Full Metal Saturday: Kristin Cavallari

Well folks, it's been a busy week blogging the culture wars, but I'm taking time out here for a little double-duty on babe-blogging. Readers might have missed my regular midweek "Rule 5 Rescue," so I'm going double-barrel with some hot Kristin Cavallari action! Ms. Cavallari's a local Laguna Beach hottie who was the leading personality during Season 2 of Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County:

Readers will recall that Full Metal Saturday owes its origins to Robert Stacy McCain's pathbreaking post, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year." I call Robert "The Hustler," not only for his recognition as one of the hardest working bloggers in the blogosphere, but for the growing influence of his program of shameless blog whoring! Today's case in point is Michael van der Galien of PoliGazette, who's introducing a new feature at his site called "Link Mess." But I should note that Steven Givler, who was featured here last week, is also a reader of The Other McCain. Now, note something else: When my friend Carol at No Sheeples Here! expressed some reservations about "Rule 5" blogging, Robert put up an interesting post on the subject, where he noted:

Conservatives must rid themselves of the Dean Vernon Wormer mindset ("No more fun of any kind!") and instead try to put the "party" back into the Republican Party. Stop trying to be the uptight, respectable Omegas. Let's bring a hell-raising, fun-loving Delta House mentality to the task at hand ...

Well, I'll tell ya: It looks like a number of conservative bloggers have taken the hint, especially the ladies! Fausta Wertz puts out some classic Rule 5 blogging this week with a couple of entries, "Captain Underpants" (featuring a "hirsute" Tom Selleck) and "About those hairless chests ..." Fausta links to Neo-Neocon, who not only offers a lengthy analysis of "men waxing their chests," but the post sports a shot of some pretty hunky beefcake! Plus, Monique Stuart's playing both sides of the fence with some hot Katy Perry Rule 5 action! Now that's what I'm talking about! And don't miss Pundette & Pundette, who's got her weekend link-fest up today, with some hot buns in there to boot! If I'm omitting any entries from the ladies, just send me an e-mail and I'll add your post to this entry. And with that, on to the guys! I've got to get a couple of my blog buddies fired up for some Rule 5 revelry! Dana at Common Sense Political Thought might post an update his hot Helen Mirren entry, and Stogie at Saberpoint might well be afflicted by the Dean Vernor Wormer mindset! Let's also put some pressure on my friends Dave in Boca and William Jacobson. Come on guys, break loose with some babe blogging! And check out Lance Burri to see how it's done, "Of Rule #5, YouTube, and commercials indeterminate, persuasive, and unpleasant." Dude, it's getting hot in here! And don't even get me going about John Althouse Cohen! But wait! This just in: "The Hustler's" got breaking news on Lindsay Lohan: "EX-DISNEY STARLET LINDSAY LOHAN REPORTEDLY DUMPED BY LESBIAN GF SAMANTHA RONSON . . ." Okay, switching gears a bit, don't forget that a number of our good friends have no time for breast blogging. They're busy doing even more important work: Tea Party blogging! Moe Lane's got a great post on the 12 whole anti-capitalist protesters - that's right just 12 - who turned out for the left's epic-fail copycat protest in Washington, D.C., one of the "New Way Forward" demonstrations that are modeled after the conservative movement's emerging "Second American Revolution." Conservatives are getting fired up on this, of course. Check out Point of a Gun, with some coverage of Maryland's Tea Party protests. Little Miss Attila is gearing up for her events, but check out Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit with all kinds of links to Tea Party action nationwide. As always, if I've missed anyone just send me a quick note and I'll add your post here in an update. Otherwise, keep up the Rule 5 hotness!

Remembering Nick Adenhart

Today's front-page at the Los Angeles Times features this shot of Torii Hunter, left, and John Lackey paying tribute to rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart, who was killed early Thursday in a broadside collision in Fullerton, California (the photo gallery is here).

I first learned about Adenhart's death when I opened the newspaper yesterday morning. The Los Angeles Times' obituary is here: "Angels' Nick Adenhart had rekindled his early promise." Also, my friend Mark Goluskin posted on Adenhart yesterday, "Nick Adenhart, 1986-2009."

The circumstances surrounding Adenhart's death are especially sad, given that he and two of his friends were killed by an alleged drunk driver, Andrew Thomas Gallo, who has been charged by Orange County prosecutors with three counts of murder, hit and run, and drunk driving. Also killed were Courtney Stewart, 20, a beautiful young student and cheerleader at Cal State Fullerton, and Henry Pearson, Henry Pearson, "a 25-year-old law student from Manhattan Beach."

See the full story, "Charges filed in death of Angels pitcher":

As Orange County prosecutors Friday filed murder charges against an accused drunk driver, loved ones of the three young people killed -- a promising Angels pitcher, a Cal State Fullerton communications student and an aspiring sports agent -- mourned their loss.

Andrew Thomas Gallo, 22, of San Gabriel was charged with three counts of murder, hit and run and drunk driving in connection with the accident in Fullerton early Thursday.

Authorities said Gallo had a blood-alcohol content three times the legal limit of .08 when he blew through a red light. The Toyota Sienna minivan he was driving, prosecutors said, broadsided a Mitsubishi Eclipse driven by Courtney Frances Stewart, 20, killing her, Angels rookie Nick Adenhart, 22, and Henry Pearson, a 25-year-old law student from Manhattan Beach.

Jon Wilhite, 24, also of Manhattan Beach and a former catcher for the Cal State Fullerton Titans, remains hospitalized.

"This Angel and his two friends were too young to be sent to heaven," Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said at a news conference.

