Post-Birth Abortion = Murder

Lonely Con has the video, "Video: Planned Parenthood Ghoul Argues For Post Birth Abortion!" And from Jenny Erikson, "Planned Parenthood Argues in Favor of Infanticide in Cases of Failed Abortions (VIDEO)."

And on Twitter, people are dumbstruck by the progressive evil, at Twitchy, "Horrifying: Fla. Planned Parenthood lobbyist argues case for infanticide."

Dear Planned Parenthood: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure killing a live baby is both murder & a way to punch your express ticket to Hell.

— Georgia On My Mind (@Jeffares) March 29, 2013

Remember, popular support for abortion rights has tanked over the last 40 years, after Americans had a chance to get a good look at the left's depraved culture of death. We'll see the same trend with the deterioration of child welfare on the homosexual marriage front. Even leftist Supreme Court members like Sonya Sotomayor argued that the issue was so fresh that the proper place for debating homosexual marriage was in the states, not at the Court.

PREVIOUSLY: "Expect 'Setbacks' in Left's Push for Homosexual Marriage."

Rachel @Maddow Creams to Infinity Over Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Oral Arguments

Well, if you like your news served up by a giddy little lesbian schoolgirl every night, then Maddow on MSNBC is the place for you. Personally, I cringe at this woman's serial lies in the service to power. The Founding Fathers warned us against this very thing. And it's even worse than they imagined.

At Towleroad, "Rachel Maddow Examines the Supreme Court DOMA Arguments: VIDEO," and "RACHEL MADDOW SPEAKS WITH CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS ABOUT YESTERDAY'S SCOTUS PROP. 8 ARGUMENTS: VIDEO."

The Forgotten Jewish Gravestones of East Los Angeles

Another fascinating piece, at the Los Angeles Times, "Jewish dead lie forgotten in East L.A. graves":

The Eastside neighborhoods of East L.A. and Boyle Heights have long served as an archive of Los Angeles’ multicultural history — Ellis Islands for transplants from the East and across the Pacific — and in more recent years, from Mexico.

Nowhere is this more evident than in their graveyards.

On 3rd Street off Eastern Avenue, there's the pristine Serbian Cemetery. On the 1st Street side of that graveyard is the Chinese Cemetery. The sprawling Evergreen Cemetery in Boyle Heights is the final home of some of the most familiar family names in Los Angeles history, including the Lankershims and the Van Nuyses.

On Whittier Boulevard in East L.A., Home of Peace is a large Jewish cemetery with Roman columns and beautiful mausoleums for noted rabbis. Among the well-known buried there are two of the Three Stooges — Curly and Shemp Howard, and Jack Warner, the film executive who co-founded Warner Bros.

Earlier this year, Eddie Goldstein, perhaps the last Jew to be born and live in Boyle Heights his whole life, was buried at Home of Peace.

And then there's Mount Zion, a graveyard with a hard-luck history.

It was opened in 1916 by a burial society dedicated to provide free burials for poor Jews. Where other cemeteries featured vast expanses of trimmed grass, handsome columns and statuary, Mount Zion was mostly concrete and dirt.

The cemetery rarely made the news, for good or bad, but in 1932 it did when a Hyman Bobroff, age 50, shot himself in the head inside Mount Zion. A second bullet pierced his heart, apparently the result of a reflexive movement of his gun hand after the first pierced his skull.

A year before, the cemetery hosted the funeral for a murdered "alcohol broker."

"No big shots were at the funeral," it was reported in the Los Angeles Times, "although a number of lesser lights from the underworld appeared both at the undertaking parlors and the cemetery."

RTWT. There's a map, plus lots of pictures.

Climate Change Endgame In Sight?

From go-to guy Steven Hayward, at Power Line:

In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:

Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?

The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.”  The question in my mind the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world.

That day appears to have arrived.  The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity.  That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.  A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire.  As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle.  Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line.  Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too, as shown in Figure 2 here.

Read it all at the link (via Memeorandum and Walter Russell Mead).

I Feel Sad for Neil Heslin

Well, I first felt sad for him and the loss of his precious son. Now I feel sad for him that he's become such a gun-grabbing clown.

The Daily Beast reports, "Sandy Hook Parents' Emotional Ad."

My heart poured out for Neil Heslin after #SandyHook. But sad to say, he's become one of the most obnoxious gun-grabbers since the tragedy.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 29, 2013

Here's my post from December, "Neil Heslin, Father of Jesse Lewis, Killed in Newtown Shooting, Spends Christmas Eve Graveside":

I cried listening to this interview a couple of days after the shooting. Not shaking, sobbing crying. Just crying in my soul for this man and his unbearable loss.

Now I'll just pray for him, so that he finds his peace somehow, without taking it out on law-abiding Americans for what happened.

Radical Homosexual Marriage Proponents Have Successfully Framed Their Opponents as Bigots

A great piece, from Mona Charen, at National Review, "Why We’re Losing the Gay-Marriage Debate":

Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America, whatever the Supreme Court decides. That’s because the public is clearly leaning that way. That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle — the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.

Even two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have from time to time expressed caution about the Court’s imposing its will on matters better left up to the people and their elected representatives. It will be interesting to see whether those prudential considerations come into play in their decisions in these cases or whether the desire for a particular outcome overwhelms concerns about the Court’s proper role. Too few Americans recognize this for what it is — a loss of sovereignty.

Champions of same-sex marriage are carrying the day for a number of reasons. (1) The advocacy embedded in popular entertainment such as Modern Family and Brokeback Mountain has been funny, touching, and disarming. (2) Proponents of same-sex marriage appear to be asking for simple justice. (3) Americans would rather stick pins in their eyes than willingly hurt anyone’s feelings. (4) Proponents seem to be embracing the conservative value of marriage.

Beyond all of those factors, though, the most potent argument in the SSM quiver is the race analogy. During oral argument at the Supreme Court, advocates argued (as they have elsewhere) that impairing the right of homosexuals to marry is analogous to proscribing interracial marriage. If that’s true, it’s game, set, and match. If SSM is like interracial marriage, then the only possible motive for opposing it is bigotry.

Liberals slip on this argument like a comfortable sweater. It’s easier to impugn the good faith of your opponents than seriously to grapple with their arguments. Oppose forcing Catholic institutions to distribute free contraceptives? You hate women. Oppose changing the definition of marriage? You hate gays.

Continue reading. It's a thoughtful piece. And she hits it out of the park at the conclusion.

Ms. Charen might have added that in fact the real bigots are gay rights proponents, especially when it comes to traditional values and religion.

Fighting Obama's Extremist Agenda is Not 'Obstructionism' — It's Patriotism

Liz Cheney debunks the "obstructionism" meme at the clip.

