Month: July 2014
What Real vs Faux Leadership Looks Like (UPDATED)
If you were President, would you not inform your State Department — at least! — to take this a bit more seriously??? What does a real President do during such an event? Lets see (Via HotAir):
What did our great and illustrious Obama do? Obama gives crash 40 seconds before telling jokes…
…At approximately 12:50 pm, the motorcade stopped at the Charcoal Pit, a popular, established restaurant just north of Wilmington, Del. Known for its burgers and sundaes. Obama shook hands and mingled with many of the diners, stopping at one point to pick up seven-month old Jaidyn Oates, and pose for a photo.
…He invoked Vice Presiident Biden’s name a few names, noting to some diners, “Me and Joe, we share shakes all the time,” and to others, “Biden told me the burgers are pretty good.”
….Just before hugging another young girl, whose mother lifted her across the booth to hug the president, Obama asked, “Do you give good hugs?”
….At 1:01 pm Obama declared, “I’m starving!” He sat down to eat with Tanei Benjamin, who wrote the president a year ago. The president ordered a 4-ounce “Pit special,” which is burger with fries. He asked for it to be done medium well, and to have lettuce and tomato. He also asked for a water with lemon.
(HotAir)
Even the State Department was soo feckless that even Shep Smith got frustrated:
HotAir noted the last Tweet from the State Dept. to end this eventful day:
For years, tweets from @BarackObama have popped up in my Twitter feed so often so very detached from the actual events of the day as to feel like some kind of non sequitur performance art. This outdoes all of them.
This tweet is from the official State Department account, from Jen Psaki, at 9:26 p.m.*, hours after two huge international stories have broken. Now, the administration perhaps can’t be expected to react to the actual events at issue seriously. Too much to ask. But what they do sometimes react to seriously is a p.r. issue, and they’ve had many hours to realize everyone thinks they’re muffing this. Would it be so much to ask to keep it relatively sober tonight?
And yet. And yet.
The Blaze has some great follow up Tweets on the above:
By the time of publication on Friday morning, Psaki sent out one more tweet, but it was about John Kerry’s trip to Afghanistan last weekend.
(H/T: Weasel Zippers)
McCain weighs in:
The “HAMMER” weighs in as well:
Bans Against Polygamy Unconstitutional (Updated w/Incest)
Greased Up Slide down Slope
…If Christianity and the Christian moral and societal framework is no longer viewed as normative in laws governing sexual practice, then the slippery slope to legalizing polygamy is here. We already know from the Lawrence ruling that the state may not regulate private consensual sexual conduct; if the principle that privileging Christian marital norms* is impermissible is accepted, by what standard do we prevent polygamy? I suppose you could say it harms society in some way, but this judge rejected that argument. Scalia’s Lawrence dissent was correct. We’re just seeing the logic of the majority opinion play out in the courts. That, and the collapse of Christianity as the basis for Western society. (The American Conservative)
* Actually, the argument for fidelity to one person of the opposite sex pre-dates Christianity as well [not just Judaism either]… see my “Point #3“
Incest!?
HotAir will catch us up on the “haps” in our court system, and then we will let GP comment on the situation as these guys [only] can:
Jonathan Turley set quite a few tongues to wagging yesterday when he published an article with the provocative title, “Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy in Utah.” It involves the case of Brown v Buhman, where Turley himself is one of the lawyers involved. The introduction to his announcement certainly fanned the flames of those who follow this subject closely.
It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clark Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country.
If the name Brown when related to the subject of polygamy is ringing a bell for some of you, that’s because the family in question is one and the same as the stars of the TLC series Sister Wives. This differs significantly from HBO’s highly successful, but completely fictional series Big Love, in that Sister Wives is a reality TV show based on the lives of actual polygamists.
A I mentioned above, this announcement set some people off immediately, including Professor Bainbridge.
- Next stop on the slippery slope express, I assume, will be consensual adult incest marriages.