For Friday night's game against the Boston Red Sox, the Angels wore patches with No. 34 in memory of their teammate, who had pitched an impressive six scoreless innings hours before the fatal accident.

At Cal State Fullerton, the cheer squad, sorority sisters, professors and classmates came together to mourn Stewart, a communications student, member of the Alpha Chi Omega Sorority and former cheerleader.

Stewart was remembered as a fun-loving sweetheart with a warm smile and a recognizable laugh who made friends easily.

Classmates such as Bobby Foster, a business marketing student, poured out their grief online by posting status updates to their Facebook pages.

"Such a sweet and charismatic girl, taken away from this cold, heartless world," he wrote of Stewart. "May we all dry our crying eyes and realize she's flying with angels in the skies."

Stewart's professors said she always sat in the front row, beaming a contagious smile.

"She was so beautiful, so bright," recalled Alana Northrop, who had been Stewart's political science professor, in a memorial of comments on a Web page set up by Cal State Fullerton: "There was no stuck-up-ness, she was genuine, a very special person."

Pearson was an aspiring sports agent who had attended Mira Costa High School in Manhattan Beach with Wilhite. Both of them had played on the baseball team there.

"What a great kid," Mira Costa baseball coach Mike Neily told insidebayarea.com. Pearson, he said, was a team captain and "one of these very likable boys."

"He loved life and he was going to be a superstar at something," Neily said. "I'd always call him a young Tom Cruise."

The Angels are my team. I'm watching the Angels-Red Sox game right now on Fox. The team has a history of team tragedies. Ssee, "Angels have a long history of tragedies," and the photo gallery, "Angels tragedies." One of the most famous of these is the suicide of Donnie Moore in 1989. Moore blew a save situation in game 5 of the 1986 ALCS, giving up a home run to Boston's Dave Henderson in the top of the 9th inning. The count was 2-2, and the Angels were one strike away from advancing to the World Series. According to Moore's Wikipedia entry, "In the public perception, Moore became indelibly associated with the Angels' loss of the pennant, in much the same manner that Bill Buckner became associated with the Red Sox' subsequent loss of the World Series later that year.

Moore shot his wife, Tanya, three times on July 18, 1989. He then turned the gun on himself. His wife survived.

Self-Induced Demise of the American Superpower

I love Caroline Glick's writing, and she's in peak form in her new essay, "Surviving in a Post-American World":

Like it or not, the United States of America is no longer the world's policeman. This was the message of Barack Obama's presidential journey to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Iraq this past week.

Somewhere between apologizing for American history - both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US's nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America's missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, "Don't worry, be happy," as he leaves them to Moscow's tender mercies; humiliating Iraq's leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world's aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.

Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington.

This news is music to the ears of the American Left and their friends in Europe. Obama's supporters like billionaire George Soros couldn't be more excited at the self-induced demise of the American superpower. CNN's former (anti-)Israel bureau chief Walter Rodgers wrote ecstatically in the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday, "America's... superpower status, is being downgraded as rapidly as its economy."

Read the entire essay. The "superpower downgrading" is more a function of this particular administration than America's structural power profile.

I'll be glad when Obama's gone, in any case.

**********

UPDATE: Glick's piece is now up at the Jerusalem Post (via Memeorandum), and Dr. Sanity's got an entry on it, "The 'O' Team: Obama's Emasculation of America."

But get this, movie director Ron Howard, who has made a few fairly patriotic - if not masculine - films, is calling for an America that is a "less preeminent superpower," not driven by a "sort of militarism and this need to export, you know, democracy ..." See Newsbusters, "Ron Howard Yearns for Less Powerful America Not 'Driven by Militarism'."

Barack Obama's Overblown Self-Delusions

Publisher's Note: My friend, Rusty Walker, has accepted my invitation to write a guest essay. It is my honor to publish it here.

*****

At the G20 conference, President Barack Obama was elegant, thoughtful, and charming. He wasn’t as charming and prepared as, say, President Reagan, or, even President Bill Clinton, both of whom had been governors, the best preparation for a United States president. That said, he struck a sincere chord. This is what he does best. The culture of personality that abides in our time suits him. But, as an American president one should retain the patriotic stance of never making apologetic statements about our alleged past actions in opaque references to the prior administration. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and of course we are a world leader. President Obama barely managed to choke out that we have American exceptionalism! If Russia were in our position, the world would be speaking an East Slavic dialect, not to mention the Fundamentalist, Neo-fascist Islamics.

At home, Democrats want the government to look after us, save us, apply rules to everything in our lives, forgetting that freedom, liberty, enterprise and American innovation is what made this country great. I remember reading Lincoln (R) cautioning that the people should be careful of the government you give power to, as the same government can take your rights away, and, Reagan, rightfully, in my opinion stating, "the government IS the problem!"

I don’t disagree with some of Obama’s goals, just how to get there. We elected a very junior senator with no foreign relations experience and who never budgeted within the restraints necessary of, say, a mayor or governor. He is an Educator, and he is bringing his idealistic, academic theories to government - he never ran a business. He is reminding me of Woodrow Wilson’s naïveté combined with the socialist mindset of some of those who surrounded FDR.

On the budget, Obama and his Democratic Congress define "spend" as "Invest," and "deficit spending" on health care, energy, and education, as "infrastructure." In my view, while these are necessary over time, in the proper congressional process, all of this is rammed-through reconciliation. Such initiatives will not have the immediate effect as Obama thinks. Based on my readings about the Great Depression, and the panics on Wall Street, and listening to both sides of the congressional debates, you cannot just write huge checks address to energy, education and health care and expect to reap immediate benefits in employment, consumer spending and business.

