sen. Rand Paul : I'll Decide in 2014 on a Presidential Run." Plus, at Reason, "Rand Paul: Not Running for President Except to Win, America Ready for Libertarian Republican."