He followed that up with a tweet saying, “Robert Bork was right. We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”
Indeed! Part of Utah`s Admittance
One of the comments in the GP post that makes TOTAL sense in its conclusions:
Well we went from “Does the sex of the partner really matter?” to “Does the number of partners really matter?”, so my money is on “Do the ages of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the genetic proximity of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the species of the partners really matter?”, but I think we have a good 50 to 100 years on that last one.
How long do you think it will be before we’re hearing about a 30-something single dad and his teenaged identical twin sons having a three-way wedding?
Another commentator on FreeRepublic notes well that “…wasn’t outlawing polygamy a condition of Utah’s statehood?”
Here is Gay Patriot layin’ down the intelligent commentary on the progressive left in our country being at the center of this rot, not exclusively gays, but gay leftists and hetero leftists:
“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”
Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.
Interestingly, the judge’s 91-page opinion cites a series of legal precedents that have gradually redefined marriage, and limited the ability of the state to define it. Almost as though there had been some kind of negative gradient, and the law had been gravitationally drawn to the lower end of the gradient as a result of the lack of adhesion on that gradient.
Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.
(emphasis added)
Ouch! So on the money! Liberalism in political philosophy, scientific paradigms, theology, and the like, all have the same outcome from the affect. Dilution to the point of relativised thinking, to wit Tammy Bruce cogently says — and for those that do not know, she is a lesbian:
★ Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values, 35.) [read more]
The same arguments in the case SCOTUS decided (Brown v. Buhman) will be used in an incest case here in the states (See the NY Times, as well as Time Magazine). With the fertilization choices, the fact that it takes multiple generations for “webbed feet,” and the idea that a sister-and-sister, or brother-and-brother cannot have children, leave the incest case open, as the Brown case has already been used to argue against polygamy.
Here is the last paragraph of the Time Magazine article that notes the players in the “incest” battle:
The ACLU has filed suit in several states to challenge the few remaining statutes that prohibit unmarried couples from living together. This is the sort of case that may have a better chance of expanding Lawrence’s reach, said Katine.
Here is Scalia, as quoted via U.S. News and World Report:
In his dissent of that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia angrily warned that if the court was willing to strike down sodomy laws, other state laws on moral choices could soon be lifted, among them gay marriage. He wrote:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.
He further argued:
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’
INDEED!
Alan Dershowitz Slams J-Street’s History and Founding
Except for the Jews for Jesus quip (typical)… everything is kosher. This is a bitching quote: “Always believe the threats of your enemy more than the promises of your friends.”
“I once wrote that history has taught us to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends. Our enemies are making serious threats. It is time to take them seriously. It is time for our friends to keep their promises.” ~ Elie Wiesel
Saba Ahmed Not So Moderate After-All ~ Fire & Ice
Libertarian Republican updates an older story on RPT about Saba Ahmed, the Muslim woman at the Heritage event:
A few weeks ago, a Muslim woman, Saba Ahmed, gained some attention by defending “peaceful Muslims” at a Heritage Foundation panel on holding our government responsible for the attack on our Ambassador in Libya. There are one point something billion Muslims, she said, the majority of whom are peaceful. So, westerners must be careful to distinguish particular Muslims who break the law from the majority of Muslims.
Well, now comes a photo of this person – at the time, uneventful – leaving the courtroom with Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was charged with attempting to set off a car bomb at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. Having been found guilty of the offense in a court of law, we can suppose that Mohamud is guilty of other offenses of which he has been suspected but not formally charged, such as raping a woman at Oregon State University. So what that there was probable cause to believe this man was a rapist and an attempted murderer, says Saba Ahmed, what is important is to show solidarity with a fellow Muslim.
[….]
Saba, I accuse you of denying the One True God and putting your co-religionists ahead of His laws and – even! – of claiming to represent Him when you defend rapists and murderers.
Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children notes some of the recent political activity of Saba:
According to Erick Erickson of RedState.com,
“Saba Ahmed has been arrested for stalking and her family claims she was diagnosed with a mental disorder. She’s also been active at Occupy rallies denouncing American war efforts. She has made opposition to the American war against terrorism a key part of what she does.”