The economists tend to agree that the stimulus package was and is necessary to boost the economy. Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve is highly qualified and holds credibility; I have less confidence in Treasury Secretary Geithner – but, both say the huge sums are necessary. Japan missed its opportunity and it cost them. But the stimulus package that was passed by the Democratic Congress contained long-lusted-for Democratic earmarks unnecessary to the economic growth. And, the line-by-line editing Obama said he would commit to is a no-show. This is as disappointing as when Clinton was elected, with votes for health care reform, and he and Hillary failed to deliver on this lofty goal. Remember this in politics and life: No one is coming to save you.

I believe Obama and his advisors put too much on the promise of “hope” and “change” as a strategy; on the economy, green jobs and enormous education funding, while quick fixes, will penalize those making over $250,000, which includes small businesses - as if we want to regress to 1907 when the government taxed the rich at 75%! We got rid of that because it clearly discouraged honest business dealings and suppressed the economy.

Also, the Democrats have an almost pathological fixation on Bush – to justify all this spending! The Bush legacy of high-deficits they keep referring to peaked in 2008 when the crisis hit and the stimulus package was proposed – written by Democrats, and agreed to by all! And up until 2007 Bush’s deficit was actually only 1% of the GDP (Obama’s will take us to dangerous 13% in 2010, and even with their most optimistic projections, an unsustainable 5% of GDP). You can’t have it both ways, complain about Bush and then pile on more deficit. Also, the Democrats in 2007-2008 were the majority - the $787 Billion stimulus and $410 Billion Omnibus Stimulus Bill, is a spending bill that is all Democratic, full of pork. According to my research, the public debt (which is a different way of looking at it, from deficit) was historically around 10%-20%, but will reach depression era 80% of GDP under Obama’s proposals.

This is the change we were promised? President Obama, with his Democratic Congress, is growing the government in our lives. I “hope,” to use his term, he knows what he is doing. I believe he thinks he is FDR (who actually ran a huge state as Governor of New York). Obama, just this last week, called for resignation of the CEO of GM & Chrysler (stocks plummeted). This isn't the Soviet Union ... yet!

President Obama is a good man, but, he is, as part of the Chicago machine, aligned with the unions who have destroyed the profit margins in the auto industry. The smaller non-union U.S. car manufacturers didn't need stimulus package and were showing a profit – in some cases actually made more than the union wages. Why? Because of what the country runs on – free enterprise. And, Obama is also forcing the production of green-energy efficient cars be produced with NO thought to consumer market demand!

Yes, Obama’s proposed doubling of the debt in five years, tripling in ten years, is causing concern abroad; China, our great creditor, is rightfully concerned. I don't think a new currency would prevail though, because the U.S. dollar, which is still strong, has more than Obama's flailing policies going for it - the US has a strong economic history, and we are still way out in front with number one in GDP (followed by Japan - also in trouble). Still, many countries with problems, including France, Great Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Iceland (bankrupt due to their own government speculative idiocy), etc, etc. etc.), would favor the U.S. dollar. Obama is NOT following bi-partisanship as he campaigned!

Obama is still riding the crest of the popularity with the "hopeful" liberals who wanted "change" and didn't care what change meant ... and so he is still predictably using his Messiah-walk-on-water according to the major-network-channels, that, along with a Democratic-majority-Congress affords him the voting power. Still, he appears to be over extending his Constitutional Executive powers in my humble opinion.

Here is a relevant quote from the book I am reading: "It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly and for the most part sincerely assured of their greatness" - Calvin Coolidge, 1927 p.46., The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes.

Changes in American Religious Identification

Gallup reports that the United States remains an overwhelmingly Christian nation, although the proportion of Americans identifying with some denomination of Christianity has been declining for decades. Check the link for the whole report, which includes time-series graphs going back to 1948. Here's the summary and conclusion:

The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. More than three-quarters of all Americans identify as Christian. And the vast majority of those who identify with any religion say they are Christian in some form or another.

Yet, the percentage of Americans who in theory could celebrate Easter this weekend as part of their religion is down significantly from where it was 50 or 60 years ago.

There are many theoretical explanations for the increase in those with no religious identity at the expense of those identifying with a Christian religion. Two social scientists at the National Opinion Research Corporation, Tom W. Smith and Seokho Kim, contemplating similar data from the General Social Survey in 2004, concluded: "In sum, an array of social forces from cohort turnover, to immigration, to reduced retention rates, indicate that the Protestant share of the population will continue to shrink and they will soon lose their majority position in American society."

The share of the population held by any religious group is based on a complex set of factors relating to internal reproduction (births), in-migration (from converts and from people moving into the country who have a particular religious identity), and out-migration (people who leave the religion and people with a particular religious identity who leave the country). In-migration from other countries in recent years may have helped boost the percentage of non-Christians in the population. In-migration from Catholic Mexico and Catholic Central American countries has also, at the same time, helped keep the percentage of Catholics as high as it is. The big shift has apparently been the out-migration of those whose parents may have identified with a specific Christian religion, but who upon growing up have become more likely to tell a survey interviewer that they have no specific religious identity.

Gallup (and other survey researchers) measure religious identity by asking Americans to name their religion. It is possible that Americans who previously would have identified themselves with the religion of their upbringing now feel freer to tell a survey interviewer that they have no religious identity.

It is important to note that basic religious identification says little about the relevance of that identify to the person's life. Identifying with a religion doesn't indicate how actively the individual practices the religion. It doesn't indicate whether the person rigorously adheres to that religion's beliefs. It simply states that the person has some connection to and some identity with a specific type of religion. Data from measures of religious intensity or commitment are needed to flesh out the portrait of the ways in which Americans' religiosity may have changed over the years.