At at WSJ, "Republicans, Get Over the 2012 Loss—and Start Fighting Back":

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

—Ronald Reagan, March 30, 1961

President Reagan's words, spoken 52 years ago this weekend, still ring true, with one modification. If we don't defend our freedoms now against the onslaught of President Obama's policies, we won't have to wait until our sunset years for American freedom to be a distant memory.

These days Washington careens from crisis to crisis, most of them manufactured. The Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls. (As the mother of teenage girls, I speak with authority on this, though the comparison does a disservice to teenagers.) With our attention diverted by each fiscal cliff or sequestration drama, we are at risk of missing the real threats to the republic.

President Obama is the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office. The national debt, which he is intent on increasing, has passed $16 trillion. He believes that more government borrowing and spending are the solution to every problem. He seems unaware that the free-enterprise system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system devised by man.

Perhaps his ignorance of that fact explains his hostility toward the private sector. In one of his autobiographies, the president writes that he felt "like a spy behind enemy lines" during his brief stint working for private industry.

The president has launched a war on Americans' Second Amendment rights. He has launched a war on religious freedom. He has launched a war on fossil fuels. He is working to nationalize one-sixth of the economy with job-killing ObamaCare. He wants to collect a greater portion of every American paycheck, not for the purpose of paying down the national debt but to expand his governing machine. He doesn't believe in creating a bigger pie with more opportunity for all. He believes in greater redistribution of a much smaller pie. If you're unsure of what this America would look like, Google GOOG -1.06% "Cyprus" or "Greece."

The president has so effectively diminished American strength abroad that there is no longer a question of whether this was his intent. He is working to pre-emptively disarm the United States. He advocates slashing our nuclear arsenal even as the North Koreans threaten us and the Iranians close in on their own nuclear weapon. He has turned his back on America's allies around the world and ignored growing threats.

Continue reading.

Yes, Obama's the most radical president ever, but let's not forget that he's backed and enabled by a Democrat Party that is now more radical than ever, pushing a stealth agenda of statist authoritarianism under the happy face of "tolerance" and "fairness."

Fight these people. They are indeed evil.

Emily Miller Slams Obama's 'Disgusting' Exploitation of Newtown Tragedy for Universal Background Checks

Emily Miller is a freakin' expert on the politics of firearms. She's just hammering both Anderson Cooper and the idiot Cornell Belcher.

See: "VIDEO: Emily Miller on CNN with Anderson Cooper (March 28, 2013)."

'This is why I carry...'

A sample of what Dana Loesch deals with every day:

This is why I carry. This is just a sample of what I get daily from "gun control" advocates simply because I support 2A. It's this mindset that forced us to take defensive classes and seek police help when they came after my children three years ago. So before folks give me hell about what *I* do to protect my family, maybe look beyond your own navel. Some of us are trying to prevent more tragedy -- this time to our own families. https://twitter.com/MattCam89410489/status/317662424675266561

The Twitter account is now suspended. "Matt." A typical "tolerant" progressive. I'm sure the timeline that would've been a hoot.

Time Magazine's Gay Marriage Cover Features Erotic Homosexual Makeout Shot

At Althouse, "'One of Time's two new cover photos declaring 'gay marriage already won' looks like a wedding kiss. The other looks more like a makeout session'."

And from the comments: "Any guesses as to which will sell better at the newsstand?"

And at Time, "How Gay Marriage Won."

'Spring Breakers' Promotes Rape Culture?

Look, anything with Selena Gomez ain't going to cut with me. The young lady's still on Disney Channel. And now she's starring in a movie about some spring break hotties?

Yeah. Right.

From Heather Long, at Guardian UK, "Spring Breakers isn't just a terrible movie, it reinforces rape culture":

If you are still struggling to understand how so many people, including TV commentators and reputable news organizations, were sympathetic to the Steubenville, Ohio teen rapists, look no further than the recent film Spring Breakers.

In the opening five minutes, the audience gets slow-motion shots of bare breasts and scantily clad bums jiggling as young co-eds dance and drink on the beach. Despite the fact that college men are also engaged in this debauchery, the camera lingers on the females. The message is clear: the girls are the ones really letting loose. Even a scene in the dull university lecture hall features two of the female protagonists mimicking blow jobs in the middle of class.

In other words, Spring Breakers isn't just a terrible movie, it's 90 minutes of reinforcement of the party girl image, the kind of bad girl who's "just asking for it". The kind of girl whom some in the media and in court tried to portray the Ohio rape victim as – pointing out she was allegedly drunk and living it up the night two football players took advantage of her.

The "questionable reputation" of girls is a constant theme in Spring Breakers, which follows four young females on their quest to escape their boring small-town life with a fun beach vacation. Before they even get to the beach, the four women – including "good girl" Faith (played by former Disney Channel star Selena Gomez) – participate in a bizarre handstand ritual where they fling their legs in the air and shout, "I wanna take my clothes off," before they go smoke marijuana and, ultimately, steal a car and money for their trip.

In another scene midway through the film, one of the girls is partying at what looks like a frat house. She is drinking even more than the guys and making sexual poses as the young men encircle her and urge her to "take it like a stripper". She tells the men they can't have her, at the same time she takes her top off.

So much for the tireless campaign to make it clear that "no means no" when it comes to sex, and that if someone is obviously drunk or passed out and can't consent, you should never sleep with them. Films like this make it all the harder to combat the rape culture that exists at many high schools and colleges. Despite the fact that many students don't participate in these extremes, the image in people's heads is "college girl equals wild girl". Nothing is off-limits. Even good ones like the character of Faith just need a little nudging to let loose.

Sounds more like slut culture to me, but this is "Comment is Free," so you know where the author's coming from.

More at the link. And the trailer is here.

Expect 'Setbacks' in Left's Push for Homosexual Marriage

A surprisingly contrarian piece at yesterday's New York Times, "Success on Political Front Can Be Setback in Gay Rights":

WASHINGTON — As the justices of the Supreme Court struggled with the question of same-sex marriage this week, politicians in Congress kept handing down their own verdict. One after another, a series of lawmakers in recent days endorsed allowing gay men and lesbians to wed.

But momentum in the political world for gay rights could actually limit momentum in the legal world. While the court may throw out a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the justices signaled over two days of arguments that they might not feel compelled to intervene further, since the democratic process seems to be playing out on its own, state by state, elected official by elected official.

The prospect that gay rights advocates may become a victim of their own political success was underscored during arguments on Wednesday over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Opponents of the law were left to make the paradoxical argument that the nation has come to accept that gay men and lesbians deserve the same right to marriage as heterosexuals while maintaining that they are a politically oppressed class deserving the protection of the courts.

PREVIOUSLY: "The Coming Backlash Against Homosexual Marriage."

