The Washington Post reports that "House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) announced Friday that the chamber will take action to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a little over a week after President Obama instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend the constitutionality of the law that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Boehner said he will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a first step toward taking action in the House to defend the law... On the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group are the top three House Republicans - Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Cal-if.) - and the top two House Democrats - Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). The group has the authority to instruct the House general counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House. It typically gets involved in situations where leaders believe there are institutional or separation-of-powers concerns. For instance, in 2006, when the FBI raided the office of then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group requested that the House counsel file a memorandum stating that the search violated the government's separation of powers. In that case, there was bipartisan agreement among the leaders - something that is not likely to happen on this hot-button issue."
"It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," Boehner said in a statement. "The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts - not by the president unilaterally - and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."
THE SOUND OF SANITY IN AN INSANE WORLD. A CONSERVATIVE VOICE YOU CAN TRUST.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Matt Damon on Obama: "I No Longer Hope For Audacity"
Apparently Obama's not liberal enough for Matt Damon, something to do with having kids take tests. All the better, Obama is losing the Hollywood left.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Florida Federal Judge Vinson Stays Ruling On Obamacare, Asks For Expedited Review By Supreme Court
In his stay, Judge Roger Vinson who had declared Obamacare unconstitutional presses for an expedited Supreme Court review. Politico reports:
In his ruling, Vinson repeated what he has said previously — that “the citizens of this country have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible.”
“That was nearly eleven months ago,” he wrote. “In the time since, the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and the legal arguments refined. Almost everyone agrees that the constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward.”
European Investigators Call Frankfurt Shooting “Islamic Terrorism," US Says Too Soon To Decide
Meanwhile, the US is unwilling to state the obvious:
The U.S. has launched an FBI-led investigation into the shooting and officials told ABC News it is too soon to determine whether the attack was an act of terror and if the suspect acted alone. However, a senior U.S. intelligence official told ABC News the attack was likely terror-related.
Northwestern University Class Has Live Sex Toy Demonstration On Nude Woman
- The Chicago Tribune reports: Northwestern University acknowledged Wednesday that an unusual demonstration was held on campus last week in which students observed a naked woman being penetrated by a sex toy. The sex act was performed in front of about 100 students from psychology professor John Michael Bailey's human sexuality class. The demonstration occurred after class, and attendance was optional. The university will pay several hundred dollars to guest lecturer Ken Melvoin-Berg, co-owner of Weird Chicago Tours. His Feb. 21 discussion of bondage, swinging and other sexual fetishes was arranged by Bailey, who gets extra funding from the university's College of Arts & Sciences for lectures and other activities he routinely holds after class."... “Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines,” [University Spokesman] Alan Cubbage said in a prepared statement. “The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.” ... “Even though it’s controversial now … Over time people will become more liberal. I don’t think it will be an issue,” Lauren Matthew, 18, said. “There should be a line (on what is inappropriate) but I don’t know where it should be."
What is clear is that this is demonstrative of the state of the culture at large, and the state of our finest institutions of higher education in particular. What does it say about education in our country that according to the 2011 US News & World Report rankings Northwestern University is ranked #12 in the country?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
"Family Ties" Mom: "I Could Have Been A Republican, Thank Goodness I’m Just Gay"
Apparently, she chose to be gay later in life. After all, she could just as well have ended up a Republican later in life, but thank goodness that never happened.
7th Circuit Says First Amendment Protects "Be Happy, Not Gay" T-Shirts At Public Schools
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports:
Well, having dispatched with the case of the angry funeral protesters, let’s continue on the First Amendment theme, and turn to the breeding ground for so many rich First Amendment cases: the public schoolyard. Writing for a three-judge panel, Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner on Tuesday ruled that a group of public high-school students had the right to wear “Be Happy, Not Gay” t-shirts on school grounds. Click here for the Chicago Sun-Times story; here for the opinion, which was joined by judges Michael Kanne and Ilana Rovner. In April 2006, Heidi Zamecnik, a student at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Ill., wore the T-shirt to school after students the previous day had worn shirts showing support for gays and lesbians. The school’s dean demanded she remove it or be sent home for the day. Later, another Neuqua student wanted to wear a similar shirt to class. He had twice filed for an injunction that would suspend the school’s policy that prevented him from wearing the T-shirt. The school district argued that officials could prohibit students from wearing the shirts to prevent some students from having their feelings hurt. But the Seventh Circuit ruled that because the speech failed to fit into a recognized exception to the First Amendment, like the so-called “fighting words doctrine” (which allows restrictions on speech when speech is likely to incite immediate violence).