Oregon Live wrote that she is running for a Congressional seat in Oregon. She switched parties in 2012 after a primary defeat for an Oregon senate seat, and ran as a “conservative Republican.” With a hijab of course…
In that post, USMC simply asks after noting that Saba Ahmed is a friend of a man who tried to bomb Portland, Oregon… if she is TRULY a Moderate Muslim? 54° 40′ Or Fight has this on the “mental” disorder thingy:
Ahmed has a documented history of mental illness and a habit of stalking conservative and Republican web pages and meetings. After Osama Bin Laden’s death in May, Ahmed claimed she had to cancel a fictitious rally in Pioneer Courthouse Square (which she never advertised or got a permit for), falsely asserting that she had received threats on the Oregon Tea Party Facebook page.
A cursory search of the internet shows that Saba Ahmed has been arrested several times, and has had at least one visit to a psychiatric hospital.
HotAir notes Saba’s background as well: “She is same Saba Ahmed that tried to win the Democratic nomination to the US House of Representatives in the 2012 cycle, only to change party affiliation to the GOP after drawing less than one percent of the Democratic vote…”
Read Erick Erickson’s story, “What Dana Milbank Does Not Tell You,” on this topic to finish off the knowledge base on this.
IRS DESTROYS More Hard-Drives ~ Lou Dobbs Comments
Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Jon Stewart & Lib Cranks
(Via Gateway Pundit) The Blaze wrote about the left’s many lies on the Hobby Lobby decision.
The Washington Post faulted several Democratic lawmakers for less-than-truthful assertions about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, most of which implied that employers could prevent employees from buying contraception.
The 5-4 court majority actually ruled that closely held companies cannot be forced to pay for select types of contraceptives for employees.
Since some Democrats – including party leaders Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California – confessed to misspeaking, and others stated they were expressing an opinion, the Post’s Fact Checker said it would not count the comments as outright lies.
“But this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to be more careful in their language about the ruling,” the Post noted. “All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person’s religious freedom.”
The Post cited eight Democrats for making misleading comments.
Larry Elder and Jason Riley DESTROY Eric Holder!
The above is dissected a bit by The Daily Surge as well as the video of the exchange on CNN:
Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley said, “No matter how much racism you think remains in this county, the policies promoted by this administration are much more harmful to the prospects of blacks in America than racism.”
Riley was reacting to comments Eric Holder made Friday about his and Obama’s political opposition. “There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus,” Holder said.
Riley hammered Holder’s illogical comments by pointing out that it is the Obama administration’s “opposition to school choice, which helps black kids get out of failing schools and their support for minimum wage laws that price blacks out of the labor force, that are much more harmful than any residual racism in America.”
“Eric Holder does not want to have a serious conversation about race in America,” Riley continued, “nor does President Obama.”
“This is the agenda that the black left pushes, that racism is an all-purpose explanation for what ails black America,” Riley said.
Riley goes on to define the exact reasoning behind Holder’s comments saying Eric Holder is “making these comments for political reasons.”
Murder Rate Drops With Increased Conceal Carry Permits
(Above) Dr. John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. At National Review Online, he has written, “Bogus Gun Control Numbers,” in which he takes issue with the statistics concerning concealed-carry cited by the Violence Policy Center. Dr. Lott notes that their report, “Concealed Carry Killers,” is riddled with false data – and conclusions. Originally aired on the Sportsman Channel 4/29/14.
Fox News carries this commentary on a recent study, “Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims” ~ with a h/t to Wintery Knight:
A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.
The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.
“When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals,” said the center’s president, John R. Lott, a Fox News contributor. “Some criminals stop committing crimes, others move on to crimes in which they don’t come into contact with victims and others actually move to areas where they have less fear of being confronted by armed victims.”
[….]
Six states don’t require a permit for legal gun owners to conceal their weapons, and Lott notes those states have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
The real measure of the deterrent effect of concealed carry permits, according to Lott, is not laws on the books, but the percentage of a given state’s population that holds the permits. In 10 states, more than 8 percent of adults hold concealed carry permits, and all are among the states with the lowest crime rates. Lott claims his group’s analysis shows that each one percentage point increase in the adult population holding permits brings a 1.4 percent drop in the murder rate.