Stunning Public Shift on Homosexual Marriage

From Peter Wehner, at Commentary, "The Stunning Public Shift on Same-Sex Marriage."

I don't buy the argument that homosexuals just wanted to "share in the benefits of marriage". That might sound good, and it might be true for some individual gay couples, but the larger reality is that homosexual marriage is a direct assault on thousands of years of conservative and traditional institutional culture. Break that down and you continue the assault on the underpinnings of a free society, that which the cultural Marxists loathe with the fiery hot passions of unmitigated evil.

RELATED: "Gay Marriage Is the Media's Vehicle, Destination Is to Destroy the Church."

Lucy Pinder for Loaded Magazine April 2013

This lady will help you forget about the freak homosexuals:

Presenting Looser Women tonight at 10pm, we have the absolutely stunning @lpinderofficial! Sky 200/www.loaded.tv! twitter.com/loaded_tv/stat…
— Loaded TV (@loaded_tv) March 27, 2013

Also at Egotastic!, "Lucy Pinder Topless Pictures Loaded with Religious Iconongraphy."

Frank Citro Jr. Blackballed by Las Vegas Casinos

An interesting piece.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Trapped between the covers of Nevada's Black Book":

Casinos Frank Citro Jr. is on the list of undesirables blackballed by casino regulators. At 68, he's trying to do what no one has ever done: Get off while he's still alive.

Read it at the link.

Rush Limbaugh: Homosexual Marriage 'Inevitable'

The dude throws in the towel: "We lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined..." (At Memeorandum.)

'Legalizing same-sex marriage would celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness...'

From the letters to the editor, at the Los Angeles Times, "Letters: Gay in America":

Re " A gay marriage backlash? Not likely," Opinion, March 24

It is incredible to suggest that the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is only "abstract and long term." A normal response to someone who says "I grew up without a mother" or "I grew up without a father" is to say, "I'm so sorry." Legalizing same-sex marriage would celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness.

If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, we will tell ourselves and every child that women are replaceable and men don't matter. There is nothing more fundamentally equal than marriage as it always has been: You must have a man, and you must have a woman.

Gwendolyn Wyne
Los Angeles

Well, that's not politically correct to say that. You'll be attacked as homophobic!

More letters at the link.

Justices Show Reluctance for Broad Marriage Ruling

This morning's big front-page write-up at the Wall Street Journal, "High Court Uneasy Over Broad Ruling":

WASHINGTON—Two days of arguments on same-sex marriage revealed a Supreme Court uneasy about making sweeping moves on gay rights and holding doubts about whether the cases belonged before the justices at all.

The arguments also brought to life more familiar fissures between the court's liberal and conservative wings. On Wednesday, liberal justices suggested that a 1996 federal law denying benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples was motivated by animus against gays, while Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, challenged assertions that gays and lesbians need judicial protection from repressive majorities.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal vote, gave gay-marriage proponents some hope by suggesting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act might infringe on states' rights to make their own marriage rules. That suggested at least five justices—Justice Kennedy plus the court's four liberals—might be ready to strike down the law.

But questions about whether the court could properly hear the case made it hard to predict any outcome.

Decisions are expected by late June on the Defense of Marriage Act case as well as the case the court heard Tuesday on California's 2008 voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The arguments highlighted a point in common between the two cases. Normally, federal courts require two adverse parties before they can decide a case. Strikingly, however, both the federal and state governments agree with the plaintiffs that the challenged laws are unconstitutional, and have declined to defend them on appeal.

Other groups have stepped in to defend the laws banning gay marriage—the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for the Defense of Marriage Act and the private citizens who officially sponsored Proposition 8.

But justices of different ideological stripes were wary of litigants without clear legal standing, even though advocates on both sides were eager for vindication in a roiling culture war.

"I can't think of another instance where that's happened," said Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, referring to the House's intervention in the federal marriage law case. "I'm afraid of opening that door."

Continue reading.

ZoNation: Why Liberals Like Touré Love Racism

Via Theo Spark:

California Schools Forcing LGBT Literature on Children

Well, as I said the other day, if you think it's bad now, just wait until the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 (or rules that the defendants lack standing, which is the same thing).

Here's Cassy Fiano, at Victory Girls:

The truly scary fact is that California is often the state that dictates national trends in education. Pro-LGBT indoctrination in the name of tolerance is growing, and as Kevin Jennings showed us, that doesn’t mean that kids are being taught not to bully the gay kid in their class.

Read it all at the link.

A Republican Left Turn?

Yep, the GOP is turning left alright, if the establishment push for homosexual marriage is an indication.

But see Thomas Edsall, at the New York Times. I like this part:

Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia who has studied left-right divisions and polarization, is actually optimistic about prospects for conservatism. In an e-mail, he wrote:

The right has been weakened on gay rights and now gay marriage, and it looks like immigration. Also interestingly there are fissures on defense spending since defense cuts have been accepted by some conservatives in the sequester as a needed part of budget cutting and holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire on that. But conservatism may not weaken by much since it looks like it can and has regrouped on economic and social welfare spending, taxes, and the budget deficit. Economic and anti-regulation conservatism has hardly weakened.

And on the cultural/values issues, abortion is as strong a rallying issue as ever (public opinion has not shifted left on this, even among younger cohorts in contrast to other issues), and they are just more cautious regarding what they say about contraception. Conservatives would look as much as ever for opportunities on prayer in schools and support for religious group endeavors. Conservatives have held together on guns even after recent events. And with regard to racial and racial justice issues, watch the Supreme Court on voting rights and affirmative action. Conservatives have not been weakened any further on these issues.

Okay, but homosexual marriage is like a Waterloo or something. It just really destroys a key plank of what it means to be a conservative, if not a Republican.

But RTWT.

Mexico Doesn't Want America's Tired, Poor Americans Coming Over Its Borders — Or Anybody Else!

An excellent piece, from Michelle Malkin, "Reminder: How Mexico Treats 'Undesirable' Foreigners."

Exit question: If such self-interested “nativism” is right and good for the protection and survival of Mexico, why not for the United States?

Who's Mark Firestone?

Some progressive douchebag who won't leave Wirecutter alone. See: "Mark Firestone's man-crush."

Shoot, you've got to block, ban and report those f-kers!

Jenny Erikson A-Okay With Victoria Secret for 'Tween' Girls

The Internet is a big place and as much as you think you're on top of it, you're not. I'm reminded of this cold, hard fact with the story of "mommy blogger" Jenny Erikson, who I met a few years back when Robert Stacy McCain was in town for the Rose Bowl.

See Jenny's piece at Cafe Stir, "Victoria's Secret's New Teen Lingerie Is Something All Moms Should Be Happy About."

