Cash Crunch Hits Everyday Life in Greece

At the Wall Street Journal, "Shutdown of Greece’s banking system cripples businesses, makes it hard for people to pay bills; just €1 billion in cash left":

ATHENS—At an automated teller machine underneath the Acropolis, Angeliki Andreaki clutched her debit card with both hands. She pays her bills in cash, and €330 in rent and €39 in telephone bills were due Wednesday.

“Tsipras has turned this country into North Korea,” the 83-year-old Ms. Andreaki said Tuesday, shaking her head about Greece’s prime minister, Alexis Tsipras. “I can’t believe at this age I have to line up to get rationed cash.”

She withdrew as much as she could—just €60 ($66)—and went straight to pay her phone bill. She said she would have to come back for five more days to get enough cash for the rent.

This is everyday life in Greece since it shut down its banking system and imposed controls to prevent money from flooding out of the country.

Greece’s ruling party continued to say it was offering new compromises to its creditors and urged a “no” vote in Sunday’s referendum. European leaders dismissed the overtures as insufficient and said they would hold off on further negotiations until the vote.

The first opinion surveys in Greece since Mr. Tsipras called for the referendum show conflicting results but suggest the outcome could be close.

The freezing of Greece’s banking system is the most dramatic moment of the country’s five-year debt crisis—and perhaps its most pivotal. Since Monday, Greeks can get only €60 a day at cash machines and can’t transfer money abroad.

How long the remaining cash lasts and how unsettled Greeks become will be big factors in Sunday’s referendum on creditors’ demands for more austerity in exchange for more bailout funds. The tighter the squeeze, the more Greeks might vote “yes” to reconcile with creditors, analysts say.

As of Wednesday, Greece’s banking system had about €1 billion in cash left, according to a person familiar with the situation. Even with the €60-a-day limit on ATM withdrawals from Greek’s closed banks, “it’s a matter of a few days” until the money runs out, this person said.

By Wednesday, many ATMs in central Athens had constant lines of people waiting to withdraw their daily limit. The crunch has suffused the economy. Merchants report lower spending. Wholesalers can’t pay for supplies. Importers’ foreign counterparts won’t trade.

Airline Ryanair Holdings PLC, which flies to Athens, Thessaloniki and other Greek cities said Tuesday it would accept cash for tickets at airports because Greek customers have had trouble paying with debit cards. Ryanair is based in Ireland, and electronic payments abroad are prohibited.

The worst nightmare as far as the business community is concerned has come true,” said Constantine Michalos, the president of the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Mr. Michalos also has a food wholesaling business, and 65% of his product line is imported. As of this week, his foreign suppliers aren’t sending any more, leaving him with about 20 days of remaining inventory. “I have the ability and necessary funds in my bank account to import,” he said. “I am not allowed to make an electronic transfer.”

Greece’s cash crunch hit small merchants first. They are less able to get credit from their suppliers, especially those dealing in perishable products that are continually imported. Christos Georgiopoulos owns a gourmet supermarket in Plaka, a picturesque Athens neighborhood frequented by tourists. He sells Champagne and Russian crab legs.

Nobody is buying. “I haven’t had a single customer in two days,” he said Wednesday. He is shutting down his shop and says he doesn’t know when he will reopen. He gave some crab legs to his workers and is taking some home. “I haven’t paid my staff and don’t know if and when I will,” he added.

Marie Palandjian-Raxevsky, marketing director at Mini Raxevksy, a Greek children’s clothing brand, depends on Google Inc. advertisements to generate sales from consumers in Greece and elsewhere.

Late Tuesday night, she got an email saying her Greek corporate credit card, which pays for the ads, was declined. “Now our campaign has completely disappeared,” she said.

Who has cash and who doesn’t is often arbitrary. Aspasia Kourana, an 80-year-old retiree, was shopping Tuesday at one of Athens’s many open-air fruit and vegetable markets, a staple in neighborhood life here known as laiki.

She got her monthly pension of €600 last Thursday. Her daughter withdrew it all the next day.

By Monday, Ms. Kourana’s daughter and son-in-law couldn’t get more than €60 of their respective salaries out of the bank. “We’ll use my €600 pension for the next few days,” Ms. Kourana said. “I might even get some cherries for my grandson. He loves them.”...

Still more.

BuzzFeed's Struggles on Homosexual Marriage

From Mollie Hemingway, at the Federalist, "BuzzFeed’s Journalistic Struggles on Same-Sex Marriage, In GIFs."

@MZHemingway I don't know most people's faith/personal views on much. Definitely ppl who disagree on the constitutional q.

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) June 30, 2015

Germany Faces Billions in Losses If Greece Goes Bust

Well then, I can see why Angela Merkel put the kibosh on further negotiations until after the Greek referendum. Germany's looking to get hammered if Greece goes completely belly up.

At Der Spiegel, "The Bill: Germany Faces Billions in Losses If Greece Goes Bust":

Vast amounts of German money are at stake if Greece goes bankrupt -- with liabilities as high as €84 billion. Even though that figure is a large one, it would be paid over years and dangers to the Berlin budget are limited.

"So far, Germany hasn't had to spend a single euro from the federal budget on Greece." It's a line one has heard dozens of times on German talk shows in recent years. Soon, though, the claim may no longer hold true. A Greek insolvency is now within the realm of possibility and if the country does go bust, it could directly burden the German federal budget.

But how many billions of euros in German money are actually at stake? It may seem like a simple question, but there are no easy answers, because Germany's actual liability for Greek debt depends on a number of factors.

For a simple answer, just scroll to the last graphic in this article, where you will find the maximum burden for the German budget in a worst case scenario. If you're looking for a more nuanced answer, then please continue reading.

In order to determine the maximum possible liability for Germany as of the end of June 2015, you have to consider several factors, including whether …

* Greece becomes insolvent but remains in the euro zone. Then Germany would be held liable for up to €61.5 billion ($68.6 billion) in Greek loans. But these liabilities would be for payments that are planned as far into the future as 2054.
Or whether …

* Greece also withdraws from the euro zone. In the event of a Grexit, Germany's total liabilities would increase to around €84.5 billion.

But how do these numbers fit together?

The important thing here is that these figures represent the maximum conceivable damage to the German budget. They would be incurred if Greece didn't pay a single cent back on its debts over the next four decades -- an extremely unlikely scenario. It's far more likely that Greece would service certain debts, but not others.

In other words, there are varying probabilities of default for Greek loans that Germany has backed...

More.

BONUS: At Zero Hedge, "'Heartbreaking' Scene Unfolds at Greek Banks as Pensioners Clamor for Cash."

Smokin' Hot Kate Mara for Esquire Magazine

At Esquire, "Kate Mara on Life, Death, and Her Devotion to the Giants."

And at Egotastic!, "KATE MARA CRAZY HOT AND BARELY COVERED IN ESQUIRE."

Greece Bailout Offer Falls Short of Demands

Some of the stories of people going hungry are heart-wrenching, no matter what you think of Greece's clusterf-k socialist economy.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Fresh Greek Bailout Proposal Falls Short of Creditors’ Demands":

Eurozone officials dismissed a new Greek proposal for budget cuts and policy overhauls as insufficient and said that the currency bloc’s finance chiefs wouldn’t hold any more talks on a rescue for Athens until the country holds its referendum on creditors’ conditions for aid on Sunday.

Officials in Brussels said the proposal, received Tuesday night by the representatives of Greece’s official lenders, appeared to fall short of creditors’ demands. Greece defaulted on a €1.55 billion ($1.72 billion) repayment to the International Monetary Fund on Tuesday.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also reacted coolly to Greece’s new offer, emphasizing that Berlin would maintain its tough stance on bailout terms for Greece and was prepared for a battle. Ms. Merkel and other senior officials have said that Germany would discuss a new bailout request only after Greece’s referendum on the creditors’ conditions for aid had taken place, or if Greece called it off.

