IBD/TIPP Poll: Fiscal Cliff Sinks Dems' Hopes After Obama Re-Election

From Investor's Business Daily, "IBD/TIPP Poll: Fiscal Cliff Deflates Democratic Hope":

Democrats stopped basking in the afterglow of President Barack Obama's re-election victory and abruptly lowered their outlook on the economy this month, as fears of the "fiscal cliff" dominate year-end headlines, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll released Tuesday.

The Economic Optimism Index dropped to a year low of 45.1 in December from 48.6 in November, the second straight decline, with sentiment among Democrats falling by 8.2 points to 65.6.

Republican economic sentiment, which hit a record low right after the Nov. 6 vote, dipped 1.1 points to a new low of 23.7 in December. Readings below 50 indicate pessimism.

"Consumer confidence is driven largely by party affiliation," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelli gence, which conducted the poll.

Given the wide partisan disparity, a truer indicator could be how independents feel, he added. They turned slightly gloomier too, slipping to 42.3 from 44.

An earlier run-up in sentiment was first led by Democrats in September, when the successful presidential convention boosted re-election prospects and brightened their views on the economy. The index advanced further in October as Mitt Romney's strong debate performance lifted Republican sentiment.

But the election brought the index back down. A separate survey Tuesday also found it devastated hopes among small-business owners worried about regulation and ObamaCare costs.

The National Federation of Independent Business' sentiment gauge dropped 5.6 points to 87.5 last month, the lowest since March 2010. The share of small businesses positive about the economic outlook fell from a net 2% to a deeply pessimistic -35%.

Clueless Caroline Loves Her Some Uruguayan Homosexuals

Professor Caroline Heldman tweeted on the vote of Uruguay's lower house for homosexual marriage. I'm thinking BFD, right? So I tweeted her, and she tweets back calling U.S. marriage traditionalists "knuckledraggers":

@ampowerblog Knuckle draggers in the states indeed!
— Caroline Heldman (@carolineheldman) December 12, 2012

Not so sure about this lady's intelligence. I was being facetious. And Uruguay is hardly the model of progressive politics. But that's lame-brain leftism for you.

And recall from 2009: "Professor Caroline Heldman Clueless on Politics of Town Halls."

CARTOON CREDIT: Legal Insurrection.

Anne Hathaway Wardrobe Malfunction at New York Premier of 'Les Misérables'

At the Los Angeles Times, "Anne Hathaway gets revealing at NYC premiere of 'Les Miserables'."

And London's Daily Mail, "'They saw everything!': Anne Hathaway left 'devastated' after she's embarrassingly pictured without underwear."

Well, she should probably wear some undies to cover up those private parts.

Added: "'Les Miserables' | New York premiere," and "Did Matt Lauer go too far with Anne Hathaway upskirt quip?"

Plus, "Anne Hathaway strikes a blow for an underwear-free America."

'Who's Paying Your Salary?'

I actually flipped over to MSNBC late last night and caught part of this, and it was bizarre.

At NewsBusters, "Unhinged Chris Matthews Berates Conservative Guest 13 Times: 'Who's Paying Your Salary?'"

Taxes Are Already Higher Than You Think

From Edward Prescott and Lee Ohanian, at the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama argues that the election gave him a mandate to raise taxes on high earners, and the White House indicates that he won't compromise on this issue as the so-called fiscal cliff approaches.

But tax rates are already high—much higher than is commonly understood—and increasing them will likely further depress the economy, especially by affecting the number of hours Americans work.

Taking into account all taxes on earnings and consumer spending—including federal, state and local income taxes, Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, excise taxes, and state and local sales taxes—Edward Prescott has shown (especially in the Quarterly Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2004) that the U.S. average marginal effective tax rate is around 40%. This means that if the average worker earns $100 from additional output, he will be able to consume only an additional $60.

Research by others (including Lee Ohanian, Andrea Raffo and Richard Rogerson in the Journal of Monetary Economics, 2008, and Edward Prescott in the American Economic Review, 2002) indicates that raising tax rates further will significantly reduce U.S. economic activity and by implication will increase tax revenues only a little.

High tax rates—on both labor income and consumption—reduce the incentive to work by making consumption more expensive relative to leisure, for example. The incentive to produce goods for the market is particularly depressed when tax revenue is returned to households either as government transfers or transfers-in-kind—such as public schooling, police and fire protection, food stamps, and health care—that substitute for private consumption.

Continue reading.

Actually, other economic research says tax rates are considerably higher than that, particularly in California. See: "Ezra Klein: Yesterday's Revenue Can't Support Tomorrow's America."

The Face of Britain's Decline

From Dave Blount, at Right Wing News, "Leanna Broderick":

Even as once great Britain’s eyes go dim, life is still good for the freeloaders who are bleeding it to death...

Continue reading.

Democrats Seek Delay of ObamaCare Medical Device Tax

Hey, suck it up idiot progs.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Senate Democrats Seek Delay in Medical-Device Tax":

A group of 17 Democratic U.S. senators and senators-elect have signed a letter urging for a delay in implementing a tax on the medical-device industry that is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, said two people familiar with the matter.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and said the “the medical device industry has received little guidance about how to comply with the tax–causing significant uncertainty and confusion for businesses.” It requested a delay be included in the bill Congress is negotiating to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

The Democrats’ support could give new momentum to the industry’s intense lobbying campaign to repeal or delay the 2.3% tax on device sales, which companies say will hurt profits and lead to U.S. job losses. However, they face a battle because other Democrats, as well as the White House, oppose any postponement.

And see Geoffrey Norman, at the Weekly Standard, "Special Treatment."

'Deck the Halls'

Via Theo Spark:

Reader Comment

I get some comments on Blogger for some reason, despite having moved to Disqus. I publish if they're not troll spammers:

My dad, Sgt. George W. Engram, Jr. Enlisted at the age of 34 and was assigned to the 320th. He never talked much about his active duty until I pinned him down and asked about it so I could fill out that section in the family bible. I'm glad I did. He died in 1995, but I know he would be glad to know that their contributions are appreciated.

-- Michellle on "The 320th Antiaircraft Barrage Balloon Battalion on D-Day."

You're 'Going to Die Painfully...'

This is why they're called thugs.

At Twitchy, "You’re ‘going to die painfully’: Gov. Snyder faces threats, death wishes over Mich. right-to-work bills; Update: Threat to kill Snyder’s family appears."

Bill Whittle at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend 2012

This is fifteen minutes long and I only first found time for it yesterday during office hours. It's well worth it when you have a chance.

Big Labor Eliminationism in Lansing

From James Taranto, at WSJ, "'There Will Be Blood'."

As union violence escalates, Mich. House Dems delete tweet promising 'there will be blood' bit.ly/T56BoJ
— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) December 11, 2012

As the Michigan House debated a right-to-work measure today, a member of that august body warned of--or perhaps threatened--violence. "We're going to pass something that will undo 100 years of labor relations and there will be blood, there will be repercussions," WWJ-AM quotes Rep. Doug Geiss, a Detroit-area Democrat, as saying. "We will re-live the battle of the overpass."

