Pelosi 09 March 2010… “but we have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it“

Sounds as ridiculous as their approach to Stack and the Tea Parties.

First off, let’s make this clear – Stack, in his eyes, was a victim.  Victims of the economy and the tax system represent all walks of life and those loners who would become suicide bombers over it do not have any kind of mainstream support.

Secondly, in his letter, Stack railed against organized religion, Catholicism and big business – these are not views shared by most Tea Party members.  He was also motivated by class warfare and railed against the rich as well as the notion of an American dream.  None of this is reflected in the Tea Party movement.  We might as well link him to the leftist radicals empathized by moveon.org or the Huffington Post.

This is the same game the MSM played by trying to tie a [Continue...]]]> To MSNBC and other so-called news outlets insistent on linking Joe Stack to the Tea Party movement: obviously MSNBC supports child rape and incest. There must be a connection because I know that several MSNBC hosts oppose parental notification laws for pregnant teenagers and espouse the same views as the adults who impregnate them.

Sounds as ridiculous as their approach to Stack and the Tea Parties.

First off, let’s make this clear – Stack, in his eyes, was a victim.  Victims of the economy and the tax system represent all walks of life and those loners who would become suicide bombers over it do not have any kind of mainstream support.

Secondly, in his letter, Stack railed against organized religion, Catholicism and big business – these are not views shared by most Tea Party members.  He was also motivated by class warfare and railed against the rich as well as the notion of an American dream.  None of this is reflected in the Tea Party movement.  We might as well link him to the leftist radicals empathized by moveon.org or the Huffington Post.

This is the same game the MSM played by trying to tie a violent extremist like Scott Roeder to the entire pro-life cause.

The same holds true for the Leftist approach to the economy.  It’s almost as if the Lancet study in Iraq was applied to job numbers.  During most of the Bush era, unemployment numbers were at or near historic lows.  This was because the Bush Administration’s approach to an economic downturn was to cut taxes and while spending was still a problem, it at least remained within reason when compared to the growth in the overall economy.  I was told repeatedly throughout those years that unemployment numbers were irrelevant when gauging the strength of the economy.

Never mind that this week the Politico chose to focus on the top two earmark offenders in Congress as Republicans even though five of the next six on the list were Democrats.  Never mind that any adverse weather, hot or cold, wet or dry, typical or unusual, is attributed to man-made climate change without any regard to historical weather and climate patterns.  Never mind that the Left held fast to outlandish and completely unsustainable guestimates that the Iraq War killed up to a million and a half Iraqi civilians.  If something can’t be proven, the Left will make up worst-case-scenario numbers and statistics and hammer them home as the Gospel.

The same holds true for the Leftist approach to the economy.  It’s almost as if the Lancet study in Iraq was applied to job numbers.  During most of the Bush era, unemployment numbers were at or near historic lows.  This was because the Bush Administration’s approach to an economic downturn was to cut taxes and while spending was still a problem, it at least remained within reason when compared to the growth in the overall economy.  I was told repeatedly throughout those years that unemployment numbers were irrelevant when gauging the strength of the economy.

Flash forward to 2009 and I wonder now why such an emphasis is put on unemployment numbers, even when they don’t work to the presidents advantage.  The means of addressing this is then to make up numbers of alleged jobs that have been saved or created.  Once again the Left treats the American people like stupid children who can be told anything because they will believe it.  One Obama official cites 600,000 jobs saved/created by the so-called stimulus bill of 2009.  Another says 1.5 million.  Obama himself puts the number at 2 million.  It’s only a matter of time before Joe Biden gets over-excited and claims that 1 gazillion jobs have been saved or created because of government intrusion in the economy.

And we should be thankful because Nancy Pelosi warned us back in February of last year that without a stimulus package, Americans would lose 500 million jobs a month.  While unemployment numbers are holding somewhere around the nauseating 10% mark, the real analysis that takes into account underemployment and the millions of job seekers who have simply given up puts the number closer to 17%.

How exactly does one measure jobs that have been created or saved during a period when millions of jobs have been lost?  How does one credit those supposed jobs specifically to the ‘recovery act’?  I’ll sell you this rock that wards off tiger attacks.  How does it ward off vicious tigers, do you ask?  Well…you don’t see any tigers around, do you?

Or, as Richard Pryor famously said, “Who are you going to believe?  Me, or your own lying eyes?”