I guess that caused a backlash, because she's been on ABC News a number of times since that was published last month, as recently as yesterday morning, during Good Morning America. Here's an earlier segment of her interview:

And here's some of the online responses, "Outrage Grows Over Mom’s ‘Victoria’s Secret’ For Young Daughter," and "Mom Blogger Inspires Wrath of Nation Advocating Victoria’s Secret for Tweens."

And more television, at Inside Edition, "Uproar Over Mom Permitting Victoria's Secret Underwear For Daughter When She Becomes a Tween."

Jenny's a tea party conservative and I think her responses are pretty hip and knowledgeable. I don't have girls so I can't make an immediate parenting connection. Let's just say I won't be buying my youngest son Maxim Magazines for a few years yet. But my oldest boy is 17 now and he's pretty much on his own when it comes to this stuff. He'll be 18 next January, so the final legal decisions on all the big sexuality stuff will be out of my hands. I think Jenny's a good mom, and super involved. If an inner-city black woman had become an Internet sensation over this we'd be seeing outcries of RAAAAACISM from the deep benches of the radical left's victimology industry.

Well, Shark Cage Diving Wasn't on My Bucket List Anyway

From ABC News, "Newlyweds' Terrifying Close Encounter With Shark."

Michael Bloomberg Violates All Three Gun Safety Rules Taught by NRA

Well, actually, Bloomberg's gun-grabbing political advertisement violates the rules, according to Emily Miller, at the Washington Times, "Mayor Bloomberg’s irresponsible gun attack ads - Man violates all three NRA gun-safety rules":

Mike Bloomberg is spending $12 million on attack ads designed to force U.S. senators to vote for national gun control laws that will supposedly save lives. However, the New York mayor’s commercials running in 13 states over the next two weeks could cause injury or death by showcasing irresponsible handling of a firearm.

Mr. Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, produced two ads featuring a man holding a shotgun, wearing plaid flannel with a camouflage cap and sitting on the tailgate of a pickup truck. While a child swings on a tire in the background, the man says, “I support comprehensive background checks so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns.”

The ad does not specify if the man is an actor, but the text accompanying it says he is a "gun owner."  Either way, the man violates all three gun safety rules taught by the National Rifle Association (NRA). (Click here to see the ads.)

The first rule is to always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. In this case, the children are playing in the yard. Although the viewers can’t see what is to the side of the truck, the man should be pointing the muzzle in the air or at the ground.
The second NRA rule is always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

In the ad “Responsibility,” the man has his finger on the trigger, as if ready to shoot. While doing this, he says, “I believe in the Second Amendment, and I’ll fight to protect it. But with rights come responsibilities.”  To make an ad demonstrating actual gun responsibility, the man would put a straight forefinger above the trigger guard to make sure he doesn't accidentally touch the trigger.

The third NRA safety rule is always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This means a situation in which the gun is available for immediate use -- such as when hunting and a deer could step out at any time or when the firearm is safely stored but ready for quick self-defense as needed.

In the ad called “Family,” the man says that, “My dad taught me to hunt, and I’ll teach my kids. I’ve owned a gun all my life, and I’ll fight for my right to keep it.”

While saying this, he holds the pump-action shotgun with the action (bolt) closed, so it is impossible to know if it is loaded. To make this a demonstration of safety, the bolt would be wide open to demonstrate that it is unloaded.

A man who grew up hunting would know that by holding a shotgun straight horizontal, with the action closed and his finger on the trigger, he is committing all three cardinal sins of gun safety.

See also Mary Katharine Ham, "Video: Guy in Bloomberg gun-control ads breaks all the major rules of gun safety."

Liberalism Explained

From Katie Pavlich:

. @thesdcowgirl liberalism explained ow.ly/i/1M3u3

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) March 28, 2013

Illegal Immigrant Climbs Border Fence While Senators McCain and Schumer Look On

At Pundit Press, "Illegal Alien Climbs Fence Right Behind Senators McCain, Schumer." And Hot Air, "Illegal immigrant climbs border fence right in front of McCain and Schumer; Update: Video added."

Ali Akbar Mars Curtis Bostic Campaign for Congress #SC1

There's a huge conservative buzz building for GOP congressional candidate Curtis Bostic, who's running for election from South Carolina's District 1.

Robert Stacy McCain mounted a little shoe-leather funding drive to finance a trip to cover the campaign, and now he's hitting the road: "Headin’ to South Cackalacky!"

Unfortunately, alternative media have been reporting an ugly little controversy surrounding Ali Akbar, the convicted felon who is head of the National Bloggers' Club.

iOWNTHEWORLD reports, "Head of National Bloggers Club Embroiled in South Carolina Congressional Primary Controversy."

Ali A. Akbar’s past is being used against Curtis Bostic, the TEA Party favorite who is running an underdog campaign against the establishment’s Mark Sanford.

The Patch has been covering the controversy -

In the week since his surprising second-place finish to Mark Sanford in the Republican primary for the first Congressional District, Curtis Bostic and his social media presence has kept a low profile.

But on Monday, political consultant and convicted felon Ali Akbar emerged in vocal support of Bostic’s campaign. Akbar and the Bostic campaign differ on whether the two are working together.

Akbar’s “work” for Bostic raised a few eyebrows, given his criminal history.

Akbar was convicted in 2006 of credit card theft and fraud in Tarrant County, Texas. He was placed on four years probation. Screen shots of the court records relating to the case are attached to this article ...

More at the link.

And from Ladd Ehlinger on Twitter:

This is the story of a convicted felon who thought he would rule conservative bloggers while still on probation. columbia-sc.patch.com/articles/sc1-c…
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013

Because what the conservative movement really needs is a pissy convicted felon to threaten you with no Bwog Bash ID. columbia-sc.patch.com/articles/sc1-c…
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013

It's spelled fwinge. RT @rachelveronica Haha! That’s what Ali calls people who question him. The fringe.@ericontrarian @johnpo88
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013

What an awesome BWOG BASH ID RT @johnpo88 twitter.com/johnpo88/statu…
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013

@libertylynx @rachelveronica No worries. It is disappointing that a good conservative candidate may now lose because of this creep.
— Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) March 27, 2013

And from Rick Wilson:

I’ve completed my due diligence: any candidate within 500 miles of that creepy little shitbird @ali needs their head examined.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) March 27, 2013

This story's getting bigger.

Slate's David Weigel weighs in: "Is the GOP's Last, Best Hope Against Mark Sanford Blowing It?"

Expect updates...

Mark Kelly's Dog Kills Baby Sea Lion in Laguna Beach

Remember, this is Gabby Giffords' gun-grabbing husband.

And to think, I once respected this man.