Gallup survey data on religious identification extend back only to 1948, about a quarter of the life of the country. Obviously, this evidence speaks only to the recent history of religious identity in the United States. There is no real scientific way of putting recent survey history of religious identity into a longer time frame going back much before World War II. (Some scholars argue that, in fact, Americans were not very religious by some measures at the time of the Revolution in Colonial America.) It is thus important to keep in mind that the trends reviewed in this analysis are only part of the portrait of the ebb and flow of religion in the United States since the nation's founding well over two centuries ago.

More on Tea Parties: We The People

I know I'm a bit late getting to this "We The People" video, but I'm getting excited about the Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party rallies, so here goes:

Plus, Dan Riehl's got a post up hammering Andrew Sullivan, so there's further incentive, "Sullivan's Errant Tea Party Shot." Dan's breaks down Sullivan's dumb attack on the Tea Party movement, but this passage is the best:

Somewhere between Iraq and that either very hard, or very soft place that has become Andrew Sullivan's head, there's really only one issue that matters to him any more - gay marriage. And that's fine, really. Everyone needs a good cause.

From Gay Marriage to Polygamy

Via Pundette, don't miss Mark Steyn's key essay, "We’re in the fast lane to polygamy":

What’s my line on legalized polygamy? Oh, I pretty much said it all back in 2004, in a column for Ezra Levant’s Western Standard. Headline: “It’s Closer Than They Think.”

Well, a mere half-decade down the slippery slope and here we are, with the marrying kind of Bountiful, B.C., headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. Five years ago, proponents of same-sex marriage went into full you-cannot-be-serious eye-rolling mode when naysayers warned that polygamy would be next. As I wrote in that Western Standard piece:

“Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.”

Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. “Marriage is a union of two people, period,” she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn’t it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?

Ah, well, says Mme L’Heureux-Dubé, polygamists don’t enjoy the same societal acceptance as gays. “I don’t see a parade of polygamists on Ste-Catherine Street,” observes the great jurist, marshalling the same dazzling quality of argument she used back in her days as the Supreme Court’s most outspoken activist on gay issues. A decade ago, she and Justice Michael Kirby, Australia’s most senior gay judge, traipsed from one gay-rights confab to another like the Elizabeth Taylor and Roddy McDowall of the international judicial cocktail circuit. But perhaps, back home in Canada, her ladyship ought to expand her excursions beyond the Ste-Catherine Street gay pride march. If you check in with, ahem, certain cultural communities in Canada, you will find polygamy not just “accepted” but government funded. It was confirmed last year that in the province of Ontario thousands of polygamous men receive welfare payments for each of their wives. There are many more takers for polygamy than there ever will be for gay marriage ....

While Mme L’Heureux-Dubé’s objections may be sincere, the Government of Canada gives the distinct impression of going through the motions. Its objection to polygamy rests on the great wobbling blancmange of “Canadian values.” Polygamy is supposedly incompatible with “da Canadian value,” as M Chrétien used to call it. But surely da Canadian value is that we have no values. We value all values. To do otherwise would be profoundly un-Canadian.

There's more at the link.

I like that, "We value all values." That's perfect.

By the way, this might be a good time to review my earlier essay, "How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?"

Charles Johnson's Strange Alliance with Andrew Sullivan

Sometime back I posted on "On Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs." I noted at the post that "it turns out that yesterday Johnson basically joined the likes of Glenn Greenwald in attacking Glenn Beck for SIMPLY HYPOTHESIZING the possibility of an American anarchy ..."

Well now we have Johnson attacking the "Project 912 Glenn Beck Tea Party" as a society of "book burners." But get this: Andrew Sullivan joins in with an approving link, "A Tea Party Tantrum."

I earlier suggested "I have no personal quarrel with Johnson..." Unfortunatelty, it's hard for me to say the same thing today. Pamela Geller is in the midst of an ongoing flame war with Little Green Footballs. A recent post was titled, "Neo-Nazis Link Up With Charles Johson, Little Green Footballs Smears Beck, the GOP and Conservatives." Previously, Pamela published an essay titled, "Charles Little Green Footballs: The New Fascism ... on the Right."

Readers can check the veracity of Pamela's claims at her posts. But the meme is familiar irrespective of the particulars: Charles Johnson's mounted a long campaign against a number of neoconservative bloggers in the U.S., and that's on top of blogs such as Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal in Europe.

What's interesting to me, especially, is that Johnson still continues to attack the Obama administration collectivism, all the while aiding and abetting the left's nihilist campaign against religion and social conservatism. Strange, no? But wait! Johnson's also been busy with attemps to repudiate some previous recognition from Andrew Sullivan: "There’s nothing like a left-handed compliment from Andrew Sullivan to totally creep you out."

I've got news for you, Charles, you're just as creepy as Sullivan, and just as dangerous.

Our Tea Party Moment

We are approaching April 15th.

As folks will recall, that's Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Day, when conservatives around the country will rally to the banner of limited government. I'm attending my local Tea Party in Santa Ana, the government seat of Orange County. I was just now looking around online to see what kind of attendence numbers are expected for the event. I found a meetup website, "Orange County National Tax Day Tea Party." I've been networking with folks at the page. About 1000 people have confirmed their attendance with this particular group. Andrew Breitbart will give the keynote speech. Here's the flyer:

In any case, as readers may have noticed by the nature of my posting this week, I'm a little taken aback by what's been happening in politics of late. Iowa's gay marriage ruling is frankly unreal to me, especially the actual holding of the court, which showed complete disdain for common sense and tradition. But I've also been concerned with the broader, obvious leftist collapse of respect for and value in America's classic traditions of individualism, constitutionalism, and limited government.