“A compromise at any cost would only be a result to get a result, only because one isn’t able to live with a conflict because one is afraid to fight the battle,” Ms. Merkel said.

The eurozone’s finance chiefs also agreed in a Wednesday teleconference to hold off on further negotiations until after the snap Greek referendum, which is set to take place Sunday.

“Given the political situation, the rejection of the previous proposals, the referendum which will take place on Sunday and the ‘no’ advice of the Greek government, we see no ground for further talks at this point,” said Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who presides over meetings of the currency bloc’s finance ministers.

Greece’s finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, though, said that the other finance chiefs had said that “Greece’s proposal is in the right direction, but asked for more details on its fiscal effect.”

In a televised address, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras remained defiant, vowing to push ahead with the referendum and calling Greeks who vote “yes” in Sunday’s vote accomplices to those looking to continue the painful policies of austerity in the crisis-stricken country. The premier has argued that a “no” vote would give Greece leverage in talks with its creditors, while eurozone officials have countered that it would be tantamount to a vote to leave the euro.

“A ‘no’ vote is a decisive step for a better agreement, which we aim to sign straight after the referendum,” Mr. Tsipras said. “ ‘No’ does not mean a rupture with Europe.”

Earlier in the day, Germany’s finance chief, Wolfgang Schäuble said that this week’s turmoil—including the closure of Greek banks, the expiration of the bailout program, and the decision to call a referendum—have changed the circumstances too much for bailout talks to simply be resumed from where they were when negotiations broke down on Friday.

Mr. Schäuble said that Greece’s left-wing government had to provide more clarity on its demands before negotiations about further financial aid could resume. The letter sent Tuesday hadn’t done that, he said.

“This is no basis for serious” negotiations, said Mr. Schäuble during a news conference on the government’s 2016 budget. “First of all, Greece has to declare what it wants.”

Markets were nevertheless cheered by the latest offer as a sign that a deal was still possible. The Stoxx Europe 600 opened higher and extended gains sharply. Bonds yields fell in Italy and Spain, highly indebted countries that in past years were seen as vulnerable to spillover from Greece...

Still more.

And stay with the video at the top. Holly Williams reports and it's emotional.

Kim Kardashian on the Cover of Rolling Stone

Meh.

I don't really love her celebrity shenanigans, but you gotta admit she's rockin' this cover.

At Rolling Stone, "Kim Kardashian Gets Real: 11 Revelations From the New Cover Story."

I'm sure lots of people will love the pictures.

Kim Kardashian: ‘I am so much smarter than I’m portrayed’ http://t.co/XHIH4Yg6sk

— TIME.com (@TIME) July 1, 2015

💯 @RollingStone pic.twitter.com/MIqumSLRJ9

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) July 1, 2015

Kim Kardashian's guide to taking the ultimate beach selfie: http://t.co/Bg6Tep7PC8 pic.twitter.com/M2njo09TbS

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) July 1, 2015

Young Boy Riding Bicycle Hit by Car in Reseda, Driver Leaves the Scene in Suspected Hit-and-Run

The boy's lucky he wasn't killed. I literally can't believe the driver did not stop the car.

Watch, at CBS News Los Angeles: "Footage Shows Young Boy on Bike Being Struck in Suspected Hit-and-Run."

TV Land Yanks 'Dukes of Hazzard'

Hey, America's still "The Land of the Free," right?

Well, maybe not.

At Variety, "TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash."

And at AceofSpadesHQ, "Viacom Removes "The Dukes of Hazzard" Reruns from TVLand Schedule, Because Urge to Purge":

‘Dukes of Hazzard’ episodes pulled from TV Land schedule in wake of Confederate flag debate: http://t.co/M7rgYa3Hal pic.twitter.com/ZUZMZPNKu9

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) July 1, 2015

Obviously.

Some time ago, Bill Quick attacked me, claiming, wrongly, that I was inconsistent to support a baker's right to not make a gay wedding cake when of course I would be fighting, racistly angry about a Muslim who insisted on Islamic dress codes in his own store.

I am republishing this essay because it's directly on-point.

America is in a dark chapter of its existence -- we have faced worse external threats, but not worse internal threats.

The threat now comes from within.

There are those who are insistent that we shall all have the same bland gray vanilla corporate non-culture culture, and that we shall all bow to the strange gods of the left.

As Andrew Breitbart once said:

Fuck you. War.

Below, my essay on what America is, and what is not, and how cowards, idiots, weaklings, and cuckolds want to turn America into a dark perversion of itself...

Continue reading.

Is the Breakup of the United States In Our Future?

From AWD:

President @BarackObama has brought dignity back to America pic.twitter.com/kn55zZSDZK

— Steve Goddard (@SteveSGoddard) June 29, 2015

Obama Could Sink the Democrats in 2016

He could.

He's our first homosexual president.

At the Hill:

Brent Budowsky for The Hill: Obama could sink 2016 Dems http://t.co/3rYGQGJQYB pic.twitter.com/KDMRBOoS45

— The Hill (@thehill) July 1, 2015

The Stogie–Donald Debates: Debunking Abraham Lincoln's Fort Sumter 'Plot'

Stogie attacked me at the comments of my earlier post, "Abraham Lincoln 'Plotted' to 'Force the South' to Fire the First Shot at Fort Sumter?":

Donald, instead of insulting me, why don't you actually read a book or two? Yes, Lincoln deliberately provoked the South into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. He planned it, he plotted it. This is proved by historical research and reference to original documents, like . Read "Lincoln and Fort Sumter" by Charles Ramsdell, the Southern Historical Association, 1937. It is now in the public domain. Lincoln admitted his pleasure at the South firing the first shot, in a letter to a Captain Fox. He wrote:"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." [starting the war]. The result was that thousands of angry Northerners joined the army, falsely believing that the South's attack on the fort was unjustified.

And my response:

Who's insulting whom, Stogie? Obviously I read books all the time. It's simply that any countervailing evidence cannot penetrate the tinfoil redoubt you've built up to defend this so-called Southern heritage. Why is the Klan campaigning to keep the Confederate flag up in Columbia? Doesn't that bother you to have the KKK for an ally?

Less belligerently, as readers of course know, I read books all the time. It's pretty much what I do when I'm not blogging, besides eating, sleeping, watching news and sports, and hanging out with my family. I've got until the end of August to lollygag around until the fall semester starts.

So, I'm reading all kinds of things, like I always do.

Perhaps Stogie might check out Richard Nelson Current's, Lincoln and the First Shot, a history of the roughly two-month period leading to the outbreak of hostilities at Fort Sumter. In his afterword, Current reviews the evidence that Lincoln "plotted" to force the South to fire the first shot, and he follows that discussion with more recent scholarship that debunks the memes of the Southern heritage partisans by citing the works of historians James Randall, David Potter, and Kenneth Stamp. I've photographed the key sections. As the summary of Professor Randall indicates, "Lincoln intended and expected a peaceful provisioning of the fort."

You can read the full passage below. Clearly, partisans will adopt their favored views, but Stogie is delusional if he thinks that Lincoln "plotted" to force the South to strike first. Indeed, Stogie's ravings are right in line with the feverish rants of Marxists and radical libertarians, positions that are way outside mainstream and authoritative interpretations of the origins of the Civil War.

And by the way, Stogie has yet to respond to the announcement that the Ku Klux Klan will march to support the Confederate flag in Columbia, South Carolina. Clearly, those KKK ghouls haven't gotten the "innocent Sorth" memo.

Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner to Divorce After 10 Years of Marriage

The rumors have been swirling for awhile.

At Variety, "Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner Divorcing After 10 Years of Marriage."