The station offers a refresher in labor history: "The battle of the overpass was a bloody fracas in 1937 between union organizers and Ford Motor Co. security guards. [United Auto Workers organizer] Walter Reuther was famously thrown down a flight of stairs and another union organizer was left with a broken back."

So far this time there are no reports of violence or threats by management (unless you count Geiss, who is after all supposed to represent taxpayers, as part of "management" vis-à-vis government employees). But union leaders have echoed the violent rhetoric. WWJ quotes Terry O'Sullivan of the Labor International Union of North America, as saying at a rally, in reference to elected officials who support the right to work: "We are going to take you on and take you out."

MLive.com, a Michigan news site, reports that union thugs "tore down a large tent maintained by American's [sic] For Prosperity Michigan, which reserved the space to support the right-to-work legislation"

More at the link.

Also at Instapundit, "ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Hoffa Predicts ‘Civil War’ in Michigan."

PREVIOUSLY: "#Savage Union Thugs Attack Conservative Steven Crowder in Lansing, Michigan."

#Savage Union Thugs Attack Conservative Steven Crowder in Lansing, Michigan

At Fox News, "Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan."

And at The Other McCain, "BREAKING VIDEO: MI Union Thugs Greet Right-to-Work Law With Thuggery and Cupcakes, But Mostly Thuggery." All the video at that link.

And from Bob Belvedere, "The Naked Face of Leftism: Thug America":

This is exactly the kind of behavior the Left wants to see. Ever since Leftism came into being in the mid-18th Century, they have believed a necessary first step in bringing about Revolution is to sow Chaos in all areas of the society. They want the populace to break into tribes of competing grievance groups. To achieve this, the Left needs many groups from various fields it can count on to do it’s dirty work — bureaucrats, elected officials, academics, etc. These minions of the Masterminds lay the ground work by sabotaging all of the institutions of the Society from within and without, working to pervert and, thus weaken, the existing Culture.

At some point, however, the Leftist Masterminds need to move to the next phase of the march to Revolution: violence. We have entered that phase in the last few years in The United States Of America. Barack Hussein Obama and his comrades have encouraged and nurtured and unleashed forces designed to tear this country apart.

Well, yes, it's classic mob violence.

These are monstrous progressive freaks. More from Dana Loesch, "Donors offers $$$ For Info Leading to Arrest Of Union Thug **UPDATED ONE THUG IDENTIFIED" (at Memoerandum).

IMAGE CREDIT: Instapundit.

Ka Pasasouk, Suspect in Northridge Murders, Got Probation Instead of Prison During Recent Criminal Court Hearing

Lovely.

Our wonderfully humane criminal justice system put this dude up for probation despite a string of previous convictions and court hearings.

At the Los Angeles Times, "D.A.'s office admits letting slaying suspect avoid prison":

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office admitted Monday that its prosecutors erred in allowing a suspect — now accused in the killing of four people in Northridge — to receive drug treatment instead of prison time during a September court hearing.

The suspect, Ka Pasasouk, was in Van Nuys Superior Court after being arrested on suspicion of drug possession. He was on probation at the time, and the L.A. County Probation Department had urged that he be sent back to state prison for "long-term detention" because of his lengthy criminal record.

But prosecutors told the judge that Pasasouk was eligible for a drug diversion program under Proposition 36. The judge ordered him to drug treatment rather than prison.

Two months later, authorities alleged, Pasasouk killed four people outside a home in Northridge.

The district attorney's office said it completed an investigation Monday into how that hearing was handled.

"The review shows that the office inadvertently erred in indicating the defendant was eligible for a Proposition 36 drug program," said district attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons in a statement. "Training issues raised during the review will be addressed by the District Attorney's office countywide."

Gibbons would not comment further or say whether any prosecutors were being disciplined.

Pasasouk is accused of fatally shooting four people Dec. 1 outside a home in the 17400 block of Devonshire Street.

Officials identified the dead as Amanda Ghossein, 24, of Monterey Park; Jennifer Kim, 26, of Montebello; Robert Calabia, 34, of Los Angeles; and Teofilo Navales, 49, of Castaic.

Detectives have not revealed any information about a possible motive. But law enforcement sources told The Times that the killings appeared to have stemmed from a dispute over personal property, including a computer.

Proposition 36 was a voter-approved ballot measure meant to send some nonviolent drug offenders into drug rehab rather than prison.

Progressive crime policy getting people killed. Who would have thunk it?

Continue reading.

Worker Liberation in Michigan

At the Wall Street Journal:

The economic policy drift in Washington is antigrowth, but here and there in the states are glimmers of hope and change. The best news of late is in Michigan, which is poised this week to pass a landmark right-to-work law.

You can tell this is a big deal based on the fury of Big Labor's reaction. Union activists plan to descend on Lansing Tuesday to protest, including many from out of state. State police will have to be on duty to ensure that legislators can get through what is likely to be a loud and abusive cordon of activists who want to block the vote.

This thuggishness is a deliberate and familiar union political strategy: Cause as big a ruckus as possible in hopes of making right to work seem radical when it's already the law in nearly half the country.

We hope Republicans and Governor Rick Snyder aren't intimidated, because they have the moral and policy high ground. Union activists want voters to believe that right-to-work laws deny union organizing rights, or ban collective bargaining. President Obama peddled this distortion on Monday in Redford, Michigan, claiming that "what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions."

Right to work does no such thing. It empowers individual workers. As allowed under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, right to work merely lets individual workers choose for themselves if they want to join a union. The laws prevent closed union shops, which coerce individual workers to join unions and to pay union dues. A teacher who opts out under right to work, for example, could save several hundred dollars in annual union dues that go to political causes he may not even believe in...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!

Boy, that sounds awful scary, if you're a union boss, that is.

More at the link.

Oh, and speaking of scared, here's Rich Yeselson at the American Prospect, "This Is Not Wisconsin. It's Worse" (which as this post was scheduled, was drawing enough traffic to crash the site, so see Digby's Hullabaloo).

Shopping Daiso

My son needed to pick up a case for his pencils last week, at Daiso Irvine. It's a Japanese "dollar store" except everything's priced at $1.50 or less.

The O.C. Weekly reports, "Daiso Is Dollar Shopping, Japan-Style."

Bill O'Reilly Confronting Evil

An outstanding "Talking Points Memo" from yesterday's O'Reilly Factor. And both Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams are excellent:

Epic Loser Walter James Casper III 'Isn't a Very Effective User' of Twitter

Via Robert Stacy McCain:

@ampowerblog The troll to whom you refer isn't a very effective user anyway: 10,000+ messages, < 300 followers.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 10, 2012

Alas, "troll rights" harassment stalker Repsac3 is only "effective" in his own mind, the f-king narcissistic #p2 asshole.

PREVIOUSLY: "Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt," and "Obama Administration Pushing for Implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 Prohibiting Criticism of Islam."

A Breakthrough Against Leukemia Using Altered T-Cells

I love this story, at the New York Times, "In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia":

PHILIPSBURG, Pa. — Emma Whitehead has been bounding around the house lately, practicing somersaults and rugby-style tumbles that make her parents wince.