The inevitable question is that if stimulus spending has been so effective, then why have we only spent just over half of the money allocated for this boondoggle?  If $450 million leads to 2 million jobs created or saved (that’s an astounding $225,000 per job, by the way) then why not release the entire $800 billion and save 4 million jobs?  If spending just over half of the money is what kept us from sinking into a full-blown depression then why leave us bobbing along in this miserable recession while the government sits on the rest of the money?

If this outrageous level of government spending is so good for the economic health of the nation then why are economists now warning us that crushing tax increases at all levels (including for Obama’s blessed middle class victims) are unavoidable?

A leftwing government trying to boost an economy is like Hollywood trying to boost membership in Christian and Catholic sects – it’s just not how the world works.  This is obvious when you look across the country.  Embedded leftwing havens that were once economic power-houses like California, Michigan and New York are on the verge of economic collapse.  Meanwhile Texas, arguably one of the most conservative states in the Union, is responsible for half of the nation’s job creation in the last year and a half. Repeat:  the Republican stronghold of Texas accounts for half of all jobs created in the United States since before Obama took office.

So what’s the answer in the more Democratic states?  Raise taxes.  Expand entitlements (some areas, such as New York, are actually advertising and encouraging people to apply for food stamps – promotions that are unfortunately working very well).  Blow money on luxuries like sports stadiums that most people don’t care about and light rail that most people don’t use and which almost never performs as promised, both as an economic value and as a reducer of traffic congestion.

Drug addiction is destructive and many of us have witnessed or experienced it first-hand.  But drug addiction doesn’t compare to the addiction that politicians and leftists have for spending other people’s money.  Democrats and some Republicans who haven’t seemed to learn the lesson as of yet are facing serious career obstacles.  The treatment is simple:  just say NO!

Conservatives have won three out of four special elections in the last year, two of which would have been unthinkable even just a year ago.  In polling, Obama loses reelection to an unnamed Republican.   Democrat incumbents, either through resignation or death, are dropping at an alarming rate.   Conservative punditry is on the rise.  Tea Parties and Sarah Palin are building momentum despite egregious efforts to marginalize them.

The real American heroes in politics are shifting away from defining those who can give the most handouts away to those who articulate a message of restraint.   The mainstream media doesn’t like to talk about it, but the Tea Party movement is not made up of ‘birthers’, racists and right-wing militias.  They are made up of everyday Americans, many of who have never before felt inclined to become political activists.  Their activism has been triggered by an unprecedented overreach from Big Government that threatens our economic security, our global influence and the prosperity of generations to come.  These people are Republicans, Independents and even Democrats who fear for the future.

We face a possibility for the first time in 80 years that the next generation may have it worse off than their parents.

It’s time for leaders to start leading and stop making up numbers to make themselves look like they are something when reality proves otherwise.

“This child’s future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure…this child…will become…the 1st African-American President.” – Transcript from ad rejected by NBC for the 2009 SuperBowl

By now we all know about the surprisingly controversial ad by Focus on the Family that ran during the SuperBowl last weekend.  The ad featured Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam.  His mother described a difficult pregnancy and was then – brace yourself – tackled by her son who, it turns out, was born.  The mother jokingly asks Tim why he did that and he laughs and says, “Sorry mom.”

Various leaders of the National Organization of Wenches (NOW) expressed outrage at the Tebow tackle, claiming that in some bizarre, pink-stained world, this glorifies violence against women – a position that ironically trivializes real violence against women.  If we’re going to get stupid about this stuff then we could carry it further and point out that blurring the lines between a fake, comedic assault and the real kinds of violence that real people deal with does nothing to serve the cause against that violence.  Not [Continue...]]]>

“This child’s future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure…this child…will become…the 1st African-American President.” – Transcript from ad rejected by NBC for the 2009 SuperBowl

By now we all know about the surprisingly controversial ad by Focus on the Family that ran during the SuperBowl last weekend.  The ad featured Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam.  His mother described a difficult pregnancy and was then – brace yourself – tackled by her son who, it turns out, was born.  The mother jokingly asks Tim why he did that and he laughs and says, “Sorry mom.”

Various leaders of the National Organization of Wenches (NOW) expressed outrage at the Tebow tackle, claiming that in some bizarre, pink-stained world, this glorifies violence against women – a position that ironically trivializes real violence against women.  If we’re going to get stupid about this stuff then we could carry it further and point out that blurring the lines between a fake, comedic assault and the real kinds of violence that real people deal with does nothing to serve the cause against that violence.  Not mentioned is that Pam Tebow than mocked her football-playing son as being “not as tough” as she is.