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner are getting a divorce after 10 years of marriage."

Célia Šašić Misses Penalty Kick Against #USWNT — #USAvGER

That was kinda shocking.

This Šašić is the goat of Germany.

At Sports Illustrated, "Watch: Germany's Célia Šašić misses penalty kick against USWNT."

The Next Culture War

From David Brooks, at the New York Times.

Read at the link for Brooks' discussion on the new round of the culture wars that's been unleashed with the Obergefell decision. Brooks suggests that it may be time to move past the current battles, which conservatives have lost:

Consider a different culture war, one just as central to your faith and far more powerful in its persuasive witness.

We live in a society plagued by formlessness and radical flux, in which bonds, social structures and commitments are strained and frayed. Millions of kids live in stressed and fluid living arrangements. Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. Many young people grow up in a sexual and social environment rendered barbaric because there are no common norms. Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through.

Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.

The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.

This culture war is more Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day than Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham; more Salvation Army than Moral Majority. It’s doing purposefully in public what social conservatives already do in private.

I don’t expect social conservatives to change their positions on sex, and of course fights about the definition of marriage are meant as efforts to reweave society. But the sexual revolution will not be undone anytime soon. The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable. Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace.

More at Memeorandum, especially Rod Dreher, at AmCon, "David Brooks on ‘The Next Culture War’," and Vox Day, at Vox Populi, "They are the SAME war."

I thinks folks on the right should just step back, take a breather on the culture wars and start prioritizing a national security agenda for election 2016. Economics and national security should be the big issues, with immigration a key plank on the homeland side of security. Give homosexual marriage a rest --- at least for now.

Celebrate Fourth of July with Hannah Davis

Hey, for sure.

Via Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:



More.

FLASHBACK: "Hanna Davis on Cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue 2015," and "Hannah Davis Super Sexy Outtakes."

Australian Supermodel Nicole Trunfio Breastfeeds Her Baby on the Cover of Elle Magazine

It's the Australian edition of Elle.

She's mounting a celebrity protest against breastfeed-shaming.

At Us Magazine, "Nicole Trunfio Breastfeeds Her Baby Boy on Elle Australia Cover."

And at the Independent UK, "Nicole Trunfio defends breastfeeding Elle front cover after 'beautiful' shot is criticised":

Nicole Trunfio has responded to the mixed reaction her June 2015 cover shot of Elle Australia has received.

The image shows the supermodel breastfeeding her five-month-old son Zion; a photograph she says that wasn’t “planned or contrived” and that she hadn’t intended to be controversial.

Support for Trunfio was equally as vocal. Many women have even adopted the #normalisebreastfeeding hashtag she used on social media. Another, #Bressure, has since sprung up in response to a campaign by YouTube community Channel Mum.

“I didn't think it was going to be such a big deal,” Trunfio told Good Morning America.

“There's nothing worse than, as a mother, doing something that's so necessary like feeding your child and feeling like somebody could have an opinion about it or somebody's looking at you the wrong way.

“I think it should be something that isn't a [subscriber's cover], it's a huge part of being a woman and motherhood.”

On just how naturally the shot came about, she added: “He was with me on set all day and there were periods I'd take off to feed him and I had on this beautiful outfit and the stylist was like, ‘Wow, that looks amazing, let's move you on set to have this picture taken.' Not that it was going to become a part of the shoot.”

Reports of the Supreme Court's Leftward Turn Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Good.

At Politico, "Supreme Court's liberal admirers get reality check":

Liberals still giddy over a series of major victories at the Supreme Court last week got a bracing reality check Monday, as conservatives carried the day on key cases involving the death penalty and President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda.

Progressives got another signal that any momentum they were experiencing at the high court could be short-lived: the justices announced they will address the thorny issue of affirmative action next term, taking up for the second time a case challenging the University of Texas’s use of race in its admissions process.

For some, it felt like whiplash.

“The cases today are shocking,” said Nan Aron, a prominent liberal activist and president of Alliance for Justice. “Last week was wonderful and no one can take away the victories that occurred, but I think it’s also important to understand those victories in a context [that] the court is one that continues to rule in favor of powerful and wealthy interests at the expense of most Americans. The decisions certainly today suggest that trend continues.”

Aron dismissed conclusions that the court was shifting to the left as it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights and upheld the nationwide availability of insurance subsidies under Obamacare, calling such pronouncements “largely premature and exaggerated.”
Some conservatives agreed that the court wasn’t necessarily taking a new direction.

“I always thought the claims that the Roberts court ‘is the most conservative since’ whenever were overblown and I think the claims of a dramatic leftward turn are overblown, too,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve. “When you kind of step back and look at the substance of the cases, what’s at issue and what the court did, I don’t think you see a great liberal shift.”

All three decisions the justices issued Monday were 5-4 rulings. Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the court’s other Republican appointees to reject a challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, effectively easing application of the death penalty nationwide, and to knock back regulations the Obama administration issued trying to limit mercury in power plants, complicating Obama’s environmental policies.

Even the sole case where the court’s liberal wing prevailed Monday by winning over Kennedy had a potential downside for the left. The court’s ruling allowing the redistricting of congressional seats to be handled by independent commissions is likely a setback to Republicans in Arizona, which brought the case to the justices, but a blow to Democrats in the much-larger state of California....

Keep reading.

In-Depth: 4 Harms the Court's Marriage Ruling Will Cause

From Ryan Anderson, at the Daily Signal.

Grizzly Bear Climbs on Car at Yellowstone National Park

Pretty fascinating, actually.

Good thing the folks inside kept their windows rolled up, considering.

Watch: "Grizzly Bear Clambers Over Family Car."

Jeb Bush Calls Confederate Flag a 'Racist' Symbol

I don't care for Jeb Bush, but coming out so forwardly and unashamedly attacking the Confederate flag as "racist" is no doubt an extremely calculated political move.

Lots of conservatives love that flag, and in a number of important states, they'll be a crucial bloc of voters. And Jeb's blowing them off. Or, he's signaling to them that the Confederate flag's just not going to be up for debate in the GOP primaries, and if you're going to make it an issue you're going to be demonized as no different from the KKK. It's pretty harsh, but I suspect that calculation is the reality of the top brokers at the heights of Republican power and money.

At the Washington Post, "Campaigning in South Carolina, Jeb Bush calls Confederate flag ‘racist’."

Walmart Apologizes for Making ISIS Cake After Saying No to Confederate Cake

I thought this was some conservative Twitter meme at first, but it's not. Walmart really made an ISIS cake.

At ABC News, "Walmart Apologizes for Making ISIS Cake for Man Denied Confederate Flag Design."

Viviany Beleboni 'Crucifixion' at São Paulo Homosexual Pride Parade

I had to follow up on this, especially since my blog was getting some hits off this post: "Celebrate Hate? Homosexual Revelers Use Brazil Pride Festivities to Blaspheme Jesus Christ."

See Blazing Cat Fur, "After Blasphemous Gay Pride Parade, Brazil Seeks to Ban ‘Christophobia’."

And at BuzzFeed, "This Transgender Actress Caused a Huge Internet Uproar After Dressing Up as Crucified Jesus In a Parade."

Imprisoned Mobster Whitey Bulger Writes Letter to Three Teenage Girls from Massachusetts

This is pretty interesting.

The girls were doing a high school project and mob boss Whitey Bulger wrote back to them.

At the Washington Post, "Boston mobster Whitey Bulger writes letter from prison: ‘My life was wasted and spent foolishly’."

And at CBS This Morning, "Legendary mob boss Whitey Bulger expresses regret in letter to teen girls."

Apple Music's Streaming Debut

This is cool, especially if you're a super hip digital music aficionado.

At WSJ, "High Expectations Play in Background of Apple Music’s Debut."

And at BuzzFeed, "Apple Music Launches Tuesday With Dr. Dre’s “The Chronic”."