It is hard to believe, but last spring Emma, then 6, was near death from leukemia. She had relapsed twice after chemotherapy, and doctors had run out of options.

Desperate to save her, her parents sought an experimental treatment at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, one that had never before been tried in a child, or in anyone with the type of leukemia Emma had. The experiment, in April, used a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS to reprogram Emma’s immune system genetically to kill cancer cells.

The treatment very nearly killed her. But she emerged from it cancer-free, and about seven months later is still in complete remission. She is the first child and one of the first humans ever in whom new techniques have achieved a long-sought goal — giving a patient’s own immune system the lasting ability to fight cancer.

My god that is so wonderful. Research is closing in on a cure, or so it seems. And that's in American hospitals, it should be noted.

RTWT.

'The idea is to intimidate all of us into silence...'

Yes it is, at Patterico, "Stacy McCain on Cyberstalking."

RELATED: At Popehat, "Update On Defense of Patterico."

PREVIOUSLY: "Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt."

Early Tuesday Rule 5

Via Theo Spark:

More here.

Coping With Existential Angst

I think Robert Stacy McCain is much too modest, but if you're going to emulate someone, you'd hardly choose better than AoSHQ.

See: "The Neitzschean Existential Angst of Blogging in the Same Sphere as Ace."

Greg Gutfeld Slams 'Gangnam Style' Anti-American Rapper

You'll get a laugh, despite how serious this is:

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Daughters Meet Psy the 'Gangnam Style' Troop-Kill Rapper," and "Joe Biden Photographed With Anti-American 'Gangnam Style' Rapper."

Victoria's Secret Model Erin Heatherton Shows Off Bikini Body During St. Barts Photo Shoot

Boy, seems like the folks at Victoria's Secret never take a time out.

A great pictorial, in any case, at London's Daily Mail, "A polka dot bikini has never looked go good! Erin Heatherton sizzles in playful look as she models Victoria's Secret swimwear in St Barts."

A Nation of Takers Hurtles Toward the Fiscal Abyss

From Bruce Thornton, at FrontPage Magazine:

The on-going negotiations over avoiding the tax hikes and spending cuts we call the “fiscal cliff” are the simply the latest act in a farce of self-serving political denial. For decades now both parties have overseen and nurtured the expansion of the entitlement state all the while ignoring the slow-motion economic implosion whose predictable end can be seen today in a bankrupt Greece currently surviving on EU handouts. But American voters and politicians are so marinated in expectations of endless federal and state largess that modest reductions in spending, such as those proposed earlier this year by Congressman Paul Ryan, are attacked as draconian “cuts” that will “shred” the safety net and throw millions into Dickensian penury.

And make no mistake. The “cliff” might not be reached in January, even without a deal. But it’s still waiting down the road. Baby Boomers, 75 million strong, are retiring at a rate of 200,000 a month, and they can expect to live on average until 84 if they make it to the retirement age of 65. The two big drivers of entitlement spending, Social Security and Medicare, weren’t designed to transfer money to retirees for so long, or pay for artificial knees and hips for Boomers who want to be active in their 70s and 80s. If left unreformed, spending just on Social Security and Medicare will eat up 14% of GDP in 40 years, necessitating even more federal borrowing than the 40 cents currently borrowed for every dollar the feds spend. That’s not a cliff, that’s an economic abyss.

Reining in entitlement spending, then, is the major problem that everybody needs to focus on. And a good place to start is Nicholas Eberstadt’s A Nation of Takers. Eberstadt’s grim documentation of the reckless expansion of what he calls the “vast and colossal empire of entitlement payments that it [the state] protects, manages, and finances,” and his analysis of the ill effects such transfers have had on the American character should be read by everyone serious about the fiscal threats to our way of life.

Redistributing wealth through programs like income maintenance, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance has become the federal government’s most important function. This development would have astonished the Founders, who codified national security and defense as the national government’s primary role. And this momentous shift has led to an accelerating number of Americans on some sort of dole. In the early 1980s, 30% of Americans received at least one government benefit. By 2011 just over 49% were. The costs of this increase have accelerated as well. In 1960, entitlement spending by government at all levels was $24 billion in today’s dollars. In 2011, the cost was almost $2.2 trillion. As Eberstadt glumly prophesizes, we are heading for “the day in which entitlement spending comes to exceed all other activities of all levels and branches of the U.S. government.”

The costs of such profligacy, however, are more than economic. These wealth transfers have had deleterious effects on traditional American character. Observers of the American character traditionally had remarked on what Eberstadt describes as a “fierce and principled independence” and “proud self-reliance.” This independence extended to financial self-reliance as well. Americans “viewed themselves as accountable for their own situation through their own achievements in an environment bursting with opportunity,” Eberstadt writes, and had “an affinity for personal enterprise and industry” and a “horror of dependency and contempt for anything that smacked of a mendicant mentality.” Accepting help or handouts was considered “an affront to their dignity and independence.” These are the strengths of character and virtue that have created the richest, freest, and most powerful nation in world history. But the federal government’s ever- increasing handouts––which these days are not considered signs of shame, but deserved legal and civil rights––are eroding these virtues.

Yeah, those virtues have been circling the drain for some time. And the Obama-Socialists have been all too happy to apply the plunger to accelerate the flushing action.

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "In Progressive America Virtue Has No Value."

Billy Corgan Interview on CBS News This Morning

A very interesting piece. Corgan is articulate and funny.

See: "Billy Corgan on 'The Smashing Pumpkins' New Album."

Morsi Imposes Martial Law in Egypt

At Weasel Zippers, "Egypt: Morsi Imposes Martial Law In Run Up To Constitutional Referendum…"

This RT video has the developments from over the weekend. And see Barry Rubin, "A Turning Point in Egypt: Not on Direction But on the Speed of Islamist Transformation."

Australian DJs Apologize

I've already weighed in on this, although AoSHQ has quite a different perspective, "Nurse Commits Suicide Because Evil, Murderous Radio DJs Pulled a Deadly Prank."

The apology video is here: "Aussie DJ: Any Role in Death Is 'gut-wrenching'."

George Will: 'Quite Literally, the Opposition to Gay Marriage is Dying...'

Well, I'm not whistling past the boneyard quite yet, but Will's not far off the mark on this. The question, which he raises, is whether enough states so far have used the democratic process to expand the homosexual right the marry. We still have roughly 42 states where marriage remains between one man and one woman, so it's still early despite appearances otherwise, and the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to favor the radical left's agenda in any case. But if I were to bet, Will's thesis would get good odds.

Althouse has more, "'Conservative Pundits: Accepting Same-Sex Marriage Is Common Sense'." (At Memeorandum.)

PREVIOUSLY: "Kennedy and Scalia Likely at Odds on Homosexual Rights."