NOW President Terry O’Neill railed against the ad, adding, “I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming.”

Now let’s apply that perspective to abortion.  I myself am a survivor of “choice” and I don’t find the movement that glorifies abortion to be very charming.  O’Neill may be too old to legally be a survivor of “choice” but she could acknowledge that Tim Tebow is certainly a survivor of “choice”.

When it comes to outrage…to each their own.  Ballew had it right.

Panned Parenthood, the Microsoft of the abortion industry, produced a pathetic response in an ad that they wouldn’t pony up the money for to air during the Big Game.  With football players speaking in gentle tones about their daughters someday exercising their precious rights to kill their babies it brought me back to candidate Obama’s twisted statement about abortion rights, pointing out that if one of his daughters did an oops!, he wouldn’t “want them punished with a baby.”

What’s great about the Tebow ad is that it did what I think was the intention all along – it forced pro-choice activists to play their hand and expose themselves for what they are – promoters and supporters of abortion.  Here’s how:

1. Even a touching, completely non-political message is scorned.  This is interesting because most vocal pro-choice advocates claim to be pro-life themselves or at least personally oppose abortion on some level, yet they can’t stomach a harmless message about life
2. The line between pro-choice and pro-abortion gets blurred.  I’ve pointed out in the past that there are two kinds of arguments to make on behalf of abortion – the legal argument that defines it as a right and the argument for the act itself.  The first is the only legitimate (albeit flawed) pro-choice argument one can make; the second is clearly pro-abortion.  Most advocates spend their energy arguing on behalf of the latter.
3. The very concept of “choice” is a political term that is used in direct connection to the choice to abort while the choice to give birth is not only disconnected from the concept, it is banished to the basement and treated as a threat to “choice” whenever it rears its ugly head.  The Pam Tebow’s of the world are seen as public enemy #1.
4. The obligatory argument following some broad defense of abortion is to create the illusion that most, if not all abortions are due to rape, incest, health and saving the life of the mother.   The truth doesn’t matter.  That truth is that the vast majority of abortions are optional and selective and selfish.  Couple that with the obvious – all supposedly pro-choice activists rage against any and every attempt to reduce the free-wheeling spirit of abortion.

Attempts to restrict late-term abortions, have mandatory 24 hour waiting periods before an abortion, mandatory ultrasounds, efforts to promote the “choice” of life and adoption, parental notification laws for teenagers seeking abortions, allowing for conscience clauses for medical workers, having legal protection for babies who survive abortion attempts,  producing non-threatening television ads…any public reference or legislation that doesn’t whole-heartedly embrace, endorse or expand abortion (not choice) is met with hostility and fear.

Note that in the reference above, Obama didn’t say that if his daughters’ health or life was threatened he wanted them protected by a right to abortion.  His actual words were, “if they make a mistake”.

Fitting, I suppose.  The quote at the start of this article obviously describes Barack Obama and his mother.  But it also describes how Obama himself defied the pro-abortion mantra that declares that abortion is necessary because there is no hope for children who are born to single mothers or under less than ideal circumstances.

I’ve always found the elitism amazing, the elitism that allows the living to try and craft a world that discourages or prevents others from living.  This goes as far back as eugenics theories, to pro-abortion causes and even into the global-population hysterics.  All of these people support or have supported agendas that fortunately can’t touch themselves while allowing them to determine the fates of those yet to be born.

Put all of this together and it makes one core point obvious:  even the idea of a “right to choose” is a lie and nothing but political-speak designed to soften the disgusting nature of abortion.  Let’s call it what it is – it’s a right to abortion.

Pregnancy is a biological function.  Giving birth is not a “choice” that on its face demands sympathy and acceptance.  Preventing that birth is the only angle that requires choice and understanding.  We don’t describe Lawrence v. Texas as the ruling that gave us the right to choose to sodomize each other – it gave us the right to sodomize each other.  We don’t view the First Amendment as the right to choose to have free speech; it’s the right to free speech!

Yeah, Pam Tebow is probably pretty tough.  And those who are quick to point out how tough it can be to exercise the “right to choose” could maybe also acknowledge how tough it can be to give birth in the face of all-odds.  Maybe some of the gals at NOW and Panned Parenthood could take a lesson or two from mother Tebow.