SpaceX Rocket Failure Raises Questions About Business of Commercial Space Flight

At the Los Angeles Times, "Rocket explosion is a blow to billionaire Elon Musk's SpaceX":

An unmanned SpaceX rocket carrying cargo to the International Space Station disintegrated over the Florida coast just two minutes after liftoff Sunday — the third major failure for America's commercial space industry in eight months.

The explosion was a blow to billionaire Elon Musk's SpaceX aerospace venture, which has shaken the global launch business in recent years by showing it can successfully fly rockets at a fraction of the price of other providers.

It was too early to determine what went wrong Sunday, but executives at the Hawthorne firm vowed to quickly pinpoint the problem. "We will identify the issue we experienced, fix it and get back to flight," Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX, said at Sunday news conference.

The failure creates a challenge for NASA. It was the third cargo ship loaded with food, water and other supplies lost in less than a year.

"We expected … we would lose some vehicles," William Gerstenmaier, a NASA associate administrator, said at the news conference. "I didn't think we'd lose them all in a one-year time frame, but we have."

Among the Falcon 9's cargo were parts needed for a water filtration system, said Michael Suffredini, manager of NASA's space station program.

He said the astronauts on the space station have enough food and water for about four months and that another Russian resupply ship was scheduled to launch Friday.

NASA would start planning to bring the astronauts back to Earth, he said, only if vital supplies dwindled to enough for 45 days.

Musk tweeted soon after the failure that there had been "an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank."

"That's all we can say with confidence right now," Musk wrote.

The loss of another commercial rocket operated under a NASA contract comes at a time when the agency's critics in Congress are threatening to reduce funding. Among the targets has been a program under which NASA gave contracts to SpaceX and Boeing Co. to develop spacecraft to fly astronauts to the space station.

SpaceX, short for Space Exploration Technologies Corp., has also been lobbying for the opportunity to launch the Pentagon's spy satellites and other crucial spacecraft. The company's congressional critics have argued that the upstart is not as reliable as a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture that has long had a lock on the military work.

"SpaceX will now have to work on their technical problems and political problems simultaneously," said Greg Autry, an assistant professor at USC who follows the space industry.

The Falcon 9 rocket had flown successfully 18 times. Sunday's cargo mission was the seventh under the NASA contract.

It was the company's first failure since August 2008, when a different rocket — the Falcon 1 — did not reach orbit.

The explosion happened despite good weather. The countdown went smoothly.

After just over two minutes of flight, NASA lost contact with the rocket. Video showed it shattering apart, leaving a cloud of debris.

The success of the SpaceX mission had become more crucial after a Russian resupply ship spun out of control in late April and was destroyed as it fell back to Earth.

Before that, on Oct. 28, a rocket operated by NASA's other commercial cargo hauler, Orbital Sciences, exploded just seconds after liftoff from a Virginia launch pad.

Orbital executives blamed that failure on a fuel pump in one of the rocket's 40-year-old Russian engines. Orbital has since redesigned the rocket, aiming to begin flying it again next year.

"Orbital Sciences isn't anywhere close to being ready to fly again," said Marco Caceres, an aerospace industry analyst with Teal Group. "It will be months and months before they fly, and we're not sure then if they'll be successful."

NASA officials said that SpaceX would do its own investigation of the failure under the supervision of the Federal Aviation Administration...

More.

South Carolina Legislature Has the Votes to Take Down Confederate Flag at Statehouse Grounds

I don't know.

Leftists want it down. A majority of Americans want it down. State legislators want it down.

Shoot, the only ones that want to keep it flying are the Southern heritage folks and their KKK allies.

At the Charleston Post & Courier, "Majority of House, Senate support taking down Confederate flag":

Dam breaking? Just added another “yes” to the house, after passing 2/3rds majority in favor http://t.co/JMtM0HQqPU pic.twitter.com/XcK4cEnyqU

— Jason Emory Parker (@jaspar) June 29, 2015

The S.C. Legislature has amassed the support necessary to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds, potentially ending a decades-long, divisive battle over the banner’s fate, according to a survey of lawmakers led by The Post and Courier.

he poll of lawmakers has determined that both the House and the Senate have achieved the two-thirds majority needed to take the flag down, if all supporters were to cast their votes. At least 33 senators and 83 House members say the flag should go.

“I just think that it’s time,” Rep. Mike Forrester, R-Spartanburg, said Monday. “It’s causing too many problems. ... I think it needs to be in a place of honor, but probably not on the Statehouse grounds.”

The issue has heated up following the June 17 killing of nine people, including a state senator, at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, allegedly by a white supremacist who is pictured with a Confederate flag in photos on the Internet.

Members of both chambers have been notified that they are scheduled to return to Columbia on July 6 at 1 p.m. to tackle vetoes and the flag debate. A vote in the Senate could potentially occur that same day...

Keep reading.

Ku Klux Klan to Rally for the Confederate Flag at South Carolina Statehouse

The debate continues with Stogie at Saberpoint, who has responded to my earlier post on Fort Sumter. See, "Did Lincoln Deliberately Instigate War at Fort Sumter? Yes, He Did."

Meanwhile, remember at the crux of this debate is not so much who started the war, but why the belligerents were willing to go to war. The North, of course, under President Lincoln's leadership, fought initially to preserve the Union. The South, ultimately, fought to protect states' right to own property in slaves. (The whole debate is at the search link.)

Stogie has consistently said that the South fought to defend against Northern aggression, and that the protection of states' rights to own slaves was never a cause of war.

Okay, well, I guess the KKK never got the memo.

At the Charleston Post & Courier, "Ku Klux Klan to protest removal of Confederate flag on July 18 at Statehouse":

KKK to rally for #ConfederateFlag July 18 at #SouthCarolina Statehouse. http://t.co/giUg8mqutO #scnews #chsnews pic.twitter.com/s25xBfTP2z

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 29, 2015

The Ku Klux Klan has been approved to hold a protest rally at the Statehouse next month against removing the Confederate battle flag, with the group calling accused mass murderer Dylann Roof a “young warrior.”

The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan applied for the permit last week to hold a rally for 100 to 200 people on July 18 on the north side of the Statehouse.

That’s where the Confederate battle flag presently flies.

Brian Gaines, spokesman for the S.C. Budget and Control Board, said the state provides rally space at the Statehouse site when space is available or previously not reserved.

The move was not endorsed by Gov. Nikki Haley. “This is our state, and they are not welcome,” she said in a statement issued by her press office.

In its application permit, the Klan lists equipment needs as a podium and public address access. The group is headquartered out of Pelham, N.C.

Robert Jones, grand dragon for the group, said on Monday that the Klan is a civil rights organization dedicated to white culture and history as symbolized by the rebel banner.

During a phone interview, Jones gave words of support for Roof, saying he erred in going after black people while they worshipped. On the Klan group’s telephone answering machine is a recorded message that refers to Roof as a warrior.

Roof, 21, of Eastover is charged with nine counts of murder in the June 17 shooting at Emanuel AME Church.

All the victims were black; Roof is white, and has reportedly promoted white supremacist activity in his writings and on the Internet...

Interesting that this Robert Jones dude praised the suspect Roof "as a warrior," and he tacitly endorses the murders when he adds the qualification about how Roof was only wrong to the extent that "he erred in going after black people while they worshipped" [sic].

Hey, if those darkies hadn'ta been worshiping, lock and load ye whippersnapper!

I'm sure Stogie's got some canned response to the KKK's support for the suspect Roof and the Confederate flag. I mean, Southerners loved and protected their slaves, right? They protected them right up until the slightest whiff of a fugitive escape, and then slave masters would use their legal rights to beat and whip their black chattel back in line.