Kennedy and Scalia Likely at Odds on Homosexual Rights

Well, this is pretty much exactly what I argued on Friday.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court showdown expected over gay rights decisions." Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, both 76 years-old, will be battling it out:

The two have much in common. Born in 1936, they graduated from high school in the early 1950s and excelled at Harvard Law School, where they were a year apart. They were Republicans who rose through the legal ranks. When appointed to the court, both bought homes in McLean, Va.

They agree on much. Both voted to strike down President Obama's healthcare law as an overreach by the government. Scalia joined Kennedy's majority opinion in the Citizens United case that freed corporate and union spending on political ads.

But Kennedy, the libertarian, and Scalia, the social conservative, clash fiercely over the court's role in deciding moral controversies.

The two split 20 years ago when the court's conservative bloc was poised to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion. Though personally opposed to abortion, Kennedy switched sides in spring 1992 and cast a crucial vote to uphold a woman's right to choose. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," Kennedy wrote.

In the past, Scalia has accused Kennedy of having "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Scalia is likely to have the votes of fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and probably Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to uphold state and federal laws that exclude gays from marriage.

But Kennedy has the much stronger hand. He ranks third in seniority after the chief justice and Scalia, and he has four liberal justices on his left. Because the senior member of the majority decides who writes the opinion, Kennedy could decide who writes the opinions if he votes with the liberals. And he could take the assignment for himself.

His past writings provide clues as to how he might see the issue.

In a New York case, the justices will decide whether the federal government can deny legally married same-sex couples the benefits that go with marriage. These include filing joint tax returns and receiving survivors benefits from Social Security.

Gay rights advocates challenged this exclusion in the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory, and they have won rulings from judges in New England, New York and Northern California.

Kennedy is likely to agree with the challengers, and he explained why in 1996, the same year Congress passed the marriage act. The court then faced a Colorado voter measure that repealed gay rights ordinances in several cities. Kennedy spoke for the court in striking it down. He said that the measure was "born of animosity" toward gays, he said, and that the Constitution "prohibits laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships."

If Kennedy and the court strike down the federal benefits provision of the marriage act, it would be a major victory for gay rights, but it would not affect the 41 states where same-sex marriage is forbidden.

The California case on Proposition 8 could be far more significant because it involves the right to marry. Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who led the challenge, plan to argue broadly that marriage is a fundamental right and that excluding gay couples from marriage denies them the equal protection of the law.

A Kennedy-Scalia clash from a decade ago gives a preview. When two gay men challenged a Texas anti-sodomy law, Kennedy wrote a glowing opinion taking their side. "They are entitled to respect for their private lives," he said, and "the state cannot demean" them by treating them as second-class citizens.

In a moment of high drama, Kennedy gave a professorial reading of his opinion on the last day of the court term in 2003. When he finished, Scalia's voice cut through the room as he delivered an angry dissent.

Kennedy's opinion left the laws against same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," Scalia said at the time. "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?"

That's the question now before the court in the California case.

More at the New York Times, "Sidebar: Court Enters Same-Sex Fray With Uncharacteristic Speed" (via Memeorandum).

Obama Daughters Meet Psy the 'Gangnam Style' Troop-Kill Rapper

Utterly amazing, at Twitchy, "Killer photo op: Obama and daughters meet U.S. troop-slay rapper PSY."

Some of the dude's lyrics, via Weasel Zippers:

Kill those f-king Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives.
Kill those f-king Yankees who ordered them to torture.
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers.
Kill them all slowly and painfully.

Lovely, isn't it?

Previously: "Joe Biden Photographed With Anti-American 'Gangnam Style' Rapper."

America Nears the Demographic Tipping Point

Ann Coulter's essay, how shall we say?, spilled the frijoles, at FrontPage Magazine, "'America reaches el tipping pointo'":

I apologize to America’s young people, whose dashed dreams and dim employment prospects I had laughed at, believing these to be a direct result of their voting for Obama.

On closer examination, it turns out that young voters, aged 18-29, overwhelmingly supported Romney. But only the white ones.

According to Pew Research, 54 percent of white voters under 30 voted for Romney and only 41 percent for Obama. That’s the same percentage Reagan got from the entire white population in 1980. Even the Lena Dunham demographic — white women under 30 — slightly favored Romney.

Reagan got just 43 percent of young voters in 1980 — and that was when whites were 88 percent of the electorate. Only 58 percent of today’s under-30 vote is white and it’s shrinking daily.

What the youth vote shows is not that young people are nitwits who deserve lives of misery and joblessness, as I had previously believed, but that America is hitting the tipping point on our immigration policy.

The youth vote is a snapshot of elections to come if nothing is done to reverse the deluge of unskilled immigrants pouring into the country as a result of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act. Eighty-five percent of legal immigrants since 1968 have come from the Third World. A majority of them are in need of government assistance.

Whites are 76 percent of the electorate over the age of 30 and only 58 percent of the electorate under 30. Obama won the “youth vote” because it is the knife’s edge of a demographic shift, not because he offered the kids free tuition and contraception (which they don’t need because it’s hard to have sex when you’re living with your parents at 27).

In 1980, Hispanics were only 2 percent of the population, and they tended to be educated, skilled workers who got married, raised their children in two-parent families and sent their kids to college before they, too, got married and had kids. (In that order.)

That profile has nothing to do with recent Hispanic immigrants, who — because of phony “family reunification” rules — are the poorest of the world’s poor.

More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks.

That’s a lot of government dependents coming down the pike. No amount of “reaching out” to the Hispanic community, effective “messaging” or Reagan’s “optimism” is going to turn Mexico’s underclass into Republicans.

Any election analysis that doesn’t deal with the implacable fact of America’s changing demographics is bound to be wrong.

Perhaps the reason elections maven Michael Barone was so shockingly off in his election prediction this year was that, in the biggest mistake of his career, Barone has been assuring us for years that most of these Third World immigrants pouring into the country would go the way of Italian immigrants and become Republicans. They’re hardworking! They have family values!

Maybe at first, but not after coming here, having illegitimate children and going on welfare.

More at that top link.

Meanwhile, Coulter sent the progs into fevered apoplexy. See: "Ann Coulter Attacks Latinos In Column, As Conservatives Seek To Reach Out To Hispanic Voters."

Progressives Outraged That Kansas School Reforms Include 'American Exceptionalism'

Well, that's a shocker.

At Weasel Zippers, "Libs Outraged Nebraska Students to Be Taught … (Gasp) … “American Exceptionalism”…"

Following the links takes us to Mother Jones. The debate's also on the instruction of climate change theory, to which this commenter responds:

Climate change is real and its irrelevant who or what caused it. Get with the program and accept that regardless of time, we need to educate the next generation (the ones left to deal with it) on what we know about the science of weather and its global effects on their future living environment.

Get with the program. You'll be educated one way, the only way!

Besides, you'll wind up in a shallow grave no matter what happens, so shape up now and with luck the left's NKVD jackboots will give you some gravy with your rations before your number's up.

Obama Administration Pushing for Implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 Prohibiting Criticism of Islam

Of course, if you're a deranged progressive denialist like "troll rights" hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, this could never happen in the United States.

From Nathaniel Sugarman, at American Thinker, "Fatal Attraction: U.S. Flirts with International Speech Codes."