At Jammie Wearing Fool, "Mark Kelly’s Assault Dog Kills Baby Sea Lion." The video is graphic. That dog just murders the little sea lion.

They should probably institute a waiting period before someone demonstrates they can capably handle the dog.

Will Tolerance for the Faithful Be Tolerated?

From John Kass, at the Chicago Tribune, "As times change, will tolerance for tradition be tolerated?":

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one's faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.

It's not my intention to add to the anger and the noise. If you've followed the news of the crowds outside the Supreme Court this week, and watched those vicious little boxes within boxes on cable TV, with angry people barking at each other, you'll get plenty of noise.

I'm not angry. Yet I am struggling. And I've been silent on the subject for some time, trying to figure it out.

I'm not opposed to same-sex unions. Americans have the right to equal protection under the law, and same-sex couples should be able to expect the same tax benefits and other considerations allowed to those of us who are now being called, in some quarters, "opposite-sex couples."

As far as I'm concerned, Americans have the right to do as they please as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. America is all about liberty and freedom.

But this all comes now during the season of Lent, a time of fasting and prayer, when Christians are compelled to confront the obligations of their faith.

And while I hear the new moral arguments, about equal rights and equal protection, I've read little about the religious freedom aspects and what the Supreme Court's ruling might mean for houses of traditional worship.

All I'm asking is that in the rush to establish new rights, that tolerance for religious freedom be considered as well.

What?

Tolerance for Godbag religious bigots? Well, don't expect any of that from the pro-homo progressive left. They hate conservative Christians. And traditional Muslims? Well, folks like that are only good for attacking conservatives as Islamophobes, so they have their uses. Just screw 'em when it comes to their "backward" views on homosexuality. Throw those Muslim bigots under the bus.

 More from David Brody, at CBN, "Are the Faithful More Scorned Than Homosexuals?"

Gretchen Rossi Bikini Pics

Once again, a much-needed bikini break before getting back to the depraved homosexual updates.

At Egotastic!, "Gretchen Rossi Bikini Beach Photoshoot in L.A.."

Dumping DOMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Arguments in United States v. Windsor

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

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

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

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

Alleged Terrorist Attempts Take Down of BlazingCatFur

This is messed up, at BCF, "Ottawa Terrorist Dr. Khurram Sher... Oops Alleged Terrorist... Has Filed Blogger Take Down Requests Against Yours Truly."

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

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

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

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

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

Universities as Left-Wing Seminaries

From Dennis Prager, at Townhall, "Florida Atlantic University: Another Left-Wing Seminary":

Question: What is the difference between Christian seminaries and American universities?

Answer: Christian seminaries announce that their purpose is to produce committed Christians. American universities do not admit that their primary purpose is to produce committed leftists. They claim that their purpose is to open students' minds.

This month Florida Atlantic University provided yet another example of how universities have become left-wing seminaries.

An FAU professor told his students to write "JESUS" (in bold caps) on a piece of paper and then step on it.

One student who did not, a junior named Ryan Rotela, complained to the professor and then to the professor's supervisor. He explained that he had refused to do so because it violated his religious principles.

Two days later, Rotela was told not to attend the class anymore. The university then went on to defend the professor in an email to a local CBS TV station: "Faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse. While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate."

FAU further pointed out that the stomping exercise -- to "discuss the importance of symbols in culture" -- came from a textbook titled "Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach."

After the story became national news, FAU issued an apology: "We sincerely apologize for any offense this has caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."

Of course, this "apology" was meaningless. Apologizing for "giving offense" has nothing to do with condemning the act. Not to mention that kicking Rotela out of the class belied the university's claim of open discourse.

This story is significant because it provides yet another example of the deteriorated state of American higher education. There are some excellent professors in the so-called "social sciences" at American universities. But they are in the minority. The left has taken over American universities as well as most high schools, and like almost everything the left has influenced -- education, religion, the arts and the economies of most countries -- this influence has been destructive.

The argument that the professor represents no one but himself is refuted by the fact that the university defended the professor until it feared the national outcry that resulted.

More at that top link.

The professor is a Democrat Party apparatchik.

I saw this case earlier, and it's mind-boggling. More here, "Gov. Scott Requests Answers From FAU In Jesus Stomping Controversy."

'Same-sex marriage is very new...'

The quote is Samuel Alito's at the title.

Maureen Dowd uses it as launching pad to slam the "fusty" Supreme Court, "Courting Cowardice."

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments

At Athouse, "'What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?'"

And following the links there, at the New York Times, "Full Transcript of Arguments in California’s Gay Marriage Case."

And there's a complete video with the audio here.

Nine Glorified Lawyers

Pundette has a wonderful roundup on today's arguments before the Supreme Court, "We love you, Jonah, but ..."

Why Gay Marriage Will Win, and Sexual Freedom Society Will Lose

From Megan McArdle, at the Daily Beast:

In some sense, it doesn't really matter how the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case it's hearing today.  The culture war is over on this front, and gay marriage has won.  Even if it loses at the Supreme Court this term, it will win in the legislatures . . . because it is already winning in popular opinion.  Few people much under the age of sixty see a compelling reason that straights should marry and gays should not.  For that matter, my Republican grandfather is rumored to have said, at the age of 86, "I think gays should marry!  We'll see how much they like it, though."

At this point, it's just a matter of time.  In some sense, the sexual revolution is over . . . and the forces of bourgeois repression have won.

That's right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality.  Once gays can marry, they'll be expected to marry.  And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats.  I believe we're witnessing the high water mark for "People should be able to do whatever they want, and it's none of my business."  You thought the fifties were conformist?  Wait until all those fabulous "confirmed bachelors" and maiden schoolteachers are expected to ditch their cute little one-bedrooms and join the rest of America in whining about crab grass, HOA restrictions, and the outrageous fees that schools want to charge for overnight soccer trips...

More at the link.

I think McArdle overestimates the benign effects of this development. Homosexuals will gain more clout, push for normalizing all kinds of depraved behavior in the public schools, and further demonize and marginalize people of decency and faith. And frankly, we might find out in a few years that homosexual marriage is empirically not better for the well-being of children --- that is, we might have large-N, statistically significant research demonstrating the harshly adverse effects of legalizing the marriages of the bunghole bungee jumpers.

Via Memeorandum.

Family Members Make Gay Marriage Personal for Newfound Supporters

From this morning's Los Angeles Times, "Knowing gay person a key factor in rising support for gay marriage."

Knowing someone who's gay won't change my opinion that traditional marriage is best for kids, families, and society. But MSM hacks like George Stephanopoulos sure love to beat the dead horse with that meme:

Forget Homosexual Marriage! Here's Your Smokin' New Britney Spears Bikini Pics!