Over at Michelle Malkin's, Doug Powers is guest blogging, and he shares similar thoughts on the era's social breakdown, and he suggests why the Tea Parties are important:

For me, these tea parties are about putting an end to waste. Not the waste of money (though obviously that’s a major concern), but rather the tragic waste of American ingenuity, innovation, creativity and philanthropy.

Isn't that the stuff that makes this country great and exceptional? And so many of the secular progressives are losing it. They've got no sense of right and goodness in America's history and political culture. Take Senator Charles Schumer, for example. Jillian Bandes, at Townhall, posted on Schumer's recent interview with Rachel Maddow, where he attacks conservatives as deviant obstructionists:

They have nothing positive to say. The world has changed. The old Reagan philosophy which served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right which still believes when the federal government moves, chop off its hands, still believes that, you know, traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over. So they have nothing other than to say no.

There's nothing ambiguous about Schumer's comments (watch the video for his telling gesticulations), but check out Thers at Whiskey Fire, who tries to spin reactions to Schumer's postmodernism as "wingnuttery":

Good Lord! Chuck Schumer hates strong foreign policy and traditional values! Holy shit!

The real fun begins, though, when another Townhall inmate decides to follow up, and posts a video of the Schumer interview... which clearly shows that when Schumer makes the "traditional values" remark, he does the air quotes gesture, and that when he mentions "strong foreign policy," he smiles and makes a silly kind of fist. Both of these gestures clearly indicate to the non-moron community that his remarks are meant to be taken ironically. (The gob, it is smacked.) Indeed, Schumer is making a pretty banal point, that "conservatives" are reduced to the hysterical peddling of ludicrous cliches, a contention Townhall only manages to confirm. Good one, kids.

Notice the jabs at conservatives as "inmates" and "morons"; but note especially how traditionalism and strength in foreign policy are scourged as "ludicrous cliches."

Or, how about the Rasmussen poll out this week that found just 53 percent of Americans agreeing that capitalism was preferable to socialism. I noted earlier that I don't read too much into the numbers. We are in an economic recession, so naturally faith in markets will be weaker during a downturn. But support for socialism was particularly high among the young (which I found interesting, for the same cohort is big on support for same-sex marriage). Here's how Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast explains the current youth support for socialism:

Some of the preference for socialism among the young may be simply attributable to age. As my generation knows full well, it's easy to be a socialist when your parents are paying at least some of the bills. But I think there's more to it than just a facile question of generations.

Over nearly three decades, as Reagan Republicanism has largely ruled this country (yes, even during the eight Clinton years), Americans have seen what unfettered, so-called free market capitalism looks like. Until the October 1987 crash, even the post-baby-boomers were supportive of the Doctrine of I Want More. But the financial collapse of 2008 represents the natural outgrowth of deregulated capitalism -- and Americans don't like what they see. The question is whether this translates into support for if not an outright socialist economy, certainly a more egalitarian one with a better safety net than we have now. Young Americans aren't carrying the baggage of the Cold War with them. These are people who grew up in post-Berlin Wall, for whom the boogeyman of Communism evokes no Pavlovian fear response. And if you are just getting started in your life and careers, and you see the wreckage that deregulated capitalism has left in its wake, and you're interacting with people all over the world via Facebook and online games, and seeing how people in Europe have health care even if they can't find a job, you're damn right you're going to think socialism is better.

Well, I personally never considered a realistic understanding of the threat of communist expansionism worldwide as "Cold War baggage"; and this notion of "deregulated capitalism" as the source of the nation's ills is completely bereft of facts (one look at Barney Frank will tell you that). But the comments from Charles Schumer, as well as both the posts at Whiskey Fire and Brilliant at Breakfast, serve as perfect indicators of the kind of ideological thinking prevalent on today's left.

Schumer's a key example of today's Democratic Party leadership, with his anything-goes moralism and defeatism in foreign policy; and the left bloggers offer nothing but nihilism to the debate, for they don't understand what makes this country tick.

For me, the Tea Parties are not about a "revolution" to overthrow the United States government, like Markos Moulitsas has alleged. The Tea Parties represent a political uprising of the conservative grassroots of this nation. People are getting active. They are returning to the principles of the Founders, principles of limits on governmental power, and a belief in free markets and free peoples. The members of the left denounce the Tea Party movement at their peril. This is the moment. This is the return of the conservative right wing of American politics, and the return of moral clarity and good to the nation's polity. Note as well, that the economy is already starting to make a comeback, so combined with the growing Tea Party protests movement, it's going to be even harder for the Obama administration to justify the continued socialization of the economy.

Note in conclusion, that I do not believe, as does British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, in his essay today at The Guardian, that capitalism is "bankrupt." When all is said and done - and the economic histories are written of the recession of 2008 - we'll likely understand the current downturn as another deep trough in the nation's history of economic cycles; and as traumatic as its been for many people across the land, the recession - and especially the political responses in Washington - will provide positives opportunities for the natural recuperative power of "creative destruction" in this phenemonal American marketplace of over 300 million people.

I can't wait for April 15th!

See also, No Sheeples Here, "The Second American Revolution—What Will You Do Without Freedom?", Midnight Blue, "A Tea Party in West Chester, Pa," and Legal Insurrection, "Tea Parties Are Sooo Scaaary."