Democrat Party racism and violence. That's some Southern heritage, I'll tell you. That's some real sick Southern heritage.

PREVIOUSLY: "Dylann Roof, Southern Democrat Throwback, is Drug-Addled 'Wannabe Emo Anarchist' with Androgynous Haircut," and "Crazy Emo-Prog Dylann Roof Doesn't Fit the Left's 'Right-Wing Racist White Supremacist' Narrative."

BONUS: "What the Left, and Sadly, Some Conservatives Just Do Not Grasp."

Settlement Reached for Families of Yarnell Hill Fire 'Hotshots'

I blogged quite a bit about this fire at the time. Horrifying.

At the Arizona Republic, "Yarnell Hill Fire lawsuits settle for $670,000, reforms."

Also at ABC-15 Phoenix, "Settlement reached for families of Yarnell hotshots," and "Granite Mountain Hotshots remembered 2 years after perishing in wildfire."

Celebrate Hate? Homosexual Revelers Use Brazil Pride Festivities to Blaspheme Jesus Christ

From earlier this month.

At the Conservative Post, "Gay Pride Participants Mock Jesus and the Bible in a Disturbing Way."

And from Amy Proctor, on Facebook.

Gay Pride Festivities in Brazil. I've seen WAY worse in San Francisco.

I notice they're not targeting Buddha or Mohammed.... why? Because this movement is an anti-Christ movement and no Christian can support it in any way.

Choose you this day whom you will serve... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Joshua 24:15- "But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice: choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Amorrhites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord."

No doubt similar blasphemy was taking place all across the U.S. this weekend. For example, at Twitchy, "#LoveWins? Bronx priest reports getting spit on after today's gay pride parade in NYC," and Gateway Pundit, "Catholic Priest Spit On at Bronx Gay Pride Parade."

BONUS: At Time, "Facebook Has a Super Easy Way to Let You Celebrate Gay Pride," and "Here's how to add a rainbow filter to your Facebook photo in honor of the gay marriage ruling."

Greece to Default on Payment to International Monetary Fund

Frankly, I still don't see Greece leaving the European Union, but this is a major development.

At WSJ, "Greece to Default on $1.73 Billion IMF Payment":

European leaders appealed to Greeks to vote “yes” in a referendum on their country’s bailout, warning that the risk of Greece’s exit from the euro was real, as Athens confirmed it wouldn’t be able to make a loan repayment to the International Monetary Fund due on Tuesday.

The Greek government’s decision to call a vote on measures its creditors demand in return for more bailout aid has cast the country into uncharted waters. As of Tuesday, Greece will be cut loose from international rescue loans for the first time in more than five years. It will also default on the €1.55 billion ($1.73 billion) IMF payment, whose deadline is the same day.

Many economists and officials fear that without further financial support, Greece may have to abandon the euro, sparking a messy departure from the bloc. The European Union also hopes to avoid contagion from spreading to other parts of the 19-country eurozone after Greece’s decision over the weekend to shut down its banking system for at least a week to prevent money from flooding out of the country.

“You shouldn’t commit suicide because you’re afraid of dying,” Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, said in a speech aimed at convincing Greeks that the budget cuts and policy overhauls their government has rejected are actually good for their country.

“You should say ‘yes’ regardless of what the question is,” he said. A “no” vote, however, “will mean that Greece is saying ‘no’ to Europe.”

Stocks and bonds fell around the world on Monday, but there was little sign of outright panic. European stocks recovered slightly from early losses.

Bonds in Italy, Spain and Portugal—highly indebted countries seen as vulnerable to the Greek crisis—also pared losses after initial sharp falls, and remain far from the levels seen in 2012 or 2013, when banking problems in Spain and Cyprus raised doubts over the eurozone’s integrity.

Eurozone finance ministers refused on Saturday Athens’s request to extend the European portion of Greece’s €245 billion bailout by an extra month. That would have carried Greece past the July 5 vote, but likely still left the government without enough funding to pay the IMF.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras spoke by phone with Mr. Juncker and European Parliament President Martin Schulz and asked for help getting an extension to the bailout, a Greek government official said.

“The Greek prime minister expressed the position that the democratic expression of the Greek people is hindered by the closure of banks, which doesn’t apply with the democratic tradition of Europe,” the official said.

Another government official said that some branches of Greek banks would reopen by Thursday for those who don't have a debit or credit cards.Greeks can withdraw as much as €60 a day.

Mr. Tsipras and his government are calling on Greeks to vote “no” to send a signal to Europe and the IMF that Greece wants a better deal for continued rescue loans. Mr. Juncker rejected the argument that such a vote would give the government a better negotiating position.

“Greek citizens who are being called to vote next Sunday need a clearer picture of what’s at stake,” Mr. Juncker said.

French President François Hollande issued a similar warning. “It’s a question of knowing whether the Greeks want to remain in the eurozone—which is where they belong in my opinion—or if they will take the risk of exiting,” Mr. Hollande said after an emergency meeting with top ministers and finance advisers.

Mr. Hollande also stressed that France and the rest of the eurozone are now in a better position to withstand a Greek departure. “Today the French economy is robust—much more so than four years ago—and it has nothing to fear from what could happen,” the French leader said...

Keep reading.

Also, "Greece Orders Banks Closed, Imposes Capital Controls to Stem Deposit Flight."

And at Memeorandum.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Actually, "gay" "marriage" isn't conservative, but as readers might have noticed, I accept the Court's decision and I think it's time for Republicans to move on. (There are other cultural battles to fight, but I think the economy and foreign policy will be winners in 2016.)

Be that as it may, here's Richard Grenell, at Fox News:

The conservative case for gay marriage | Fox News | http://t.co/MoG8HaqCl9 @RichardGrenell

— Amy Otto (@AmyOtto8) June 28, 2015

.@RichardGrenell is right: whatever feelings on SCOTUS SSM ruling, there's right v. wrong way to handle as GOP candidate. Walker has failed.

— Jeff B@AoSHQDD (@EsotericCD) June 28, 2015

Led by conservative Justice and Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled Friday, in a 5-4 decision, in favor of same-sex marriage. Despite the often binary depiction in the media, this decision is in fact a landmark victory for conservative principles. In fact, Friday’s decision is a momentous win for the founding principle of the Republican Party: individual liberty.

Consistent conservatives should frame their views in accordance with the fundamental belief that individuals, not governments, have the right to determine the course of their own lives.

Fellow conservatives, particularly within the Republican Party, typically do a good job arguing against totalitarian, one-size-fits-all approaches to policy. What works for a family in New York City, might not work in Jenison, Michigan, or Tulsa, Oklahoma.

It is for this reason that Republicans and conservatives have embraced issues such as school choice, which gives parents the right to choose the method of schooling that best fits their child’s needs. Parents, not governments, should decide what is best for their family.

Republicans and American conservatives have also been remarkably consistent on taxation. Consistent conservatives believe people should keep more of the money they work so hard to earn—not because the vulnerable don’t deserve assistance, but because individuals can and will make better, and more effective financial and charitable choices with their money than government bureaucrats.

The list of important conservative positions, all relating back to the fundamental principle of individual choice, goes on and on: property rights; freedom of association; and freedom of speech, etc.

But when the topic of gay marriage arises, some conservatives have not been consistent.  The debate on marriage within the Republican Party has been hijacked by those who wish to dictate their beliefs onto others. Rather than professing consistent, conservative beliefs, some within the party have taken to advocating for a remarkably liberal, totalitarian approach.

This hypocrisy has not been lost on the electorate.  Millennials, possibly the most naturally conservative-leaning constituency, laugh at the inconsistencies they hear coming from “conservative” voices on issues like gay marriage.

Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is one of those inconsistent conservatives.  Walker immediately lashed out at the Supreme Court’s decision, proposing an astonishingly big-government response. Walker called for a Constitutional Amendment, ensuring that politicians will forever be able to dictate whom one should or should not be able to marry. In other words, Walker wants to cement the will of politicians into our daily lives.

Walker has taken a stunningly liberal position.  As conservative Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion, “marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order.” Indeed, marriage today is as much as it has ever been an important, legal contract—one which carries with it profound financial and emotional ramifications.

Walker, and others like him, seem to ignore the real-life implications of contemporary marriage, instead focusing solely on a religious definition of marriage with which they happen to agree...

Olivia Munn Practicing Sword-Fighting with Aaron Rodgers

At ESPN, "Aaron Rodgers photobombs Olivia Munn's video."

And at Maxim, "Here is a video of beautiful @oliviamunn sword fighting because Monday."

Abraham Lincoln 'Plotted' to 'Force the South' to Fire the First Shot at Fort Sumter?

Oh boy.

Stogie at Saberpoint might as well be a 9/11 truther, considering these outlandish blood libels he's spewing against Abraham Lincoln.

Now this is just downright bizarre, from the comments at Mediaite, "Memphis Mayor Wants to Literally Dig Up Confederate General and Move Him":

jim  rmiers1 • an hour ago

Very few people joined up to fight for the union to end slavery. They fought to restore the honor of a nation that had their flag torn town at Ft. Sumter and they weren't going to quit until the flag and their honor were restored. Now to many in the 21st century this sounds ridiculous and archaic but this was the mentality in the mid 19th century.

Stogie Chomper  jim • 28 minutes ago

That's why Lincoln and his staff plotted to force the South to fire the first shot -- by refusing to negotiate the peaceful return of the fort to South Carolina, by refusing to leave, and by attempting to resupply the fort with Yankee warships. People today still mistakenly believe the South started the war by firing the first shot -- but it was started by Lincoln, purposely for its propaganda value, by forcing the issue.

The truth is Lincoln pledged not to fight to reclaim Fort Sumter for the North. Indeed, he nearly let the U.S. Army forces of Major Robert Anderson run out of provisions, and then only sent supply ships to re-provision the troops there with the permission of South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens. But Pickens was an extremist who refused Lincoln's attempt to peaceably re-provision the fort. Confederate President Jefferson Davis piled on the belligerency, ultimately ordering Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard to bombard the Union forces at the fort. The North so refused to fire the first shot that Major Anderson responded to General Beauregard's demands to surrender by saying he'd rather run out of food before initiating hostilities.

These are just facts. Don't let old Stogie get away with his conspiracy bullshit. Man, this is really getting interesting. Get your tinfoil hats ready!

And check back for further iterations of the Stogie-Donald debates!

Israel Intercepts Gaza Flotilla

At Legal Insurrection, "Gaza Flotilla III flops":

Hillary Clinton is 'Undermining' the Public’s Trust in Politics

Here's Ron Fournier, from this Morning Joe, this morning:

Homosexual Marriage is Not a Constitutional Right

It is now.

It wasn't seven years ago when California voters banned it at the ballot box, in Proposition 8. The Courts overturned the will of the voters, here and elsewhere. As I wrote at the time, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

This editorial, at IBD and seen on Twitter, is from 2013, "Forget Gay Marriage: What About The Decline of Marriage?"

The constitutional right to homosexual marriage won't strengthen the institution of marriage. In fact, it will have the opposite effect, as all manner of sexual relationships will now be legitimized and America will continue to slide down the slippery slope.

(IBD) Homosexual Marriage Is NOT A Constitutional Right - http://t.co/jDE1TWavQJ - #PJNET - #IBDEditorials - pic.twitter.com/HiX75q5Lie

— Daniel John Sobieski (@gerfingerpoken) June 27, 2015

Homosexual Marriage Symposia

I'm seeing a number of conservative roundups on homosexual marriage.

For example, at National Review, "The Supreme Court Has Legalized Same-Sex Marriage: Now What?"

Also at the Federalist, "Gay Marriage Is Here – Now What?", and First Things, "After Obergefell: A First Things Symposium."

How Conservatives Move Forward After Obergefell v. Hodges

From JPod, at Commentary, "Three Ways Conservatives Can Move Forward After Last Week."

Personally, I think Republicans should downplay homosexual marriage, as I've indicated. Clearly, with today's ruling on the death penalty, all is not lost in the culture wars, not the death penalty and certainly not abortion, which death-loving Democrats avoid talking about at all costs.

Supreme Court Upholds Lethal Injection Drugs for Death Penalty

This case broke down along the Court's classic 5-4, right-left split, with Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion.

At LAT, "Supreme Court OKs use of controversial sedative in executions":

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Oklahoma and other death-penalty states to execute convicted murderers with a lethal injection that relies on a substitute sedative.

The 5-4 decision rejected claims from death-penalty foes who said the drug in question, midazolam, is not reliably effective and could subject an inmate to a cruelly painful death.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the prisoners who challenged the use of this drug "failed to establish that Oklahoma's use of a massive dose of midazolam in its execution protocol entails a substantial risk of severe pain."

Moreover, they failed to suggest a reasonable alternative drug, since the most effective barbiturates are no longer available, he said.

In one of two dissents, Justice Stephen Breyer questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.

"I believe it is highly likely that the death penalty violates the 8th Amendment" and its ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

He said the court should hear arguments on that question in the future...

As the Obergefell case showed, the Court slavishly hews to public opinion. And so as long as a majority in public opinion supports the death penalty --- and public support is still at 60 percent now --- then the Court will continue to uphold it.

One wildcard is Anthony Kennedy, of course. He's basically a leftist. Frankly I'm a bit surprised he didn't rule against Oklahoma's drug cocktail in this case.

More at Memerandum.

'The Marxists will literally use any distraction, even a minor one such as Bristol’s pregnancy, to divert from all the horrific crap raining down on America and across the globe...'

They will.

The Middle East continues to burn, but hey, Bristol Palin is pregnant.

From Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, at Right Wing News, "Bristol Palin Releases Ultrasound Photo! And the Father of her Baby is…"

How Does Homosexual Ruling Affect 2016 GOP Presidential Field?

More on the political fallout of the left's culture war victory.

From David Lauter and Mark Barabak, at the Los Angeles Times, "A GOP conundrum: How does a 2016 candidate play the same-sex marriage ruling?":

Within minutes of the Supreme Court's decision declaring a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, President Obama joined the celebration, calling one of the gay plaintiffs to congratulate him on live television, then going to the Rose Garden to hail Friday's ruling as a moment when "slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."

Almost simultaneously, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one of the leading Republicans in the race to succeed Obama, denounced the decision as a "grave mistake" and called for a constitutional amendment to reverse it. Another GOP hopeful, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said the high court had "crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy," and called for a constitutional amendment to allow voters to remove Supreme Court justices from office.

By contrast, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also seeking the Republican nomination, stepped softly, saying only that he thought "the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision." GOP candidate Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said: "While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

The widely different approaches highlighted how gay rights — same-sex marriage, in particular — continue to divide and shape American politics.

Republicans running for president face a choice in responding to the court's ruling. They could try to use the strong emotions same-sex marriages evoke as a way to mobilize conservative voters in primaries, but potentially at the cost of undermining their campaigns in next year's general election. Or they could seize on the finality of a Supreme Court ruling as a way of avoiding an issue on which their party is out of step with the majority of voters, but at the risk of alienating conservatives who see the court decision as a violation of deeply held religious principles.

How they choose to navigate the issue will help determine whether the vast majority of the country quickly accepts the court's ruling, as happened with the decision to wipe out laws against interracial marriage nearly half a century ago, or whether it will remain divisive for years to come...

More.

And see my earlier comments on this, from just a few minutes ago, "As Left Wins Culture Battles, Republicans Have Chance to Pivot for 2016."