I need a Britney bikini break, at London's Daily Mail, "Britney Spears looks back to her best as she parades taut tummy in a bikini."

Okay, carry on!

And check back for the freak homosexual blogging throughout the night.

The New York Times Goes All In for the Left's Morally-Depraved Homosexual Marriage Scam

I have argued in previous posts that the Supreme Court should strike down the DOMA in furtherance of a genuine federalism protecting states' rights to regulate marriage according to local political interests.

That view is mistaken and I'm retracting that position. I still have questions about the effects of DOMA repeal on the states, as noted in my earlier post, "I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act." However, folks should read this amicus curiae brief from the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, "BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL ON THE MERITS."

One of my questions that's now been answered is how, as I mentioned, would states be affected by married same-sex couples of a state who relocate and then make claims on another state that does not recognize homosexual marriage? Actually, there could be dramatic effects, if the Eagle Forum brief is accurate --- and it makes a powerful case in any event. Homosexual married federal employees who reside in a same-sex marriage state who then move to a state recognizing only opposite-sex marriages could then claim a violation of their rights under DOMA, and hence force the recognition of homosexual marriage on a state whose political system has rejected the redefinition of the institution. It's telling, then, that the Washington Post has this just now as I'm drafting this entry, "Federal employees in same-sex unions look to Supreme Court to overturn DOMA."

In any case, here's the key section at the brief, "As a Practical Matter, Rejecting DOMA Would Spread Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide":

Although Windsor and her allies often seek to minimize the issues at stake in challenging DOMA §3, the impact of the Second Circuit’s decision – and of any decision by this Court to affirm that decision – simply is not limited to Windsor’s tax liability or even a relatively few couples in New York and a few other states. The question of whom society allows to marry does not affect only the wedding couple.

Even without the direct force of law, federal employees with federally recognized, same-sex marriages from a few states will spread across the Nation when they are re-posted, transferred, or simply move. They will take with them not only their federal recognition, but also various property rights such as pensions, as well as child-custody issues. When they move to states that do not recognize same-sex marriages, they will raise countless substantive and procedural issues, as well as the sheer weight of practical problems that the differing legal regimes will present.

These issues posed by same-sex couples will arise when federally regulated persons such as federal employees and contractors either (a) move from one of the few same-sex marriage states to a state with a husband-wife definition of marriage, or (b) visit same-sex marriage jurisdictions (like Windsor here) while domiciled in states with a husband-wife definition of marriage. The latter category will require still further litigation to determine DOMA’s application to such “destination marriages” by non-domiciliaries. Whenever federal law recognizes a marriage that state law does not, the conflicts that the differing regimes pose will be magnified.

Be sure to RTWT. It's a very compelling argument.

Now, here are the editors at the New York Times, who're going all cultural Marxist for the left's family-destruction agenda, "A 50-State Ruling":

California’s Proposition 8 rewrote the state’s Constitution so that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, for purposes of any federal law, defined the word marriage to mean “only a legal union between one man and one woman.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on challenges to Proposition 8 on Tuesday and Defense of Marriage on Wednesday. In both cases, the court should rule that the Constitution prohibits the federal government and every state from defining the fundamental right of marriage so narrowly and fully protects the liberty of same-sex couples.

When Proposition 8 was on the California ballot in 2008, the official pamphlet explaining the initiative said that it did not “take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships,” which have the “ ‘same rights, protections, and benefits’ as married spouses.”

As the California Supreme Court said about legal attacks on same-sex marriage, the point of denying gay marriages was to say officially that these relationships were not of “comparable stature or equal dignity” to opposite-sex marriages. The intent was to stigmatize them, enshrine discrimination in law and encourage discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples. The federal Defense of Marriage Act does the same, with the same effects. And in depriving same-sex couples and their children of federal recognition and benefits, it fails to meet any test under the Constitution.

Keep reading. The editors are making a radical call to stop the political process now moving toward greater acceptance of homosexual marriage across the land. A sweeping ruling like that endorsed by the Times will only radicalize and polarize the debate, and thus prevent the likely accommodation of all sides through the federal system. What a disaster.

Compare the Times to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, "Marriage and the Supreme Court":

This week the Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage, amid shifting American mores and a healthy debate about equality. Yet the two cases before the High Court are less about the institution of marriage than the sanctity of democratic institutions and the proper role of the courts.

Over time, through popular consent, the law comes to reflect an evolving social consensus. On gay marriage, state by state, election by election, voters are extending to gay and lesbian couples the same rights and responsibilities that pertain to a union between a man and a woman. Those choices are the pith of self-government, even if fair-minded voters in other states preserve the traditional meaning.

If the Supreme Court now reads a right to gay marriage into the Constitution and imposes that definition on all states, it won't settle the debates Americans are conducting. It will inflame them and ensure they never end, prematurely aborting the give-and-take on contentious moral and social issues the Constitution is designed to encourage. Five Justices—or fewer, if they split into pluralities—could further polarize the body politic and make compromise more difficult.

Also notice the discussion of upholding DOMA at the piece.

Today's my long day at the college, but I'll have more blogging tonight.

Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness

The disgusting Occupy-endorsing, anti-Semitic hate-bagging progressive Walter James Casper III writes:

Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...

Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't -- and shouldn't be -- defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been -- except of course, as an argument against marriage equality....

I know? How could anyone be this dishonest? Folks can Google the post, titled "We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)." I won't link the lies, because that's all this guy has --- lies, deceit and the destruction of decency and moral regeneration of family, faith and country. This is progressive radicalism and licentiousness at its most disgusting.

Hatesac is a pathological liar. Marriage is and has always been at base about the union of man and woman for the biological regeneration of society. To brutally rip the centrality of the marriage union from procreation and family is to adopt nothing less than the cultural Marxist ideological program of destruction of decency in the name of state power. Marx and Engels specifically called for the obliteration of the family in furtherance of the Utopian communist state. Walter James "Hatesac" knows all of this. He simply will not acknowledge the truth of the millennium. He's a disgusting, anti-God prick. A hateful degenerate who's out to destroy the moral fiber of the nation.

As David Blankenhorn has written:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

And Hatesac lies about this alleged dearth of "studies that say 'mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best'." Unbelievable dishonesty. Or, it'd be unbelievable for a normal person, but hate-bagging Repsac3 is not a normal person. If he was, if he was honest, he'd cite the wealth of research arguing that indeed kids do best in the biological mom/dad family unit. I just wrote about this the other day, and given Hatesac's obsession with this blog, he certainly knew the truth but choose to lie anyways. See, "Amicus Brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry Demonstrates Children Fare Better With Biological Parents in Traditional 'Opposite Sex' Marriage." And this bullshit about "banning" other situations like "poverty" and "divorce" is just straw man stupidity. Poverty is worsened by current progressive social policies and divorce --- especially "no fault" --- is a product of radical left-wing social disorganization. But liar Hatesac won't discuss these truths. He's just making shit up as he goes along. A truly bad person. Evil incarnate. Seriously, it's people like this who're dragging this country to the depths of perdition. Horrible.