-  Signed, A Choice Survivor

Assuming MSNBC provided the most scandalous examples up-front, it appears that Todd…well, played a role in his wife’s gubernatorial apparatus (I thought Hillary Clinton was the most powerful ‘First Dude’ in history).  The AP, commenting on MSNBC’s expose, acknowledges that the vast majority of what MSNBC calls “e-mails that Todd Palin exchanged with state officials” were received by  Todd or copied to Todd.  E-mails sent by Todd appeared to be general questions or acknowledgments on various matters, not representing some kind of fiendish shadow-power behind Sarah Palin.

The Power Behind The Sarah

In one example that MSNBC touts as Todd receiving “background checks on a corporate CEO” (muhahaha!), if you actually read the e-mail the scarce information appears to be mostly public information anyway.

The real scandal is that he used Yahoo! [Continue...]]]> MSNBC has exposed the real power behind Sarah Palin – her own Cheney if you will.  The most sinisterly powerful First Dude in American history, Todd Palin.  This was exposed after MSNBC obtained Palin-related e-mails via Alaska’s public record laws that showed among other things that Todd Palin had access to the internet.  It also frustratingly demonstrates that Todd Palin may not be the knuckle-dragging fish-sniffer they were hoping he was.

Assuming MSNBC provided the most scandalous examples up-front, it appears that Todd…well, played a role in his wife’s gubernatorial apparatus (I thought Hillary Clinton was the most powerful ‘First Dude’ in history).  The AP, commenting on MSNBC’s expose, acknowledges that the vast majority of what MSNBC calls “e-mails that Todd Palin exchanged with state officials” were received by  Todd or copied to Todd.  E-mails sent by Todd appeared to be general questions or acknowledgments on various matters, not representing some kind of fiendish shadow-power behind Sarah Palin.

The Power Behind The Sarah

In one example that MSNBC touts as Todd receiving “background checks on a corporate CEO” (muhahaha!), if you actually read the e-mail the scarce information appears to be mostly public information anyway.

The real scandal is that he used Yahoo! for his e-mails…

McCain-Feingold did nothing to stem corporate and other special-interest influence in Washington. Nothing. It seemed that while we didn’t want Microsoft influencing the very political process that was attempting to destroy it time and time again, private citizens with unlimited wealth like George Soros and Mark Cuban were funding armies of 527’s and other political organizations whose sole purposes were to run propaganda wars against candidates they wanted to defeat.

Who, under this system, had more influence? George Soros or the tens of millions of Americans who work for corporations that were barred from representing their employees via their own interests?

Meanwhile, President Obama pretends that special-interests were a [Continue...]]]> SCOTUS this week finally found their copy of the US Constitution and did what George W. Bush predicted they would do several years ago: strike down McCain-Feingold campaign finance ‘reform’. Putting aside all of the theoretical whining from the legislation’s supporters, what this does in real terms is help bring the money and the wheeling and dealing out of the shadows and back into the open.

McCain-Feingold did nothing to stem corporate and other special-interest influence in Washington. Nothing. It seemed that while we didn’t want Microsoft influencing the very political process that was attempting to destroy it time and time again, private citizens with unlimited wealth like George Soros and Mark Cuban were funding armies of 527’s and other political organizations whose sole purposes were to run propaganda wars against candidates they wanted to defeat.

Who, under this system, had more influence? George Soros or the tens of millions of Americans who work for corporations that were barred from representing their employees via their own interests?

Meanwhile, President Obama pretends that special-interests were a thing of the past until this SCOTUS ruling.

Corporations represent us far more accurately than incumbent bureaucrats in Washington – empty political rhetoric is not a substitute.

The question I have here – is Maddow the fool or is she right and it’s Democrats across the board (at least in Massachusetts) who are fools?  Among the Maddow snarl, coupled with her trademark, ‘Look at me, I’m being sarcastic to make a point” smile, her words spoke volumes about the way these far-left radical commentators see the people, even their own.  That, or it’s just empty garbage that sounds good on the surface.

According to her, Democrats want health care reform NOW!  And they accomplish that by voting in the Republican and ruining [Continue...]]]> Tuesday night found me flipping back and forth between FOXNews and MSNBC.  What a contrast!  FOX was putting forth the view that the Scott Brown victory Tuesday night was a reaction by the people to the Obama/Democratic agenda, particularly the health-care-conformity bill and spending in general.  On MSNBC, Chris Mathews and Richard, uh, Rachel Maddow were spouting off to Keith Olbermann  (with each name mentioned this just gets better and better).   Maddow went on a tirade about how this was a message to Democrats that the people were tired of the waiting and they want this health care bill passed now! This was all said in-between Olbermann’s rhythmic sneering.