Guard free speech, but accurately identify what is and is not a threat to it: In the USA, this isn't: youtu.be/Zhp32UYp2UI via @youtube
— J. Casper (@repsac3) November 26, 2012

This week, the United States meets with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in London to discuss whether speaking about religion can violate international law. The meeting represents round three of the "Istanbul Process," an effort Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched in July 2011 in the eponymous Turkish city. The initiative's goal is to implement non-binding UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which itself calls for the criminalization of various forms of speech concerning religion. The OIC, an association of 56 Islamic member states and the Palestinian Authority, represents the largest voting bloc in the United Nations.

The renewed Istanbul Process talks come just a month after a UN official urged the United States to combat racism by adopting a "solid legal framework" for regulating internet speech. In a November 5, 2012 address to the General Assembly, UN Special Rapporteur Mutama Ruteere recommended that countries take steps to combat "racial hatred," which include adopting "legislative measures" to address the problem. These measures, according the rapporteur, should be in compliance with "international human rights standards." Special Rapporteurs are UN-appointed officials assigned to research a particular issue and report back to the organization with their findings. In his report, Mr. Ruteere specifically identified the United States as a country that should consider new legislation targeting internet hate speech.

Why should the United States be concerned with the rapporteur's recommendations regarding internet speech regulation? After all, "freedom of expression and opinion," according to the report, should not be impeded by any of the new proposed "measures." And why be concerned about the Istanbul Process? It seems to merely condemn incitement, which the United States does not protect in any case.

An answer requires closer examination of the terms of art used by the respective parties.

Resolution 16/18 calls for criminalization of "incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief," and it "condemns... any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." At first glance, this language does not seem restrictive; even in the U.S., incitement is not a protected form of speech. The issue is the respective ways in which the U.S. and the OIC define "incitement." U.S. Courts use a content-based test to determine whether speech is incitement (See: Brandenburg v. Ohio). Brandenburg, which is still the law, ruled that in order for speech to be unprotected as incitement, the speech must (1) intend to produce imminent lawless action, and must be (2) likely to produce such action. In other words, there is both a subjective and objective prong, both concerning the speech itself. By contrast, the OIC endorses a "test of consequences," which punishes speech based not on its content, but based on the result. This is a completely subjective test, and fails to consider the words uttered by the speaker, focusing only on the reaction of others. How would this play out in practice? Violence claimed to be in response to cartoons of Muhammad, could, under the OIC's definition, retroactively define the cartoons as incitement. Surely, this framework is in direct conflict with U.S. law.

The rapporteur's suggestions regarding internet hate speech regulation also conflict with U.S. law upon closer examination....

The Istanbul Process and the move to regulate internet speech, in addition to creating conflicts between U.S. and international law, also represent a departure from the policies of past U.S. administrations.

Well, of course this administration's seeking a fundamental transformation of the United States, and that includes its relationship to the Muslim world, so who should be surprised? Not Abigail Esman, it turns out, last December at Forbes, "Could You Be a Criminal? U.S. Supports U.N. Anti-Free Speech Measure":

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

Well, we won't have lost the heart of what progressives are. They're the ones pushing for these kinds of speech restrictions, despite what pathological liars and "troll rights" stalkers might say otherwise.

PREVIOUSLY: "The End of Freedom of Expression in the West."

Krazy Jim's

See this great post from Althouse, "'The passage of right-to-work legislation in the state House and Senate may have Lansing in turmoil...'":

"... but residents of Ann Arbor learned yesterday of a more immediate concern."

It's Krazy Jim's Blimpy Burger in Ann Arbor, closing in Summer 2013. But read it all at the link.

The Wall Street Journal's Top 10 Videos of 2012

This is pretty interesting, and I watched a couple of these when they were out at the time.

See: "WSJ's Top 10 Most Viewed Videos of the Year."

XM Shock Jock Anthony Cumia Boasts About How Everybody Wants to 'Throw a Banging to McKayla Maroney'

Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney turned seventeen yesterday, still a minor in California where she lives. But that didn't stop the "Opie and Anthony" radio host from bragging about how anyone like himself would love to "bang" her:

Any guy is lying if he says he wouldn't throw a banging to McKayla Maroney.The dishonesty in USA2012 is nauseating.
— Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) December 9, 2012

And there were lots more vile tweets where that came from, for example:

I want 2 apologize 2 McKayla Maroney & especially 2 her hymen. I didn't realize this thin membrane in her vagina was so important 2 her fans
— Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) December 10, 2012

Twitchy has the background, "Sick: ‘Opie and Anthony’ co-host tweets about breaking McKayla Maroney’s hymen; Update: talk show host doubles down."

No doubt Scott Eric Kaufman will be all over this story. Carl Salonen too!

Michigan Madness: Thousands Plan to Lay Siege on State Capitol on Tuesday Over Right-to-Work

From Labor Union Report:

Oh brother. These people are freakin' anarcho-commies.

And there's more at Huffington Post, "Unions Vow Political Payback on Michigan Right-to-Work Legislation."

'Zero Dark Thirty' Aims for Authenticity and History

Hey, "Hurt Locker" was very good. I'm looking forward to this one.

At LAT, "'Zero Dark Thirty' hunts for Bin Laden -- and more."

In 2008, the screenwriter Mark Boal sought an appointment with a retired special-forces operator. Boal was researching a movie about the fruitless search for Osama bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora six years before, and he wanted insight into how U.S. forces gathered intelligence.

The agent agreed to meet, but under strict conditions. Boal would be kept in the dark about where the encounter would take place until just before, when he'd be given directions, via GPS, to what turned out to be a gas station. The meeting would be brief, and there would be no guarantee of an information exchange.

"I showed up and there's this guy by the pump wearing sunglasses," Boal recalled in an interview. "And the first thing he said was, 'Give me a good reason why I should talk to you.' And I'm like, 'Well, nice to meet you too, sir.'" Boal eventually cultivated other sources, acknowledging that as a Hollywood screenwriter it isn't always easy emulating Bob Woodward.'

The zigzag-y process that began at the gas station culminates in the groundbreaking "Zero Dark Thirty," Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow's searing dramatization of a different U.S. mission to target Bin Laden that ended successfully last year in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

When Sony Pictures releases the tense, dense movie on Dec. 19, "Zero Dark Thirty" likely will take its place alongside classics of war cinema such as "The Dirty Dozen," "Apocalypse Now" and "Saving Private Ryan" while simultaneously redefining the form. Few Hollywood action thrillers have contained so many documentary-style aspirations to truth and urgency — and so quickly after an epochal event, to boot.

And never before has a stone-cold-serious American war drama featured a woman both behind the camera and at its center.

"Zero Dark Thirty," in other words, could well stand at the vanguard of a new genre: the viscerally human but post-feminist (and post-political) war film.

Continue reading.

Joe Biden Photographed With Anti-American 'Gangnam Style' Rapper

Gaffe-tastic!

At Twitchy, "Joe Biden poses for photo with PSY." And Demi Lovato's Twitpic page.