New Footage of Tunisia Terror Attack

Via Sky News, "Tunisia Terror Attack: New Footage of Rampage."

Plus, "Tunisia Attack: Footage of Gunman on Beach."

As Left Wins Culture Battles, Republicans Have Chance to Pivot for 2016

Meh. I'm skeptical of this argument.

And I'm skeptical because the left makes everything about culture. Economics is about culture. About "flyover country" and the "47 percent."

2016 will be about race and especially gender, if Hillary's the nominee, which it'll be surprising if she not.

From Jonathan Martin, at the New York Times, "As Left Wins Culture Battles, G.O.P. Gains Opportunity to Pivot for 2016":

WASHINGTON — A cascade of events suggests that 2015 could be remembered as a Liberal Spring: the moment when deeply divisive and consuming questions of race, sexuality and broadened access to health care were settled in quick succession, and social tolerance was cemented as a cornerstone of American public life.

Yet what appears, in headlines and celebrations across the country, to represent an unalloyed victory for Democrats, in which lawmakers and judges alike seemed to give in to the leftward shift of public opinion, may contain an opening for the Republican Party to move beyond losing battles and seemingly lost causes.

Conservatives have, in short order, endured a series of setbacks on ideas that, for some on the right, are definitional: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that Southern heritage and its symbols are to be unambivalently revered and that the federal government should play a limited role in the lives of Americans.

Remarkably, some of these verities have been challenged not by liberals but by figures from the right.

The past week and the month that preceded it have been nothing short of a rout in the culture wars. Bruce Jenner, the famed Olympian, became Caitlyn Jenner in the most prominent moment yet for transgender people. The killings of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., at once rendered the Confederate battle flag unsuitable for government-sanctioned display. And Friday’s legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide elevated a community that had been consigned to the shadows for centuries of American life.

But even as conservatives appear under siege, some Republicans predict that this moment will be remembered as an effective wiping of the slate before the nation begins focusing in earnest on the presidential race.

As important as some of these issues may be to the most conservative elements of the party’s base and in the primaries ahead, few Republican leaders want to contest the 2016 elections on social or cultural grounds, where polls suggest that they are sharply out of step with the American public.

“Every once in a while, we bring down the curtain on the politics of a prior era,” said David Frum, the conservative writer. “The stage is now cleared for the next generation of issues. And Republicans can say, ‘Whether you’re gay, black or a recent migrant to our country, we are going to welcome you as a fully cherished member of our coalition.’ ”

The critical question is whether the Republican Party will embrace such a message in order to seize what many party officials see as an opening to turn the election toward economic and national security issues.

It will not happen easily: Every major Republican presidential candidate criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday affirming same-sex marriage as the law of the land.

Of course, many of the Republicans running for president are keen to move on from the culture wars, but others, like Mike Huckabee and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, are already seizing on matters like same-sex marriage and what they call judicial overreach to distinguish themselves in a crowded primary field. And the conservative activists and interest groups that play an important role in the primary will not let any of the candidates simply move on.

“Our candidates running in a primary are put in a little bit of a box by the events of this week, but at the same time, it does change the landscape for the general election, which is a blessing,” said Carl Forti, a Republican strategist who has worked on presidential races. “I’m glad I’m not on a campaign and don’t have to advise my candidate on how to navigate those three issues this week, because the answers for the primary and the general are radically different.”

Privately, some of the strategists advising Republican hopefuls believe the last week has been nothing short of a gift from above — a great unburdening on issues of race and sexuality, and on health care a disaster averted. Rhetorical opposition to the Affordable Care Act will still be de rigueur in the primaries, but litigating the issue in theory is wholly different from doing so with more than six million people deprived of their health insurance.

Collectively, this optimistic thinking would have it, June will go down as the month that dulled some of the wedge issues Democrats were hoping to wield next year...

That's the other thing: Republicans need to realize they've been beaten on homosexual marriage and back off for awhile. There'll be time to revisit when the harshly negative social effects start to bleed through. Meanwhile, taxes, economic growth, immigration, and foreign policy remain well within the GOP's wheelhouse, and they should press full steam ahead. The Dems can be beat in 2016, easily. But Republicans need to get real about all the recent changes and focus on their strengths, which are plenty.

Keep reading, in any case.

'Hurrah for gay marriage. But why do supporters save their vitriol for its foes instead of the barbarians at our gates?...'

Well, it's not really Islam, after all?

Real Islam is a "religion of peace," dontcha know?

From Bari Weiss, at the Wall Street Journal, via Elizabeth Price Foley at Instapundit, "Love Among the Ruins":

On Friday my phone was blowing up with messages, asking if I’d seen the news. Some expressed disbelief at the headlines. Many said they were crying.

None of them were talking about the dozens of people gunned down in Sousse, Tunisia, by a man who, dressed as a tourist, had hidden his Kalashnikov inside a beach umbrella. Not one was crying over the beheading in a terrorist attack at a chemical factory near Lyon, France. The victim’s head was found on a pike near the factory, his body covered with Arabic inscriptions. And no Facebook friends mentioned the first suicide bombing in Kuwait in more than two decades, in which 27 people were murdered in one of the oldest Shiite mosques in the country.

They were talking about the only news that mattered: gay marriage.

Unlike President Obama, I have always been a staunch supporter of gay marriage, and I cheered the Supreme Court’s ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. But as happy as I was, I was equally upset on Friday—and not just with the Islamists who carried out those savage attacks.

Moral relativism has become its own, perverse form of nativism among those who stake their identity on being universalist and progressive...

Keep reading.

Plus, from Rick Moran, via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit, "U.S. AUTHORITIES WORRY OF TERROR ATTACK OVER 4TH OF JULY...":

Even before the terrorist attacks in France, Tunisia, and Kuwait on Friday, U.S. counterterrorism officials were warning that increased activity by Islamic State sympathizers in the U.S. may foreshadow an attack over the 4th of July weekend.

While it is common for Homeland Security to issue terror advisories in advance of a holiday, two foiled terrorist plots this month as well as the carnage on Friday have given special significance to the efforts of law enforcement to be vigilant over Independence Day weekend...

I'm actually surprised at DHS, considering how untold number of leftists this week were spewing about the "real threat" to American security from "right-wing terrorism."

Confederate Flag Supporters Rally at South Carolina Statehouse

This is after the far-left ghoul climbed up the flagpole.

Seen just now on Twitter:

Hours after woman arrested removing #ConfederateFlag, flag supporters rally at S.C. Statehouse http://t.co/Xogda18MTh pic.twitter.com/9f7kYPwAW1

— Tx_Laney (@Babbsgirl2) June 27, 2015

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux Says Mock ISIS Butt-Plug Flag at London Pride Parade is the Real Thing

Oh boy, at least we live in interesting times, heh.

At Memeorandum, "CNN Mistakes Dildo-Covered Flag at Pride Parade for ISIS Flag."

And at Fusion, "We’ve translated the alleged ‘ISIS flag’ spotted at London Pride."

Crack journalism. Or, journalism on crack. Or up the crack. Oh forget it.



BONUS: From leftist Rosa Brooks, at Foreign Policy, "Can Gay Marriage Defeat the Islamic State?" (at Memeorandum).

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, Honored with Hundreds of Miles of Roads in Former Secessionist States

At the New York Times, "Honors for Confederates, for Thousands of Miles":

Past Meets Present: Honors for Confederates, for Thousands of Miles - http://t.co/0l4FNifaNT pic.twitter.com/JyW8vGzqdI

— Media Vybz (@OneMediaVybz) June 26, 2015

How many miles of roads in the South are named for Confederates? http://t.co/J300yu77yr pic.twitter.com/NZvXApGwHj

— The Upshot (@UpshotNYT) June 27, 2015

A plaque on the exterior of the Hotel Monaco in Alexandria, Va., honors “the first martyr to the cause of Southern independence.”