The question I have here – is Maddow the fool or is she right and it’s Democrats across the board (at least in Massachusetts) who are fools?  Among the Maddow snarl, coupled with her trademark, ‘Look at me, I’m being sarcastic to make a point” smile, her words spoke volumes about the way these far-left radical commentators see the people, even their own.  That, or it’s just empty garbage that sounds good on the surface.

According to her, Democrats want health care reform NOW!  And they accomplish that by voting in the Republican and ruining the 60 seat majority?  Are these people that stupid or is it that Maddow thinks they are that stupid?  These people so upset about inaction that they would wound their party’s control and raise the power level of the other party that wants this bill to go away completely?  And they collectively decided this two weeks after the Senate passed their version and less than two weeks before the election (about when Martha Coakley’s numbers began the tumble)?  As Congress was working on it?

Wow.  That’s [insert sarcastic snarl-smile here] just freakin’ brilliant!

The foolishness of her position is exposed by another side to the election impact.   Senator-elect Scott Brown’s win appears to have led to a deliberate slowing down of health care.  The White House and other Democrats have been real careful, almost thoughtful, in making it known that Brown’s certification shouldn’t be delayed and that the health-care debate shouldn’t continue until he is seated.  I am impressed.  When I heard Democrats sent Al Franken’s lawyer to Massachusetts Tuesday morning, I was gunning up for a fight and for another reason for independents to jump off the Democrat ship.

That’s who Democrats would further alienate if they were to play games and delay Brown’s seat.  Independents.  The majority of those who voted on Tuesday.  The group that ultimately decides elections.

The truth of the matter is, Scott Brown’s win on Tuesday breathes a huge sigh of relief throughout the Democratic caucus.  The worst thing that could have happened would to have had Coakley win by sliver.  Key Democrats like Jim Webb have insisted that the heath care debate not proceed until Brown is seated.  Why?  At a time when Republicans are completely locked out of legislative proceedings?   They have options to try and circumvent any Republican influence yet they are suddenly passive.

It’s a win-win for reasonable Democrats – or those who see their careers getting railroaded this coming November.  They can scale back or restart (or abandon) health care reform and can now blame it on the Republicans.  They don’t have to fight (or at least appear to fight) for it anymore.   They can throw in the towel and the Maddow/Olbermann wing of the party will be upset for a while, but they will possibly cool the heads of many mainstream Democrat and independent voters.  All the while, they can scale back or give up other big government agendas and blame the failures on Republicans.  Any cost savings and gained market confidence from not spending all of this money with a little Republican influence on economic policies might lead to some indications of economic recovery.  Which Democrats, being the party in charge, can easily take credit for.

So they’ll get good marks for not growing government as fast as they had hoped because of Republican interference in the people’s affairs which in turn, causes them to not achieve their promises, thus it’s the Republican’s fault!

Even with a lazy press sympathetic to Democratic causes, Democrats have taken a beating this year from the public.  They are tired.  They are weary.   And they are scared.

As well they should be.  If not of the current political climate, then at least be afraid – very afraid – of Rachel Maddow.

Senator-elect Scott Brown (who I suspect may be Senator-elect for a while to come), despite some of the rumblings from the Left and the press, is not a hard-as-nails conservative by any stretch of the imagination.  Brown seems cemented in his desire to see the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health-care-conform package quietly buried in the back yard where it belongs.  Yet he supported the Massachusetts mandated state-sponsored health-care system.

He is also hardly conservative on social issues.  On an appearance on Hannity’s America last week, Hannity asked him about his social issues which Brown dodged and Hannity, to his credit, didn’t make too much about it.

And therein lies the lesson.  I’ve grown tired over the last couple of disastrous election cycles where my [Continue...]]]> While everyone either mopes or celebrates tonight’s GOP upset in Massachusetts, while we focus on the current and ponder the future, while Democrats go through their motions of blaming everyone but themselves, while they plot yet another assault on the democratic process in their furthering efforts to swindle the American people under the guise of health-care…I would like conservatives to take a moment, er – the next 10 months – to consider the positive role everyone played in making this night possible.