“We found that the size of the drop [in crime] is directly related to the percentage of the population with permits,” Lott said.
Between 2007 and the preliminary estimates for 2013, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000….
America’s Divine History In Three Parts ~ Michael Medved
Comedian Paul Rodriguez Strays from CNN’s Script (+Mark Levin)
Via SooperMexican! (h/t to Libertarian Republican):
The popular Mexican-born comedian Paul Rodriguez shocked the CNN panel on illegal immigration when he advocated for deportation for illegal immigrants. Shamelessly, Don Lemon accosted him by insinuating that legal immigrants like Rodriguez can’t be against illegal immigration. Yeah, that’s pretty pathetic.
What about the leftist hero who was recently lionized by Obama? Mark Levine takes you on a short tour-de-forces of how Democrats try and re-write history:
Breitbart notes a recent visit by Mark Levin to the Sean Hannity Show:
…Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants.
As Breitbart News has reported, “Chavez was so opposed to amnesty that even the film’s producers, who have a history of making politicized movies, decided, out of respect, to steer clear of the subject”:
As the New York Times noted, Participant Media, which produced the film, has a “fondness for films about social issues.” The company made Lincoln as a statement about bipartisanship, The Help to “highlight the plight of domestic workers,” and Promised Land as a “call for environmental action” against fracking.
But the producers avoided immigration reform in the movie because Chavez “fought for better wages and conditions for workers but held complex and evolving views on the status of unauthorized immigrants, some of which would be at odds with the changes many Hispanics and others are seeking today.”
Breitbart News has also detailed how much Cesar Chavez opposed amnesty:
Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a supporter of comprehensive immigration who has “studied and written about Chavez and the United Farm Workers … for more than 20 years,” wrote in a 2010 essay that “the historical record shows that Chavez was a fierce opponent of illegal immigration.” He added that “it’s unlikely that he’d have looked favorably on a plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.”
Chavez also wanted stiffer sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, and Navarrette emphasized that it was “absurd for anyone to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to pass immigration reform.” He stressed, “As I said, were he alive today, it’s a safe bet that Chavez would be an opponent of any legislation that gave illegal immigrants even a chance at legal status.”
Navarrette wrote that, according to numerous historical accounts, “Chavez ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegal immigrants who were working in the fields so that they could be deported.”
He noted that while Chavez was with the UFW, “UFW officials were also known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants,” and the UFW even “set up what union officials called a ‘wet line’ to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States. Under the supervision of Chavez’s cousin, Manuel, UFW members tried at first to convince immigrants not to cross the border”:
When that didn’t work, they physically attacked the immigrants. Covering the incident at the time, the Village Voice said that the UFW was engaged in a “campaign of random terror against anyone hapless enough to fall into its net.” A couple of decades later, in their book The Fight in the Fields, Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval recalled the border violence and wrote that the issue of how to handle illegal immigration was “particularly vexing” for Chavez.
Chavez was also against ethnic groups like La Raza. In fact, he saw the dangers of such organizations from the beginning.
“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”…
Defeating Atheism with Science ~ Spike Psarris
From the video’s description:
Many atheists claim that science disproves the Bible. Despite these claims, science is actually quite consistent with Scripture.
Christians often feel unequipped to defend their faith in this area — but this need not be so. Instead, any Christian can defend his or her faith against any scientific claim from an atheist, even without knowing the details of that particular claim. Why? Because science itself disproves atheism.
Atheism, when taken to its logical conclusion, denies the fundamental assumptions and requirements of science. Therefore, if science is valid, then atheism must be false.
In this presentation, engineer and former atheist Spike Psarris will present on “Defeating Atheism with Science,” showing why this is true. Join us as we discuss how Christians can defend their faith in all areas of science. After a brief discussion of specific evidence like fossils, radiometric dating, and intelligent design, we’ll dig deeper and see how science itself disproves atheism. Understanding a few fundamental ideas about science are all that’s necessary for any Christian to be well-equipped in this area.
About the Speaker:
Spike Psarris was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian. He now speaks on creation and Christian apologetics, equipping believers to defend their faith and glorify their Creator.