It commemorates James W. Jackson, ardent secessionist and proprietor of the hotel that was at that site during the Civil War. But he was not the first man killed in the Civil War. Among those who died earlier was a Union officer, Col. Elmer E. Ellsworth, who removed the Confederate flag flying from the hotel. He was confronted and shot to death by Mr. Jackson, who was quickly killed by Colonel Ellsworth’s men.

There is no memorial for Colonel Ellsworth in Alexandria. But there are many memorials for Confederates. Elsewhere in Alexandria, a city right across the Potomac River from the nation’s capital, are streets named Lee, Beauregard, Pickett, Bragg and Longstreet, all Confederate generals. A highway is named for Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.

In the wake of the mass murder at a black church in Charleston, S.C., Jon Stewart noted in his “Daily Show” monologue, “In South Carolina, the roads that black people drive on are named for Confederate generals who fought to keep black people from being able to drive freely on that road.”

It isn’t just in South Carolina or Virginia. Cities throughout the South have streets, schools and parks named for other Confederate generals like J. E. B. Stuart, Jubal Early and Stonewall Jackson.

At least 10 United States military bases are named for Confederate leaders. A suburb of Houston, Missouri City, has a subdivision with the street names of Pickett, Bedford Forrest (Court and Drive), Beauregard, Breckinridge and Confederate. And on the other side of its Vicksburg Boulevard is, strangely, Yankee Court.

We set out to see just how often Confederate leaders are honored in the 11 former Confederate states by sifting data on street names collected by the Census Bureau.

Davis had the longest length of roadways bearing his full name, 468 miles, followed by Stuart with 106 miles. Robert E. Lee, considered the greatest Confederate general, was third with nearly 60 miles.

It is quite possible that more streets were named for Lee, as we searched for the full name only. Similarly with Stonewall Jackson, who has 40 miles named after him. Using only a last name would also have pulled in any streets, roads and highways named for Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, Maynard Jackson, the former Atlanta mayor — or Bob Jackson, a real estate developer.

Across the entire United States, the most common names honored are Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Jackson. In the 11 former Confederate states, Jackson, with 3,430 miles, and Washington, with 1,701 miles, have the most roadway. Third is the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., with 1,183 miles, then Lincoln, with 683 miles.

These calculations are based on a Census Bureau data set of all roads in the country...

Keep reading.

Meanwhile, Stogie keeps the discussion going at Saberpoint, "More Butt-Hurt for Donald Douglas: The Top Six Racist Quotes of Abraham Lincoln." A key point Stogie notes there, "By today's standards, Abraham Lincoln was a virulent white supremacist and racist."

Ah, by "today's standards."

The problem for Stogie, and those like Professor Livingston who make arguments about how "racist" the Northerners were, is that in the 1850s most everyone except the most radical abolitionists adopted "racist" views on the relations between whites and blacks. And I've asked Stogie repeatedly, "Who claims Northerners weren't racist? Who denies the North was racist?" None of the scholars I've blogged or cited denies that racism was rife in the North. Stogie's argument is a classic straw man, arguing against a point that no one makes.

Further, the key to this debate, on why the South seceded, is the relative positions on slavery of the antagonists, of North and South. Lincoln opposed slavery. He opposed it consistently. And he particularly opposed the extension of slavery to the territories, and by implication --- considering the South's ideological aggression in its belief in property rights in slaves --- to the North as well. Furthermore, after the North's defeat of the South in the Civil War, the old ideology of the Southern nation, and especially Southern beliefs in the subordination of the "darkies," continued for at least a century, into the decade of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. The Republican Party was the party of emancipation and civil rights. The Democrats, who carried forth the legacy of the "lost cause" and Jim Crow in the mid-20th century, were the party of segregation and white supremacy.

These are just facts. Stogie never addresses these facts other than to further prevaricate with more accusations of Northern racism, or to react with shocked blabbering, "Are you calling me a racist?!!"

No, I am not nor have I ever called Stogie a racist. I just disagree with him on the origins of the Civil War, and he's having a devil of a time winning this debate, especially with his reliance on fringe personalities like Professor Livingston and this economic illiterate Gene Kizer.

In any case, since this post is on how the South names roads to honor the memory of Jefferson Davis, lots of miles of roads, here's Professor Ilya Somin, at the Volokh Conspiracy, with a long entry on why Southern secession was indeed about the preservation of slavery. See, "Slavery as the Motive for Southern Secession in 1861":

Some commenters on my posts on secession (here and here) doubt my claim that the southern states seceded in 1861 for the purpose of preserving slavery. After all, they point out, Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans had promised not to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. This is a common point advanced by those want to claim that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War. Indeed, it was first advanced by apologists for the Confederate cause in the immediate aftermath of the War in order to paint the Confederacy in a more positive light by demonstrating that it was fighting for "states' rights" rather than slavery. But the claim doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Confederate leaders repeatedly stated in 1861 that the threat Lincoln's election posed to slavery was the main reason for secession. In January 1861, soon-to-be Confederate President Jefferson Davis said that his state had seceded because "She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races." Davis was referring to well-known speeches by Lincoln and other Republicans citing the Declaration in criticism of slavery. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens similarly said that "slavery . . . was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" and that protecting it was the "cornerstone" of the new Confederate government. Many other Confederate leaders made similar statements.

Why did Lincoln's election cause them to fear for the future of slavery? It is true that the Republicans did not plan to abolish slavery in the near future. But white southerners still saw Lincoln's election on an antislavery platform as a serious threat to the "peculiar institution." Whatever their position on slavery where it already existed, the Republicans were firm in their commitment to preventing its spread to the vast new territories acquired by the US in the Mexican War. That, in fact, was the main point of the Republican platform. Slaveowners believed that an end to the expansion of slavery threatened their economic interests. In addition, the creation of numerous new free states without the admission of any new countervailing slave states would erode slaveowners' influence in congressional and presidential elections and potentially pave the way for abolition in the future.

Perhaps even more important, most white southerners didn't trust Lincoln's assurances that he wouldn't move against slavery in the South. After all, this was the same man who had famously said that "this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free," and that "the opponents of slavery" should "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." He meant that blocking the expansion of slavery would eventually put pressure on southern states to abolish it "voluntarily." But slaveowners suspected that he and other Republicans would attack the Peculiar Institution directly if they got the chance. Within the Republican Party, Lincoln was a relative moderate. More radical Republicans wanted stronger, more immediate action against slavery. And their influence within the party might grow over time.

Finally, slaveowners feared that Lincoln's election would undermine slavery in border states such as Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and even Virginia, which already had many fewer slaves than the Deep South. By using patronage to promote the growth of Republican parties in these states and relaxing enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, a Republican-controlled federal government could eventually force these states to abolish slavery. Without strong federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, slaves from border states adjacent to slave states could more easily escape to the North and border state slaveowners would have incentives to sell their slaves to the deep south, where slaves couldn't run away as easily; this, of course, would undermine the institution of slavery in the border states. If the Republicans could turn the border states into free states and do the same with all the new states to be established in the West, they could create a large enough majority of free states to enact a constitutional amendment banning slavery throughout the country.

It was to head off these various threats to slavery that the southern states chose to secede in 1861. For documentation of all these points, including quotes from Confederate leaders, see historian William Freehling's excellent book, The South vs. the South.

Ultimately, slavery would probably have lasted longer if the South hadn't seceded in 1861. The Confederates clearly underestimated the North's will to fight (just as northerners underestimated that of the Confederates). Nonetheless, they did have reason to see Lincoln's election as a serious longterm threat to slavery. And that fear underlay the decision to secede.

Okay, thank's for reading.

And check back for the next iteration of the Donald-Stogie debates!