Senator-elect Scott Brown (who I suspect may be Senator-elect for a while to come), despite some of the rumblings from the Left and the press, is not a hard-as-nails conservative by any stretch of the imagination.  Brown seems cemented in his desire to see the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health-care-conform package quietly buried in the back yard where it belongs.  Yet he supported the Massachusetts mandated state-sponsored health-care system.

He is also hardly conservative on social issues.  On an appearance on Hannity’s America last week, Hannity asked him about his social issues which Brown dodged and Hannity, to his credit, didn’t make too much about it.

And therein lies the lesson.  I’ve grown tired over the last couple of disastrous election cycles where my otherwise smart conservative friends were throwing conservatives who weren’t conservative enough, under the bus.  This helped bring in the reign of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and culminated in the right eating it’s own main course of John McCain.   Many good conservatives lost elections in 2006 and 2008 because there was an effort at ideological cleansing.

And where are we know?  I’ll tell you where we’re at.  We’re excited and mobilized behind a liberal Republican who will most likely vote in ways that will upset us from time to time.

That’s not a bad thing.  In fact, we need to have this attitude going into November.  We need to be more open about supporting Republican candidates who may not pass a conservative purity test.  We need to drop our support of some of these fringe third parties that, in the real world, only hurt our side.

And while I admire the tea party movement, please let’s keep it as a movement and not transform it into a political party.  I cringe at the thought of conservatives mobilizing as a political force only to get self-absorbed and delusional and think that a third party will help our cause.  Please, please, please to the tea party crowd – put your efforts into winning and defeating leftists and concentrate your power in the Republican Party.

This isn’t to say that every Republican is going to be worthy.  Obviously there may be situations like in the recent upstate New York Congressional race where the Republican candidate, installed by the local apparatus, was truly a disaster and there was a far more appealing alternative.

But that is really the exception to the rule.  In most cases, there are opportunities for us to put forth our conservative candidates through some kind of primary process.  But come the general election, your choices in almost all cases will be someone who leans to the right against someone who leans to the left.  One candidate will help nudge things in the right direction; the other will help nudge things in the wrong direction.

With too many wrongs, we get trillions of wasteful spending, emboldened enemies, confused allies, government takeovers and on and on and on…

The lesson doesn’t mean to suggest that it’s not natural to feel frustrated or to weigh your principles.  But has 2009 alleviated those frustrations?  Has the current political environment helped advance your principles in any way?  Or have they been threatened like never before?

You’ll never have a perfect party and a perfect candidate is rare.  But if conservatives of all stripes can unite behind Scott Brown, then we are that much closer to taking some sense of sanity and self-restraint back to Washington and our wallets.

The ADF is representing the defenders and supporters of California’s Proposition 8, the defendants representing the will of the people and the sanctity of the state’s constitution.  The plaintiffs in the case are the usual batch of California-based hyper-activists who assert that sexual preference trumps everything and anything in society – history, tradition, common sense, nature and [Continue...]]]> The Alliance Defense Fund is one of America’s best secrets and an organization that we should all support.  They are the conservative answer to secular activist groups like the ACLU.  The ADF is a coalition of leading attorneys who take on the ACLU and others in defense of America’s founding principles and in particular, our First Amendment liberties.  If you give to political causes, please consider the ADF.  They are the David to the ACLU’s Goliath and have intervened on behalf of many private citizens, religious organizations and public school districts under assault by the anti-American, politically correct agenda of the ACLU and other leftwing activists.  Their lawyers often work pro-bono, relying on donations that typically leave them with a fraction of the ACLU war chest, yet they are highly effective and have thwarted many attempts to undermine freedom, especially in regards to issues of speech and religion.

The ADF is representing the defenders and supporters of California’s Proposition 8, the defendants representing the will of the people and the sanctity of the state’s constitution.  The plaintiffs in the case are the usual batch of California-based hyper-activists who assert that sexual preference trumps everything and anything in society – history, tradition, common sense, nature and democracy – represented interestingly enough by some well-known Republican counsel.

The citizens of California have now voted twice to recognize and preserve marriage for what it is – the bringing together of opposing genders with the intent of building a stable society and a normal environment for producing and raising children.  This now marks the second time that the Rainbow Fascists on the Left have decided that’s not good enough.  After the first challenge to the citizenry of California the move to preserve marriage was upgraded from a legal definition (defined in 2000’s Proposition 22 and struck down in 2008), to a constitutional definition, which culminated in Proposition 8 – fourteen words added to the California Constitution that says pretty clearly, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

This is about as reasonable and straight forward as it can get.  Marriage has always been an institution designed around opposing genders – that is the essence of marriage, the bringing of a male and a female together.  What gay activists are scratching and clawing for today is not marriage but rather self-gratification through the destruction of a core societal function as a means to convince even themselves that homosexuality is normal and wonderful and to demonstrate it, they are going to force it down the throats of every single solitary citizen.  As I’ve written in the past, these activists are increasingly becoming the biggest threats to liberty we as Americans face.