Of course, longtime readers will recall that Walter James "Hatesac" Casper is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church --- a religious organization that is outside all mainstream denominations, and has been likened to a faith of cultural nihilists and radical collectivists. Gven Hatesac's perverted views on the institution of marriage, it's clear that his Unitarianism is busting out in all of its disgusting, orgiastic licentiousness. See the Washington Post, "Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet":

The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go. Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the folks who want a faith community without too many rules. It is perhaps no surprise that the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest-growing denominations in the country, ballooning 15 percent over the past decade, when other established churches were shrinking. Politically progressive to its core, it draws from the pool of people who might otherwise be “nones” – unaffiliated with any church at all.

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

More:

In 2007, a Unitarian congregation in Chestertown, Md., heard a sermon by a poly activist named Kenneth Haslam, arguing that polyamory is the next frontier in the fight for sexual and marriage freedom. “Poly folks are strong believers that each of us should choose our own path in forming our families, forming relationships, and being authentic in our sexuality.”

Right.

That's exactly what the putrid Hatesac argues at his scummy, morally depraved essay, "We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)." Again, it's too sick to even link. Folks can Google it if they can stomach Hatesac's "cutting-edge" views about how Americans should "choose their own path" on abandoning the historic conception of marriage as the foundation of healthy children and the survival of decency in society.

But this is radical progressivism we're talking about, which seeks the cultural Marxist overthrow of basic goodness and moral clarity in society. The genuine evil here is literally astonishing.

Escaping From Human Oppression

From yesterday's Orange County Register, "Passover's message can resonate with everyone":

"Why is this night different from all other nights?" Thus, at sunset Monday, will begin the ritual of questions during the Seder meal with which Jews start the celebration of Passover, or Pesach, which commemorates the deliverance of the Israelite slaves from bondage in Egypt. The youngest child at the table is expected to answer the questions, fulfilling the commandment, "And thou shalt tell thy son."

According to tradition, as related in the book of Exodus, the Israelites were made slaves in ancient Egypt. But Yahweh, the Hebrew God, instructed Moses to demand of the ruling Pharaoh that His people be released. Pharaoh refused, and Yahweh brought 10 plagues down upon Egypt. The final plague was the death of the firstborn son in every household. The Jews were instructed to sacrifice a lamb and smear its blood on the house's lintel or doorpost. Seeing the blood, the Angel of Death would pass over that house. After this final plague, Pharaoh relented and allowed the Jews to leave.

"Passover speaks to every generation because every generation sees dictators and tyrants aiming to destroy the dreams, hopes, religious beliefs and cultural identities of population subgroups within their borders," Rabbi Dov Fischer, of the Irvine-based Young Israel of Orange County, told us. "The Jewish people in Egypt, even in slavery, refused to be forcibly assimilated.  Rather, the Jews retained their language, their Hebrew names and their forms of dress throughout their centuries of slavery."

Why do we eat only unleavened bread, or matzoh, on Pesach? To remember that when the Jews left Egypt there was not time to allow the bread to rise, so the dough was baked into hard crackers. Why do we eat bitter herbs? To remind us of the cruelty the Jews suffered. Why do we dip our foods? We dip bitter herbs into Charoset made of apples and nuts, which resemble clay used for bricks, to remind us how hard the slaves had to work. Parsley is dipped into saltwater, symbolizing that spring is here, and new life will grow. The saltwater reminds us of the tears of the Jewish slaves. Why do we lean on a pillow? To be comfortable and to remind us that once we were slaves, and now we are free.

Passover is typically celebrated for seven days in Israel and among Reform Jews, and for eight days among diaspora Conservative and Orthodox Jews. It recalls the birth of a Jewish nation, freed of Egyptian oppression and able to serve Yahweh, or God, alone. The first and last days are full festivals, marked by abstention from work, special prayer services and holiday meals. Jews eat only unleavened bread during the entire observance.

Passover commemorates the birth of a Jewish nation consecrated to serve Yahweh, not the Pharaoh. It is a time to be humble and to remember what it was like to be a slave. Most of all, it is a celebration of freedom, of the joys and opportunities available when we are not forced to serve others.

"As Americans, we oppose tyranny and dictatorships throughout the world, from Saddam Hussein in Iraq to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi in Libya to the Taliban in Afghanistan.  We know that, if dictators and tyrants are not stopped, they eventually expand their sights and attack us, too," Fischer said. "We celebrate freedom, and we respect and cherish the many expressions of cultural identity and religious belief that have contributed to make America great."

Still more at that top link.

I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act

Blogging will be light this evening while I read around on the background to DOMA.

I've noticed that most conservatives hope to preserve DOMA, but I'm interested in fully returning the issue of marriage regulations to the states. Plus, under DOMA the federal government determines what kinds of benefits are available to married couples. I'm looking to see how DOMA repeal will affect states that do not recognize same-sex marriage in their states. (What kind of claims might a same-sex married couple have on a state that doesn't allow homosexual marriage, for example?) For true federalism to work the national government is going to have recognize marriage as a right subject to state laws and that under Article IV states are required to honor the laws of other states. There could be drawbacks to this beyond the initial notion of recognition of same-sex marriage as violating ideological and religious convictions, but I need more information.

See Lyle Denniston, at SCOTUS Blog, "Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part I," and "Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part II."

#MarriageMarch is tomorrow myop.us/10HknTi retweet this meme to show your support! twitter.com/NOMupdate/stat…
— NOM (@NOMupdate) March 25, 2013

And until later, see Andrew Ferguson, at the Weekly Standard, "Politicized 'Science' of Gay Marriage."

March for Marriage

An excellent clip, from the National Organization for Marriage:

Likely Outcomes on Homosexual Marriage at the Supreme Court

At the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court has menu of options in gay marriage case":

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. often looks for a narrow way to decide a major case. He also focuses on the procedural rules, and there is some doubt over whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 have "standing" to represent the state of California in the case. The sponsors of the gay marriage ban are private citizens, and their opponents say they do not have a personal stake in the case that would give them legal standing.

If the high court were to punt for procedural reasons in the Proposition 8 case, most lawyers say, California's gay marriage ban would fall as a result of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that declared it unconstitutional. Others say that a procedural ruling might mean the only winners would be the two gay couples who filed the suit to overturn the ban.

In another scenario, the court might follow a procedural finding on Proposition 8 with a major decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the case to be heard Wednesday. This creates the possibility of a ruling that the government cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny equal benefits to gay couples, but it would not mandate that all states allow gay marriage.