The K-Pop star who once advocated killing and torturing American soldiers and their family members was photographed tonight alongside the Vice President of the United States.

Makes sense, I guess. The Democrats are the anti-American party.

See also Scared Monkeys, "Before there was “Gangnam Style”, Rap Singer Psy had Anti-American Military style … “Dear American” Song “Kill those f***ing Yankees” … To Perform for President Obama for a Christmas In Washington (Update: Psy with Weak Apology)."

Shoot, "Kill Those F***ing Yankees"? That's practically a 2007 campaign speech from Barack Obama. He was basically rooting for a U.S. defeat in Iraq, for all the same pure political justifications that have marked his "Gutsy Call" presidency.

These people are epic anti-American clowns.

UPDATE: Christian Toto at Big Government has more, "VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN POSES WITH ANTI-AMERICAN RAPPER PSY":

Had President-elect Mitt Romney posed for pictures with someone who once wished violent death upon the family members of U.S. soldiers the story would be swirling through the mainstream media for days. Maybe longer.

Vice President Joe Biden did just that earlier today, but don't expect it to make much noise in traditional media circles.

It's okay, they're Democrats. Gotta maintain the narrative, you know?

Progressives Can Just FOAD

From Zilla of the Resistance:

They have the "right" to FOAD, that's about it. MT @ampowerblog Plz RT is.gd/g5vl80 #TrollRights #SpeedwayBomber #GoonSquad #TCOT
— Zilla Stevenson (@ZillaStevenson) December 9, 2012

And from 20011 at AmPower: "Zilla of the Resistance! — 'Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win'."

Plus, R.S. McCain's updated: "‘At a Time of My Choosing’."

PREVIOUSLY: "Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt." (With a detailed discussion of progressive hate-troll Walter James Casper III.)

Top Five Fox News Blogger Picks From Aleister at American Glob

Check it out: "Five Bloggers I’d Like to See on FOX News."

Both Althouse and Instapundit are mentioned, plus others you're undoubtedly familiar with.

Michelle Malkin's a blogger and appears regularly on Fox. We need lots more like her.

A Public Service Message for America's Youth

From Doug Ross, "Here's How You're Being Ripped Off."

Overdue Sunday Rule 5

I think I'll take a break from troll blogging.

Here's some Rule 5, from First Street Journal, "Rule 5 Blogging: Haute Couture."

Also at American by Birth, "Rule 5 Friday."

And at Pirate's Cove, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and TCOTs, "Rule 5 Saturday."

More from The Daley Gator, "DaleyBabe Bahara Golestani and a Rule Five Feast!"

And Wirecutter has "Good Morning." (Very good!)

Now at Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart (on Friday)."

At Guns and Bikinis, "Cute Babe/Hot Bikini." And Proof Positive, "Friday Night Babe: Courtney Henggeler!"

More at TrogloPundit, "Whatever you do, don’t show this to Stacy McCain." And at The Hostages, "Big Boob Friday."

Reaganite Republican gets political, "Red Hot Conservative Chicks."

And Theo Spark has the nighttime treat, "Bonus Totty..."

I don't do these link-arounds as much any more, so if I missed your blog, just leave your links in the comments and I'll add your entries.

Added: From Subject to Change, "The View From Above."

Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt

At The Other McCain, "June 3: Bill Schmalfeldt Begins Cyberstalking Aaron Walker."

Schmalfeldt began trolling Aaron Worthing shortly after the latter published his magnum opus on Brett Kimberlin's legal harassment. Robert has screenshots of some of Schmalfeldt's tweets, and he writes:

this is liberal grouch, serial block an report abuser. Stalking me again @ The_Book_Jerk (remove the space)
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) December 9, 2012

What was Schmalfeldt seeking? Some way to discredit Walker, to create a narrative in which Kimberlin could be portrayed as the victim.

This is the “accuse the accusers” motif that has added layers of unnecessary confusion to this story: By a sort of narrative ju-jitsu — minimizing the deliberate harmfulness of Kimberlin’s actions, while depicting his targets as unethical, selfish or motivated by purposes of political revenge — the “accuse the accusers” strategy creates a false equivalence between victim and victimizer. This method of online obfuscation is effective because few people (including law enforcement officials and judges) have the patience necessary to trace the conflict to its origins, nor do they seem willing to contextualize any particular aspect of the conflict by studying it as part of an overall pattern of behavior.

Schmalfeldt began his involvement by declaring to Melissa Brewer (@catsrimportant) — an ally of Kimberlin and Rauhauser — that he wanted coverage of the Walker case not written by “some right-wing shithead.” He then started to hector Walker, questioning whether the convicted bomber Kimberlin had done anything threatening. Schmalfeldt offered as his motive his “strong views about the First Amendment.”

Keep in mind that, on May 20, Schmalfeldt evidently got himself banned from Daily Kos, where he’d been a diarist less than six months. Schmalfeldt’s stint as a blogger at the Examiner was terminated May 2, after he was accused of abusive conduct toward fellow Examiner contributor Joe Newby. (Shmalfeldt resurfaced June 22 as Examiner columnist “Bill Matthews,” only to be terminated again Aug. 6 after his deception was discovered.) His “strong views about the First Amendment,” we may suppose, involve Schmalfeldt’s antisocial belief that he should be able to say anything to anyone in other people’s privately-owned online space, without regard for the proprietors’ rules or even basic human decency. (See “Bill Schmalfeldt: Too Disgusting For Daily Kos,” Nov. 25, by Lee Stranahan.)

That sounds familiar. Progressive stalking trolls claim a "free speech right" to harass someone even after they have been told repeatedly to cease and desist. This is why I reported Walter James Casper III to the authorities: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." As we've seen for some time, progressives have quite a different view of how free speech works, the most important manifestation being the notion that left-wing free speech includes the right to suppress political views that contradict the left's radical agenda.

For example, when I posted on Pamela Geller's new SOIA campaign yesterday, I linked the hideous left-wing fascist website "The Animal." The pigs there exhorted their readers to take their spray cans to the subways to deface Pamela's advertisements, with the reminder, "you know what to do." And right on cue, criminal harasser Repsac3 found "The Animal" links here and promptly put out his endorsement of that brown-shirted vandalism on Twitter, even quoting approvingly the method of the hate-fueled revisionist attack:

"Any war between man is savage." fb.me/1MVgYq1VJ
— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 8, 2012

Clearly these are not the tweets of someone committed to the free flow of ideas. Like Bill Schmalfeldt, Repsac3 does not go away, even after the authorities have been alerted to his criminal activities. I've blocked him at every turn, here at the blog's new comment system and on Twitter. And I've exposed his obsessive email stalking campaign and provided evidence of those attacks to the police. Even after all of that --- even after the hate-addled Repsac declared that I'd "won the Internet" --- this clinically-deranged asshole still can't keep away, he just can't let it go. His putrid attack-and-harassment blog is still up and running, now being updated daily by the flaming bunghole baker-boy Kevin "Rim-Station" Robbins.