What makes this current battle more significant than others in the past is precisely that a judge has even agreed to take on the challenge that a people cannot determine their own constitutions.  It doesn’t get much scarier than this.  The challengers to Prop 8 and their supporters in the mainstream media are actually calling Prop 8 unconstitutional.   Judge Vaughn Walker’s key angle appears to be based on his request for internal campaign documentation in order to determine if there was any intent in the hearts of supporters of Prop 8 to base their support on prejudice.  It apparently doesn’t matter that the language in the proposition itself does nothing outside of defining marriage as between a man and a woman or that by extension, a majority of voters in California themselves must then also be prejudiced if it can be determined that the forces behind Prop 8 have anything at all against homosexuals.  Vaughn is also relying on testimony from historians and other experts to prove that because homosexuality has never been the mainstream norm that somehow defines the constitutionality of a marriage definition.

How this can translate into unconstitutionality has yet to be explained nor has it been explained how this change to the California Constitution can even be deemed unconstitutional or at the very least, where in the US Constitution it is said that sexual acts in themselves can be elevated over the rights of people and government to determine their own policies and the rules of government institutions.  What this translates into is that homosexuality is now more vital and sacred to the condition of America than the people’s own self-governance or determination of what personal choices are deemed necessary and good or destructive and bad and run contrary to the overall health of a society.

Perhaps the biggest issue at stake here is the promise attached to a legal victory on behalf of those opposed to democracy and that is the promise that if a district judge (and ultimately the CA high courts) determines that Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional, this will in a sense invalidate every law and constitutional amendment in the country.  To put concisely, this will determine a nationwide policy of so-called gay marriage, much like Roe v. Wade determined a nationwide abortion policy.

To go further, this kind of action will fly in the face of voter and legislative majorities across the country and elevate the act of homosexuality from a strange and obsessive fetish among a tiny percent of citizens to one of the most commanding and entrenched personal choices we can observe, trickling into our religious institutions, our educational system and into the psyche of every American child.  And yes, this will open the door to polygamy and other alternative relationships that will have the legal precedent to demonstrate that marriage is not only between one man and one woman but rather between any parties that feel they are entitled to it.

A ruling on behalf of gay activists will be a ruling against the sanctity of the constitution itself, the bedrock set of principles that Americans could usually count on to be free of overt political influence.  To treat a constitutional amendment like your run-of-the-mill legislation will surely render the constitution no more worthy or predictable than your run-of-the-mill legislation.

And that is a far, far greater tragedy than the idea of homosexuals feeling bad about themselves.

During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Joe Biden (now Barack Obama’s VP) had lobbed a verbal grenade at the rising Obama, pointing out that, “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”  He’s right, of course.  George W. Bush waited seven minutes to leave a classroom to respond to the 9/11 attacks and was eviscerated for it.  Barack Obama waited three days into his Hawaiian vacation to respond to Friday’s terror attack on board an international flight as it was headed into Detroit.

According to the Associated Press:

Officials said that [waiting three days to respond] was deliberate – an effort by the White House to balance the need for the president to show concern but also to not unduly elevate a botched incident and thereby encourage other would-be attackers.

I’m not sure how the president being silent for three days discourages other potential attacks but it’s precisely this kind of attitude toward terrorism and national security that converted me into a George W. Bush supporter and someone who voted for my first Republican in 2002.  Obama didn’t [Continue...]]]> Once again, in what is becoming the theme for this administration (and Congress), government incompetence is leading to the systematic punishment of all Americans.

During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Joe Biden (now Barack Obama’s VP) had lobbed a verbal grenade at the rising Obama, pointing out that, “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”  He’s right, of course.  George W. Bush waited seven minutes to leave a classroom to respond to the 9/11 attacks and was eviscerated for it.  Barack Obama waited three days into his Hawaiian vacation to respond to Friday’s terror attack on board an international flight as it was headed into Detroit.

According to the Associated Press:

Officials said that [waiting three days to respond] was deliberate – an effort by the White House to balance the need for the president to show concern but also to not unduly elevate a botched incident and thereby encourage other would-be attackers.