The Passion of the Christ

From Mel Gibson's, The Passion of the Christ:

E.D. Kain's Total Break With Reality

I have to admit that reading E.D. Kain is, for me, one of the more interesting things about the postmodern blogosphere. E.D., a past publisher of a popular neoconservative website (the name has been changed to protect the embarrassed), has now become one of the biggest Andrew Sullivan myrmidons of the left-blogosphere. Even more interesting, it's clear by now that E.D's ideological shift wasn't just a change of heart, but has now matastasized into clinical case of Sullivan-esque psychopathology (with a smidgen of Larison-esque anti-Americanism).

Case in point is E.D.'s post this afternoon, "Adventures in Invective," and the introduction alone's worth the price of admission:

“What leaves me with a queasy feeling, though, is the growing sense that Obama is willing to denigrate America in order to boost his own personal popularity in other countries. As President, Obama has a responsibility to explain and interpret America to the rest of the world — in a way that is truthful and corresponds to reality for sure, but in a way that explains his country and its history and actions. So it would have been nice for him to point out just once that (as Charles Krauthammer has reminded us) during the last two decades Americans have shed their blood and spent their treasure in order to defend innocent Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.” ~ Peter Wehner

Right, Peter. That’s exactly what Obama’s doing - denigrating America in order to boost his popularity in other countries. And you’re right, he should have reminded the Turks and Europeans about all those American-instigated wars; I’m sure they’ve forgotten all about them by now. Certainly the President should have spent more time pointing out just how successful the “liberating” Americans have been in Iraq. That always goes over well in countries totally opposed to the Iraq war and fundamentally opposed to American arrogance and imperialism.

You see, Wehner is having trouble with what many neocons and movement conservative types are suffering from: a total break with reality. This makes it very, very difficult to understand the importance of reinvigorating our diplomatic efforts with, yes, even the French.

Read the rest of the post at the link.

So, who's really suffering a reality break here?

Well, let's first review these "American-instigated" wars: Kuwait? Eh, hello. E.D.'s obviously referring to the Gulf War of 1990-91. The conflict was the result of Saddam Hussein's invasion of his southern neighbor is July 1990. The threat to international security was recognized around the world, and for the first time in its history of the United Nations mounted a true collective security response, a deployment ultimately representing more than three dozen nations. This multinational force, underwritten by American military primacy, successfully ejected Iraq from Kuwait - thus securing the free flow of crude from the Persian Gulf region.

And Bosnia? I can't recall anyone on the left denouncing the U.S. for "Bosnian imperialism." If anything, leftists were attacking the Clinton administration for turning its back on a humanitarian "slaughterhouse" (see Mark Danner, "America and the Bosnia Genocide").

Now, about Afghanistan? Yes, the U.S. fought the Afghanistan war in 2001 and 2002, a successful engagement that was largely considered a strategic masterpiece at the time - with the main complaint against the deployment being that U.S. forces failed to capture Osama bin Laden. Upon authorization, only Representative Barbara Lee voted against the mission in either chamber of Congress. Recall that this week Ms. Lee led a delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus to Cuba, and while there lauded supreme leader Fidel Castro as an agent of international cooperation (see my essay, "Congressional Black Communists?").

And Iraq? Well, left and right will never agree on "Bush's debacle," although in 2003 all the top Democrats rushed to authorize the deployment. Arthur Borden's, A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq, puts all the left wing criticisms to bed; and as David Horowitz shows in Party of Defeat, the Democratic Party literally stabbed American forces in the back by turning against a war - for rank political purposes - that its members had initially voted to support in overwhelming numbers.

So, we can ask the same question of E.D. Kain that prominent writers have been increasingly asking of his idol Andrew Sullivan: "Should anyone take this man seriously"?

I have nothing personal against E.D. Kain. It's that rarely in my personal and political life have I encountered anyone with less integrity and credibility. This is a man who once published a number of neoconservative authors at his neocon blog-portal, and then one day he disappeared from the radar with nary an explanation. That behavior alone raises questions of character in my mind. But this post today clinches the case that E.D.'s gone literally batty. Conservatism has lots of problem, but they certainly aren't found in the writing of Peter Wehner. Besides, E.D. Kain and the boys at Ordinary Gentlemen are the last people who should be attempting a takedown of the right, much less the articulation of a "21st Century Conservatism."

American Socialists Come Out of the Closet

I'm always a bit surprised at how resistant American secular progressives are to the "socialist" label. Socialism does not require the abolition of private property or nationalization of industry. We know what's happening right now with the "social-market" economies in Europe, with their heavy state sectors and generous welfare states. Mark Steyn argued recently that Americans risk a disastrous shift toward the European model in his recent essay, "Prime Minister Obama: Will European Statism Supplant the American Way?"

While some leftists strain to deny a "convergence" toward collectivization between the U.S. and European models (and some are consumed by denialism altogether), others on the left are openly embracing an identifcation with genuine socialilsm. Michelle Goldberg, at The American Prospect, wrote a detailed piece the other day arguing that the declining birthrates in Western democracies are less problematic in states with aggressive social welfare regimes. The key? Progressive social programs supportive of working mothers that in effect engender fecund family-level reproductive patterns. So, don't worry about falling birthrates! Big government will take care of it! And here's the clincher:

In other words, the threat of population decline is one of the best arguments yet for socialized day care, family leave, and other dreamy Scandinavian-style policies. It’s a discussion we should welcome.

Put aside the idiocy of Goldberg's argument for now. I'm simply fascinated by the growing acceptability of the state-socialist model among those on the left.

Moreover, Rasmussen has a new poll out today on this, "Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism." According to the survey:

Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

I don't take too much away from these findings, actually. Those on the extreme left of the spectrum, including many in Congress, are committed to some version of a revolutionary socialist doctrine. Most Democrats are more likely disenchanted with the free enterprise system, and they likely equate "capitalism" with greed and corruption.