Some legal scholars, citing recent public opinion polls and votes in several states, said it was unlikely that the court would completely shut the door on gay marriage. Harvard Law School professor Michael J. Klarman, author of a recent book on the legal fight over same-sex unions, said the justices would not want to put their names to an opinion that would be seen over time as narrow-minded.

The menu of options facing the court could complicate the oral arguments this week and make it especially hard to forecast the outcome, which is likely to be released in June. They also may prove crucial if the justices find themselves closely split, as they were last year in the case on President Obama’s healthcare law. Then, Roberts found a narrow option for upholding the Affordable Care Act that appealed to him alone, and the four liberal justices opted to join him.

This time, the four liberal justices are likely to take their cue from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. If he is willing to strike down Proposition 8 narrowly or rule broadly in favor of same-sex marriage, they would probably join him to make a majority.

The court's seniority system puts Kennedy in position to write the majority opinion in that event. When the justices meet in their private conference late this week, they will vote on whether to uphold or reverse the U.S. 9th Circuit Court's decision striking down Proposition 8. Roberts speaks first, followed by Justice Antonin Scalia. Both are likely to vote to reverse the 9th Circuit's decision.

The Court needs to defend the will of the voters in California. Anything else will be a victory for the gay left. And either way, let DOMA crash. Leave it to the states.

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on CNN Taking Down Islamic Supremacist Thug

At Atlas Shrugs:

Lots more counter-jihad at Pamela's blog.

The Coming Backlash Against Homosexual Marriage

Here's Harvard Professor Michael Klarman, "A gay marriage backlash? Not likely." While perhaps a backlash might not be inevitable should the Court strike down Proposition 8 in June, I think Klarman needs to rethink this a little:

Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may alter the institution's meaning for religious conservatives who believe that God created marriage to propagate the species. But that effect is abstract and long-term. The immediate effect of a marriage equality ruling would be that the gay couple already living down the street would become eligible for a marriage license — and nothing would change in the daily lives of gay-marriage opponents.

I wonder if these are lies of commission or omission? The fact is, people of deep traditional faith will be further banished from the public square and the public schools will be even more marinated in radical leftist cultural Marxist indoctrination. Society will be deeply divided on the issue. To say otherwise is morally bankrupt in the extreme. Shame on Professor Klarman.

Progressives push lies like this to advance their agenda. Then they demonize those who push back with the truth. Behold the evil people.

The Left-Wing Stranglehold on Academia

From Mark Bauerlein, at the Weekly Standard, "Forbidden City."

Read it at the link.

The United States is Top Destination for Potential Immigrants Worldwide

An absolutely amazing global survey from Gallup, "More Than 100 Million Worldwide Dream of a Life in the U.S":

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- About 13% of the world's adults -- or about 630 million people -- say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. -- the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants. The U.K., Canada, and France also rank among the top choices for potential migrants....

Implications

The U.S. remains the most popular destination in the world for potential migrants. This is likely because of economic opportunities in the country and the established networks of potential migrants. In addition, the U.S. again tied with Germany in 2012 as the country with the highest leadership approval ratings in the world, but when it comes to a desired place to live permanently, no other country compares with the U.S.

Behold: There is no greater repudiation of the radical left's century-long campaign of anti-American delegitimation. Frankly, we should export the hardline progressives seeking to destroy America and import those teeming masses worldwide yearning to breathe free. I have no doubt our country would grow even more prosperous and wealthy if we could simply get rid of the dead-weight radicals bent on tearing America down.

Via Steve Sailor and Maggie's Farm.

What is the Resolution to the Homosexual Marriage Debate?

Check this interesting and very well-done essay from Sarah Marie Brenner, at the Brenner Brief, "The Gay Marriage SCOTUS Debate: The Constitution, or God?":

Just as we cannot redefine “death” or “birth” (at least, not without a complete perversion of the word), we cannot redefine the word “marriage.”

RTWT.

Social Conservative Leader Gary Bauer Just Destroys Fake Conservative Nicole Wallace on Fox News Sunday

Ms. Wallace may be right that public opinion is shifting toward social acceptance of homosexual marriage, but she sounds like a bloody fool trying to argue that giving homosexuals marriage rights is a conservative value. And she just gets beaten up on this by Gary Bauer, who was completely unflustered in smacking down this clueless progressive tool:

Heading Back to the O.C.

We should be on the road by now. Regular blogging will probably pick back up tonight and tomorrow.

Thanks for reading.

#TheEagles at @mgmgrand. Amazing concert. Love those guys. And glad my whole family made it to the show! #RockandRoll twitter.com/AmPowerBlog/st…
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 24, 2013

Echoes of Roe v. Wade in Supreme Court's Homosexual Marriage Cases

The best outcome will see the Court upholding California's Proposition 8 but simultaneously striking down the federal government's DOMA. That result will send homosexual marriage back to the states, with the will of the voters (as in California in 2008), where it belongs.

I'll have more, in any case, but see the New York Times, "Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage":

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court hears a pair of cases on same-sex marriage on Tuesday and Wednesday, the justices will be working in the shadow of a 40-year-old decision on another subject entirely: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from that decision, with some saying that it was needlessly rash and created a culture war.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and a champion of women’s rights, has long harbored doubts about the ruling.

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.

Briefs from opponents of same-sex marriage, including one from 17 states, are studded with references to the aftermath of the abortion decision and to Justice Ginsburg’s critiques of it. They say the lesson from the Roe decision is that states should be allowed to work out delicate matters like abortion and same-sex marriage for themselves.

“They thought they were resolving a contentious issue by taking it out of the political process but ended up perpetuating it,” John C. Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University, said of the justices who decided the abortion case. “The lesson they should draw is that when you are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate.”

Justice Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.

But Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the two couples challenging California’s ban, said the Roe ruling was a different case on a different subject and arose in a different political and social context. The decision was “a bolt out of the blue,” he said, and it had not been “subject to exhaustive public discussion, debate and support, including by the president and other high-ranking government officials from both parties.”

“Roe was written in a way that allowed its critics to argue that the court was creating out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right,” Mr. Boutrous said. “But recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to marry dates back over a century, and the Supreme Court has already paved the way for marriage equality by deciding two landmark decisions protecting gay citizens from discrimination.”

RTWT.

Robert Stacy McCain Eviscerates Matthew Yglesias

Excellent work, "The 1% Progressive Bloggers Club and the Bourgeois Dialectic of Comrade Yglesias."

That Yglesias dude is such an asshole:

.@mattyglesias You're getting hammered so hard for hypocrisy it's like you've cornered the market on progressive douche-iness. Congrats!
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 24, 2013