I’m not sure how the president being silent for three days discourages other potential attacks but it’s precisely this kind of attitude toward terrorism and national security that converted me into a George W. Bush supporter and someone who voted for my first Republican in 2002.  Obama didn’t need to come out on Christmas Day and declare war on Yemen but while Americans across the country are concerned and airlines are reacting, the president could have certainly done what he does best and that’s give a little camera time on the issue.  I suspect it took three days for the Administration to wrestle with the question of whether or not he would actually use the words “act of terrorism” (he did) and even more challenging, the words “Islamic terrorism” (he didn’t).

What he did speak of is the need to adapt measures against changing terrorist threats.  Except one thing:  this wasn’t a changing threat! Based on what’s been released so far, this incident is exactly what we most expect them to try!

Obama went on to say that the US “will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”  Continue to use?  Mr. President, are you telling us that Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab circumvented “every element of our national power”?  Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, the truly embarrassing Janet Napolitano, had the gall to come out on Sunday and announce how wonderful the system worked, after the system failed:

“Once the incident occurred, the system worked.”

NYDailynews.com referenced her saying that after the weapon failed, THEN everything worked “like clockwork”.

The system not only didn’t work; the system was on vacation (Napolitano, the next day, caved in to reality and agreed that the system failed).  In similar fashion to the Fort Hood massacre, another Islamic terrorist attack that occurred just a few months ago, the warning signs appear staggering.  Like Major Hassan, the Fort Hood murderer, Abdulmattallab did everything but hang a “Jihadist” neon sign around his neck.

What If?

As Professor Farnsworth would say, let’s use the “What If? Machine”.  Let’s say Abdulmutallab also succeeded at making everything ‘work like clockwork’ and he managed to destroy a plane and kill almost 300 people.   Put aside that once the successful attack occurred, the system still worked.

Would Obama still have waited three days to respond in the hopes of not “unduly” encouraging other attackers?

Would any of the 289 people aboard had any problem with sensible pro-filing mechanisms in place that most likely would have prevented this man from ever stepping foot on that airplane?

Would all of the missed signals equate this to the infamous August 6^th, 2001 PDB?

Would our first official announcements be to pat ourselves on the back over how well we handled the aftermath?

Even just on the grounds of being a perpetual political hack (and I believe he is), surely Obama and his inner circle must see just how politically disastrous it would have turned out for him had Abdulmutallab succeeded.   The first successful and major terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 under a president who seems confused and weak when it comes to foreign policy; who’s policies of making friends with our enemies has not gained America or Obama anything; who’s refusal to acknowledge a war on radical Islamic terrorists is petty and appears weak; who’s main contributions to national security is to extend Constitutional Rights to foreign terrorists, move captured combatant prisoners around for political reasons and prosecute SEALS and CIA agents doing the work that helps discover extremists like Abdulmutallab before they get on a US-bound plane.

As George W. Bush said, we have to be successful 100% of the time; the enemy only has to be successful once.  We, as Americans, always expect the day to come when something unforeseeable slips through the cracks and a successful attack of some magnitude, at some point in time, is probably inevitable.  This should never have been unforeseeable.  We can’t afford these kinds of “oops” moments.

Alright, Mr. President.  You managed to make gains on much of your boyhood fantasies domestically.  Even if jobs, health care and personal liberty are not things to fight for, could you do us Americans all a favor:  please start taking our security seriously?  That means to stop playing child’s games with language and Gitmo.  The Administration now wants to know how flyers are placed on watch lists and screened.  In the last year, with so much going on with Beer Summits and strategic verbal wars against FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh, think someone in the Administration might have already put these ducks in order?

Topping all of the insanity developing in the last few days has to be the airline security procedures being put in place as a response to this plot.   Among the more bizarre reactions is the removal of blankets and the prohibition on potty breaks during the last hour of the flight.  Pinch me.  The problem here wasn’t that he was able to light a bomb; the problem was that he was able to get on the plane – as a bonus, with a bomb – in the first place!

According to the failed terrorist, other airplane bombers are coming.  That’s the bad news.  The good news during this holiday season of terror:  no one was killed and the bomber, “managed only to set his crotch, legs and seat 19A on fire.”

]]> http://www.theinsidestraight.net/ottoj/2009/12/29/please-extinguish-all-explosive-devices-one-hour-before-landing-and-thank-you-for-flying-obama-airlines/feed/ 6