Nevetheless, it's extremely telling that a bare majority prefers capitalism to socialism. Of course, no other system in human history has been developed to provide greater prosperity and encourage greater human potential than the capitalist mode of market organization. Hendrik Hertzberg may think that Americans are warming up to a "nice" cushy progressive social welfare state, but folks need to read Mark Levin's, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, for a powerful argument that statism does nothing but destroy freedom. It's that simple. Growing support for a European-style socialist welfare state is a shift toward tyranny. It's un-American through and through, and one can only hope that we're in a passing phase of deviation from America's historical norm of liberal exceptionalism.

On the Growing Secular Value System

Man, this debate is never ending!

Far-left blogger Ezra Klein asks, "Will D.C. Force Congress to Consider Gay Marriage?" Actually, I've already answered yes to this question. See, "How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?"

But check out this article from the Christian News Network, "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders":

"Having lived in New York City for more than 30 years, I am all too aware of the harm that firearms in the hands of criminals can cause. Having grown up in a small town in Illinois, where citizens owned guns without misusing them, I am also aware that guns aren't the underlying problem. I am not an opponent of gun regulation; I am an opponent of making guns the scapegoat for mass murder.

"The underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a 'post-Christian' society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity taught that murder was wrong and that included murder motivated by anger, hatred and revenge. Both religions also taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and to forgive others.

"For many citizens, what has replaced Judeo-Christian faith and values is the secular value system that is reflected in films, rap/music lyrics, and videogames and on TV and now the Internet, where the taking of human life for just about any reason is commonplace and is often portrayed in an appealing manner and in realistic detail. Murder motivated by hatred and revenge is also justified.

"This secular value system is also reflected in the 'sexual revolution,' which is the driving force behind the push for 'gay marriage;' and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.

"It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.

"I would add that if conservative media's irresponsible talk of revolution can 'poison weak minds,' the liberal entertainment media's irresponsible portrayal of mayhem can also poison weak minds."

Check the link for the introduction to the article, as well as the responses at Memeorandum.

While I agree with the main points of the religious morality angle, I don't think that argument will prevail amid the growing hegemony of secularism Peters decries. A powerful secular case can be made against same-sex marriage, based in the logic of biological reproduction and the regeneration of societies. The gay marriage extremists can do little to change the logic of social reproduction and the facts of biological procreation. To win the argument, gay radicals have to argue in denial of the fact that social institutions are normatively substantiated in such terms. The left has yet to do so, of course, which is why the notion of "same-sex marriage" remains a fantastic radical progressive ideological construct.

See my earlier piece on this, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage."

Polling on Gay Marriage

Nate Silver has done a sophisticated analysis of polling trends on gay marriage, "Fact and Fiction on Gay Marriage Polling." He concludes that:

Support for gay marriage ... is strongly generational ... Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010's.

Not so fast, actually.

Note this methodological note from Silver's plotted-data of PollingReport surveys:

This chart includes all surveys in the PollingReport.com database, except those where the respondent was given a three-pronged choice between gay marriage, civil unions and nothing.

This is problematic. Recent surveys, from Iowa Iowa and nationally, have queried support for gay marriage outside of this binary formulation (gay marriage/civil unions). Here's Newsweek's key question item, with only 31 percent favor full same-sex marriage rights:

Thinking again about legal rights for gay and lesbian couples, which of the following comes CLOSEST to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples, OR support civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, BUT NOT full marriage rights, OR do you oppose ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples?

Now, while there is evidence for the notion that the liberal youth cohort will replace older voters less tolerant of gay marriage (see, for example, "Explaining the Growing Support for Gay and Lesbian Equality Since 1990"), the nature of question wording, as well as the environmental political influences (gay rights protest extremism, activist political mobilization strategies, and so forth), will determine the levels of support for same-sex marriage in the years ahead. With these facts in mind, it seems a bit premature to suggest, as does Silver, "that gay marriage will reach majority status" in just a few years.

Gays and Infertile Heterosexual Couples

Citing political scientist Susan Shell, here's this from my post, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage":

American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.

This really gets to the heart of the gay marriage debate. Radical gay rights secularists are trying to ram down their views on everyone else. William Murchison, for example, decisively argued yesterday against "The Gay Marriage Fantasy." That is, there's really no such thing, logically, as same-sex marriage.

And what about infertile heterosexual couples. Well, in response to National Review's editorial, "The Future of Marriage," check out Andrew Sullivan's latest hissy-fit:

National Review's new editorial comes out firmly against even civil unions for gay couples, and continues to insist that society's exclusive support for straight couples is designed

to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households.

This is an honest and revealing point, and, in a strange way, it confirms my own analysis of the theocon position. It reaffirms, for example, that infertile couples who want to marry in order to adopt children have no place within existing marriage laws, as NR sees them. Such infertile and adoptive "marriages" rest on a decoupling of actual sex and the rearing of children. The same, of course, applies much more extensively to any straight married couple that uses contraception: they too are undermining what National Review believes to be the core reason for civil marriage.

And note that point: "much more extensively." Or, fundamentally radically.

No matter how you spin it, and especially no matter how hard gay radicals attempt to repudiate traditionals as "theocons," the shift to gay marriage is a radical departure from the situation of infertile heterosexuals couples who are married. People like this, when they adopt children, and when they live their lives in the context of society's historically accepted normative institutions, are not revolutionary. To say that gay marriages are indentically co-equal to marriages between infertile heterosexual couples raises the question once again of how we are to define society's social regimes. Look, as Shell notes:

A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman?