And we know why. Like those of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser axis, Walter James Casper III is marinated in progressive evil, and he too believes that harassing those who speak truth to the radical left agenda is simply just one more acceptable element of the vicious drive to maintain Democrat-Socialist power. These people will stop at nothing. It's no coincidence that Repsac3 was a ringleader for the attacks on my workplace, coordinating his actions with Carl Salonen, and widely endorsing and facilitating the harassment by others, such as the notorious dirtbag (O)CT(O)PUS, a.k.a. David Hillman, the f-king perverted proprietor of The Swash Zone.

Robert Stacy McCain identifies this left-wing pathology as "troll rights":

“Troll Rights” may be an interesting legal concept, but it’s a lousy career strategy. Schmalfeldt entered early June with more than one burnt bridge behind him, and his apparent plan for redemption was to make himself the white knight who would slay the dreaded Aaron Walker dragon that was threatening that noble progressive, Brett Kimberlin.

“The Narcissist as Self-Imagined Hero” — Schmalfeldt isn’t the first such character we’ve encountered. Incapable of accepting responsibility for his own errors and misfortunes, the narcissist instead externalizes blame for his failures, demonizing and scapegoating others. Unwilling or unable to emulate successful people, the narcissist envies them. Viewing success as a zero-sum game, he convinces himself that the game is rigged against him, and that the success of others results from their unfairly taking advantage of the “system,” thus wrongly cheating him out of the rewards and admiration he believes he deserves.

Exactly. Walter James Casper III is another "such character we've encountered." A failed blogger who gets no more than 20 hits a day, he's for years harassed people better than him --- happy and attractive people like Tania Gail --- for no other reason than political disagreement. Repsac3 isn't content to just demonize people and lie about them, he goes so far as to hunt them down and help those launching workplace harassment campaigns. Again and again he's claimed that he will not be rebuffed, that it's his right to ram his noxious opinions down the throats of his enemies. He habituates the comment threads, spiking the football, at all the most reviled progressive attack blogs, from LGM to Sadly No! And it's all just more fun and games. But for the victims, it's online terrorism. Never ---- not once ever ---- has he stood against these attacks. While purportedly all about free speech, he supports trolls and attackers who mount campaigns of online lawfare against political enemies. But take note. Those who ask why bother? Why even deal with people like this, it's not worth your time? Think again. Turning a blind eye to evil simply empowers it by indifference. Robert Stacy McCain has been faced with this question:

Narcissists crave attention, and some people think that the best way to deal with Bill Schmalfeldt is to ignore him. Schmalfeldt started cyberstalking Aaron Walker in June, and I tried to ignore him. It wasn’t until September that his name was first mentioned on this blog. We keep re-learning the same sad lesson:

“It is very easy to decide ‘this isn’t any of my trouble’ and permit vicious behavior. . . . Who wants to get involved? Easier, and surely safer, just to duck one’s head and hide, and hope the danger visits someone else.” – Ace of Spades, May 22

Evil is persistent. Duck your head, shrug your shoulders — “Gosh, too bad what happened to Aaron Walker” — and never mind who will be visited next by this particular specimen of evil. Never mind what innocent person the monsters will choose to victimize, because nobody can be bothered to pay attention to what’s happening.

Head over to Robert's for the full post.

In some ways I've been lucky. I had pro bono legal representation that helped me defend against the literally unimaginable workplace attacks. I'm also a tenured professor with legal protections against the idiot progressives who repeatedly try to have me fired for my conservative beliefs. But from Scott Eric Kaufman to E.D. Kain to Carl Salonen and more, it's been quite the trial. These stupid demons think they can strike me down only to see me emerge stronger and more committed to exposing their deeds. And such moral clarity has only emboldened idiot narcissist Walter James Casper III. He just doesn't know when to quit. Indeed, he can't quit because he's in the grip of a malevolent fever. If he were to vanquish me, silencing my voice, he'd simply notch the victory and move on to his next victim ---- all part of the progressive campaign of demoralization and demonization of right-wing beliefs and traditional values.

This is the scourge of contemporary American politics. These battles are the those at the ramparts of freedom, and often the left has been winning. The lines are clearly drawn and progressive are on the march, but clear-eyed patriots know what's coming and the progressives are overplaying their hands in hubris and conceit.

Never cave to these people. They will not stop their attempts to put you under, but the tide is turning back, little by little, to decency and righteousness. The stakes for our nation have never been higher.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Cartoons."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

More at Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies 12-9-12."

  Cartoon Credit: William Warren.

Nelson Mandela Outed as Communist Party Member After Decades of Denial

Of course he was a Communist. They always lie about their true affiliations. Progressives always lie about their ultimate aims. Their entire ideological program is predicated on deception and propaganda. That's just how these people work.

At Telegraph UK, "Nelson Mandela 'proven' to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial":

A new book claims that, 50 years after he was first accused of being a Communist, Nelson Mandela was a Communist party member after all.

For decades, it was one of the enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government of the time alleged? Or, as he claimed during the infamous 1963 trial that saw him jailed for life, was it simply a smear to discredit him in a world riven by Cold War tensions?

Now, nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best-known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustice perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr Mandela was a Communist party member after all.

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC's military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected "spies" at secret prison camps.

There's lots more at that top link.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

"Needless to say my own 'Why I Hate Barack Hussein Obama' column would not be celebrated as 'daring,' 'honest,' 'bracing,' or 'cathartic.' It would be a hate crime and a symptom of possibly dangerous impulses..."

This is what I hate more than anything else: the hypocrisy, the division of citizens into two classes, the Privileged Class, which has a broad license and range of liberty, and the Disfavored Underclass, whose liberty is sharply restricted...

-- From AoSHQ.

And remember, progs don't like being told how much they suck. But they still suck, and hard.

Ezra Klein: Yesterday's Revenue Can't Support Tomorrow's America

This is a fascinating piece, from the progressive wonder boy, at the Washington Post.

Klein's statistics all seem fine and dandy. He just comes to the wrong conclusion: that taxes must expand rather than spending contract. It's always that way with lefties. The final solution is to engorge government to such levels that all private activity is snuffed out.

While Klein focuses on the degree of taxation as a percentage of GDP, he doesn't consider that the average tax incidence of the individual is already nearing unsustainable levels. We're nearly taxing individuals in blue states at the level of the most generous Scandinavian welfare states. See: "Top Marginal Tax Rate Will Exceed 50% in California, New York, and Hawaii in 2013." California, following the November election, will boast the nation's highest marginal tax rate of 51.9 percent. It's no surprise that California's been bludgeoned by a massive exodus of businesses from the once-Golden State.

In any case, the Ezra Kleins of the world will never learn, for their ideology is one of no restraints, only the never-reached goal of human equality and the perfect resolution of mankind's material needs (in "tomorrow's America"). It is, in another word, Utopianism.

See Victor Davis Hanson for the reality check, at IBD, "Spending, Not Lack of Revenue, Is Real Problem."

Yet Another Batch of Jennifer Nicole Lee Bikini Pics!

That lady is amazing, "Fitness guru Jennifer Nicole Lee struts around in a TINY string bikini... and reads up on diet tips.