No scheme of demonization concocted by Andrew Sullivan can change the fundamental fact that marriage AS AN INSTITUTION is established for the regeneration of society. Infertile heterosexual couple who marry are not trying to overturn that norm. Same-sex couple who demand marriage are.

Spencer Ackerman's Klan Slander

Let me remind readers of my post from July of last year, "Epitaph for Imperialism? Or, the Death of President Bush Foretold."
In that piece I cited a Spencer Ackerman essay, where he declared of President George W. Bush, "May his war-crimes prosecutor be Iraqi; may his judge be American; and may he die in the Hague."

I generally don't like radical leftists, especially in foreign policy, as they enable America's enemies. But I'm certain that Ackerman's got a special place reserved in Hell - the way he condemns, defames, and demonizes those of upright moral standing and resolve - so things do even out in the end.

I mention all of this with reference to Ackerman's essay today, "Neocons vs. Bob Gates, With Special Guest Appearance by KKK Founder." The piece is a slanderous attack on Thomas Donnelly and Gary Schmitt, and their essay at today's Wall Street Journal, "Obama and Gates Gut the Military." The authors argue that the Obama administration's new Pentagon budget, announced this week by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will result in "a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop." Read the whole thing for the specifics (I'd hate to see the F-22 Raptor get the ax after all). At the introduction, the authors quote Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate Cavalry commander and innovative thinker of military doctrine. Forrest was also a founder of the Ku Klux Klan, and this fact provides Ackerman's opening against Donnelly and Schmitt:

Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, members in good standing of the neoconservative cabal to eat your babies and conquer the world and then eat more babies, have an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal arguing against Defense Secretary Bob Gates’ program cuts. While they don’t really like the budget, they do seem to like the founder of the Ku Klux Klan ....

American dominance is not so fragile that trading planes is going to eliminate it. But I guess taking advice from Klan leaders leads to all sorts of paranoia.

Ackerman, at one point, takes issue with Donnelly and Schmitt's argument in favor of the F-22, claiming that the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) is a ready "alternative." Of course, as I cited the other nght, the incomparable F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter aircraft ever built, and as my friend Tom the Redhunter notes, the F-35 Lightning "was never intended to be our primary front line fighter"

Spencer Ackerman, who bills himself as a national security "expert," should know this. But the comparative efficacy of military readiness, force postures, and ordnance requirements are irrelevant to Ackerman's program. His demonic goal is to excoriate and ridicule the "evil" neocons, but in the process Ackerman simply demonstrates once again how childish he is. He's might as well quit journalism to focus on his punk band. No doubt some of the Nazi skinheads at his gigs would be better able to appreciate the significance of historical figures such as Nathan Bedford Forrest.

See also, The Redhunter, "Obama's B-1A?"

Image Credit: All Things Beautiful, "The Power of Demonization."

The Gay Marriage Fantasy

It turns out there's some backlash on the secular left in response to the National Organization for Marriage's new ad compaign, "The Gathering Storm."

The Human Rights Campaign, a radical gay rights pressure group, has launched a counter-offensive, attacking "The Gathering Storm" as "lies about marriage for lesbian and gay couples." The Human Rights Campaign has released a video allegedly countering the claims of the National Organization for Marriage, which is available here.

The National Organization for Marriage can defend their own advertisment, but when the actors in the video suggest that advocates for same-sex marriage "want to change the way I live," there's no question as to that statement's accuracy. Indeed, as William Murchison demonstrates at Real Clear Politics, the gathering storm of gay marriage radicalism seeks indeed to hijack the very identity of traditional American culture, abducting it for themselves in a campaign of vile licentiousness and excoriation of those of moral faith and values:

You really can't have "gay marriage," you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.

You can have something some people call gay marriage because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.

Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court's declaration last week that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don't and won't, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa's lead.

The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn't suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.

The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism. "What I say goes!" has become our national philosophy since the 1960s. One appreciates the First Amendment right to make such a claim. Nonetheless, no such boast actually binds unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine. Surface things can change. Not the deep things, among them human existence.

A marriage -- a real one -- brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children -- which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.

A gay "marriage" (never mind whether or not the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile -- barren for the purpose of extending the generations for purposes vaster than any two people, (including people of opposite sexes), can envision.

Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called "gay marriage" don't address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn't "like" too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.

True, marriage isn't the only way to get at childbirth and propagation. There's also the ancient practice called illegitimacy -- in which trap, by recent count, 40 percent of American babies are caught. It's a lousy, defective means of propagation, with its widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation.

Far, far better is marriage, with all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans. Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage's derogators and outright enemies -- who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court. These learned folk tell us earnestly that the right to "equal protection of the law" necessitates a makeover of marriage. And so, by golly, get with it, you cretins! Be it ordered that.

One can say without too much fear of contradiction that people who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are -- would "nutty" be the word?

The Iowa court's decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense. Which isn't to say that nonsense fails to command plaudits and excite warnings to others to "keep your distance." We're reminded again -- as with Roe v. Wade, the worst decision in the history of human jurisprudence -- of the reasons judges should generally step back from making social policy. For one thing, a judicial opinion can mislead viewers into supposing that, well, sophisticated judges wouldn't say things that weren't so. Would they?

Of course they would. They just got through doing it in Iowa, and now the basketball they tossed in the air has to be wrestled for, fought over, contested: not merely in Iowa, but everywhere Americans esteem reality over ideological fantasy and bloviation. A great age, ours. Say this for it anyway: We never nod off.

See also my recent essay on the controversy at Pajamas Media, "An Attack on Traditional Marriage in Iowa."

For the radical left's campaign of demonizing those of faith, see Pam Spaulding, "National Organization for Marriage's new tactic: fear-mongering without using the word 'religion'."