PREVIOUSLY: "Oops! She Does it Again! Smokin' Jennifer Nicole Lee Bikini Malfunction in Las Vegas."

Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Families

At the Heritage Foundation, "The Supreme Court’s Challenge: Restore Marriage Decisions to Citizens":

There are many good reasons why citizens in 41 states have said over and over that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. And as ample social science has shown, children tend to do best when reared by their mother and father.

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits the public good.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. State recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing adults to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and their children.

While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and childrearing.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that sees marriage as primarily about emotional bonds or legal privileges. In other words, it is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Same-sex marriage is the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other bonds.

Government should not obscure the truth about marriage by accepting that revisionist view. In redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships, government would weaken marital norms, which would further delink childbearing from marriage and hurt spouses and children—especially the most vulnerable. It would deny a mother or father to a child as a matter of policy.

The harms resulting from redefining marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and force the state’s welfare to grow even more. Citizens would lose more of their freedom of religion and conscience.

More at that top link.

And previously, "Same-Sex Marriage and Marxist Revolutionary Doctrine: Destroy the Family."

Instagram Disables Twitter Card Integration

I noticed this the other day while embedding a tweet, from Nick Bilton at NYT Bits "Twitter Loses Ability to Properly Display Instagram Photos":

Welcome to the Photo Wars.

Instagram on Wednesday disabled the ability for Twitter to properly display Instagram photos on its Web site and in its applications. The move escalates tensions between the two companies, which were once friends in the battle against Facebook but have now become direct competitors.

In a status update on Twitter’s Web site, the company said Instagram had disabled its integration with Twitter cards, which are used to display images and content within Twitter messages.

“Users are experiencing issues with viewing Instagram photos on Twitter,” the post said. “This is due to Instagram disabling its Twitter cards integration, and as a result, photos are being displayed using a pre-cards experience.”

Speaking at the LeWeb technology conference, Kevin Systrom, Instagram’s chief executive, confirmed that the company has removed the ability to send pictures to Twitter, and plans to completely cut off embedding pictures on the Twitter Web site.

“We’ve decided that right now, what makes sense, is to direct our users to the Instagram Web site,” Mr. Systrom said, noting that Instagram images will soon no longer be visible on Twitter. “Obviously things change as a company evolves.”

Mr. Systrom did not say when images will cesase to show up on the site.

Morsi Backs Down — For Now

At the Los Angeles Times, "Egypt's Morsi backs off decree that expanded his power":

CAIRO — In a political reversal to calm weeks of unrest, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi early Sunday rescinded much of last month’s decree that expanded his powers and exposed a dangerous divide between the nation’s Islamists and the mainly secular opposition.

The announcement reverses most of the declaration the Islamist president issued Nov. 22, including putting his office beyond judicial oversight. The peeling away of that power was a major demand of protesters. But Morsi continued to defy the opposition by refusing to cancel a Dec. 15 referendum on a proposed constitution drafted by an Islamist-dominated assembly.

The turnaround by Morsi, who in a national address Thursday had refused to budge on his decree, was a signal that he wanted to ease tension that has resulted in clashes between his supporters and opposition groups that have left at least six people dead and hundreds injured.

It was unlikely, however, that reversing the decree but sticking to the referendum vote would appease the tens of thousands of protesters who have marched on his palace in the capital and in cities across Egypt.

“This is not a compromise; the president got all that he wanted,” said Bassem Sabry, an activist and writer. “What the Muslim Brotherhood wants [is to] get the constitution rammed through in a quick referendum before anyone gets a chance to properly discuss it.”

Morsi’s concessions came as news reports indicated that he was preparing to reimpose emergency law to allow soldiers to arrest civilians in response to the latest unrest.

More at the link.

It won't last. Morsi will come up with something else, some other extra-constitutional measures to consolidate the Muslim Brotherhood's choke hold on the state. See Eric Trager's piece from a couple weeks back, at TNR, "Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate."

Same-Sex Marriage and Marxist Revolutionary Doctrine: Destroy the Family

From Victor Volsky, at American Thinker, "Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda":

It is the iron law of "progressive" movements that having achieved their goals, they refuse to fade away.  Rather than disbanding upon completion of their mission, these movements, now fully institutionalized, keep chugging along, and the farther they go, the more they resemble their sworn enemies, the rationale for their existence....

The gay rights movement, too, has been transforming itself before our very eyes.  Once a movement fighting against persecution and discrimination, which is the reason why its initial demands enjoyed wide public support, it has gone from one triumph to another and won the war.  Today, the issue is moot.  But the gay movement has not declared victory and gone home.  Central to achieving their goal is bending society to their will and forcing it to acquiesce to their agenda.

That's where same-sex marriage comes in.  It's no mystery why it commands considerable support.  After all, what can be more "American" than the idea of granting equality to a formerly persecuted group that has done nothing untoward other than being different in its sexual proclivities?  Sort of like being discriminated because of the color of one's skin (even though many black leaders, jealously guarding their highly lucrative victimhood, take strong exception to equating gay liberation with the civil rights struggle).  So recognition of gay unions as legitimate marriages seems to be an eminently innocuous idea.  But appearances can be deceptive.  Few things are more destructive than gay marriage, a poison pill devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society -- the institution of marriage.

Not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage.  Even in places where homosexuality was viewed as normal, openly practiced, and even encouraged (as in Sparta, where carnal relationship was regarded as forging an extra bond between warriors), marriage was sacrosanct and never called into question.  Marriage has always been universally understood as a biological, social, and economic arrangement to bring into the world and rear the young, thus perpetuating the species.  Indeed, humans took their cue from wild nature, where heterosexual family is virtually the sole organizing principle of life.

The rare exceptions only prove the rule, as do stable childless marriages held together by considerations of economic necessity or social convenience.  Indeed, so central is marriage to human existence that it forms the basic building block and prototype of any society.  The many forms of social organization are but permutations of the basic familial pattern; the clan, the tribe and the state are merely an extended family writ large.

Don't believe revolutionaries when they hold forth about their intention of building paradise on earth.  Actually, they would be unable to build anything even if they wanted to.  Their talk about the bright future is mere lip service, because in reality, any revolution is exclusively about destruction, with very little thought given to what will happen afterward ("we'll cross that bridge when we come to it").  But how do you go about destroying society?  Where do you direct the blow so it will do the most damage?  In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.

True to the teachings of their prophet, socialist revolutionaries have placed the destruction of matrimony high on their list of priorities.  Social upheavals have always opened the floodgates of debauchery and pornography.  The socialist revolution brings about a breakdown of social conventions, with "sexual liberation" regarded as part of the overall drive for freedom.  But while the rabble yearns to throw off the yoke of moral strictures to give vent to its animal passions, the revolutionary leaders see moral decay as a means of undermining the bulwark of the social structure -- the family.

Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task.  Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy.  They know not what they are doing.  But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn't be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America.  Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction.

There's still more at the link.

And see Paul Kengor, at American Thinker, "Obama and the Marxist/Communist View of Marriage and Abortion."