Well, having dispatched with the case of the angry funeral protesters, let’s continue on the First Amendment theme, and turn to the breeding ground for so many rich First Amendment cases: the public schoolyard. Writing for a three-judge panel, Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner on Tuesday ruled that a group of public high-school students had the right to wear “Be Happy, Not Gay” t-shirts on school grounds. Click here for the Chicago Sun-Times story; here for the opinion, which was joined by judges Michael Kanne and Ilana Rovner. In April 2006, Heidi Zamecnik, a student at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Ill., wore the T-shirt to school after students the previous day had worn shirts showing support for gays and lesbians. The school’s dean demanded she remove it or be sent home for the day. Later, another Neuqua student wanted to wear a similar shirt to class. He had twice filed for an injunction that would suspend the school’s policy that prevented him from wearing the T-shirt. The school district argued that officials could prohibit students from wearing the shirts to prevent some students from having their feelings hurt. But the Seventh Circuit ruled that because the speech failed to fit into a recognized exception to the First Amendment, like the so-called “fighting words doctrine” (which allows restrictions on speech when speech is likely to incite immediate violence).
Wrote Posner:
[A] school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality. The school argued (and still argues) that banning “Be Happy, Not Gay” was just a matter of protecting the “rights” of the students against whom derogatory comments are directed. But people in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life.
Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys who represented the students in the suit, responded to the Sun-Times: “In an environment that freely allows speech that promotes homosexual behavior, the school simply cannot shut out the opposing viewpoint.”
Pakistan's Only Christian Minister Assassinated Over Opposition To Blasphemy Laws
The Telegraph reports that "the assassination comes just a fortnight after Mr Bhatti, Minister for Minorities, said he was prepared to die for his beliefs following a series of death threats. He claimed his faith gave him strength during a recent visit to Canada. The member of Muslim-majority Pakistan's Christian community, was on his way to work in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, when unknown gunmen riddled his car with bullets, police officer Mohmmad Iqbal said. He was taken to Shifa Hospital with his driver who was also badly wounded. No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, but private Pakistani TV channels showed pamphlets at the scene of the killing that were attributed to the Pakistani Taliban warning of the same fate for anyone opposing the blasphemy laws."
Listen to the assassinated minister speaking from beyond the grave about the death threats against him and his readiness to give his life if need be to oppose radical Shariah law:
Michael Moore: Wealthy Americans’ Money Is "Ours," A "National Resource" That Needs To Be Taken
How about starting with Michael Moore?
Jihadist Shooting At Germany Airport Kills 2 U.S. Airmen, Shooter Yelling "Allahu Akbar"
The NY Times reports that two "United States airmen were killed and two injured on Wednesday when a gunman opened fire on an American military bus at the Frankfurt airport, according to American military officials in Europe. The names of the dead were being withheld pending notification of the families, the officials said... The suspected gunman, who is in custody, is 21-year-old Kosovar who lives in Frankfurt, according to a city police spokesman, Manfred Füllhardt. He said that he busload of airmen had just arrived from England and had boarded the bus to go to the American military base at Ramstein, a few dozen miles to the southwest of the Frankfurt Airport. The suspect argued with some of the airmen before shooting one who was standing in the open door as well as the driver, Mr. Füllhardt said. The suspect was captured by a Hesse state police officer who was at the airport, which typically has heavy security especially following warnings in recent months that Germany would be a terror target. The attack occurred outside Terminal 2 at the airport, one of Europe’s busiest, which has been under increased security in recent months, following warnings that Germany would be the target of terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of the shooting, the area was rapidly cordoned off, but the terminal continued operations... A man whose office is near the site of the shooting said it was an area where buses load arriving passengers. Speaking on condition of anonymity to protect his business, he said witnesses told him that the gunman first talked to the military personnel to find out who they were and then opened fire, shouting 'God is great' in Arabic."
Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Military Funeral Protesting Westboro Baptist Church And Throws Out $5 million Judgment
The Supreme Court rules in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church and throws out the $5 million award for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) that was to be paid to the father of a fallen soldier whose funeral these nutters had decided to protest.
The decision was an overwhelming 8-1 ruling, with only Justice Samuel Alito in dissent saying that the First Amendment did not protect the Westboro Baptist Church from the tort claims brought against them by the the father of a fallen soldier for protesting at his son's funeral, his son clearly being a targeted "private figure" and the funeral not being a matter of "public concern."
Majority opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html
Alito's Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html
The decision was an overwhelming 8-1 ruling, with only Justice Samuel Alito in dissent saying that the First Amendment did not protect the Westboro Baptist Church from the tort claims brought against them by the the father of a fallen soldier for protesting at his son's funeral, his son clearly being a targeted "private figure" and the funeral not being a matter of "public concern."
Majority opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu
Alito's Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Wisconsin GOP State Senator Grothman Mobbed At Capitol By Protesters, Having To Be Protected By Democrat Assemblyman
Senator Grothman ends up having to be protected by and taken into the Capitol building by Democrat State Representative Brett Hulsey:
Foster Couple With Traditional Religious Views On Homosexuality Lose Battle To Care For Kids In British High Court
The BBC reports that "a Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a battle over their right to become foster carers. Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views. The pair, who are Pentecostal Christians, say they were 'doomed not to be approved'. The High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence. The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers. They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. At the High Court, they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values... But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, 'there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children'."
This is absolutely ludicrous, but it should not be a complete shock that shifting the legal landscape and culture ends up having ramifications on those that will continue to maintain traditional values. Not only that, but the High Court actually put in the language of the "welfare" of children, the children apparently actually needing to be "protected" by the government from traditional Christian values. As the opinion itself states, "It is important to realize that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunize the believer from the reach of the secular law." And so when the secular law begins to treat those that hold these conscientious traditional beliefs as no better than racists and bigots, then you can expect those traditional beliefs to come under assault. It seems it begins with decisions like these allowing traditional Christians to be banned as foster parents, or forcing traditional religious adoption agencies to close down (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html ).
This is absolutely ludicrous, but it should not be a complete shock that shifting the legal landscape and culture ends up having ramifications on those that will continue to maintain traditional values. Not only that, but the High Court actually put in the language of the "welfare" of children, the children apparently actually needing to be "protected" by the government from traditional Christian values. As the opinion itself states, "It is important to realize that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunize the believer from the reach of the secular law." And so when the secular law begins to treat those that hold these conscientious traditional beliefs as no better than racists and bigots, then you can expect those traditional beliefs to come under assault. It seems it begins with decisions like these allowing traditional Christians to be banned as foster parents, or forcing traditional religious adoption agencies to close down (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk
The High Court opinion itself states, "No one is asserting that Christians - or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims - are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban." So one's religion is not a bar to being a foster parent, but you have to be a socially liberal Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Being a follower, however, of traditional Christianity, Judaism, or Islam means you can per se be disqualified from becoming a foster parent. Adherence to or belief in traditional sexual mores is cause to allow you to be banned from becoming a foster parent to protect the "welfare" of the child from those, who in the words of the British High Court, "evince an antipathy, objection to or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships."
Why would the British High Court rule this way? The only answer is that the High Court is allowing for children to be protected from the religious views of these parents, insofar as it relates to traditional sexual mores (though I am not sure why it should be logically limited to this), because heaven forbid the foster child be influenced in the direction of traditional values. As the Court itself said, "If children, whether they are known to be homosexuals or not, are placed with carers who … evince an antipathy, objection to or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote' the 'welfare' of looked-after children." This ruling is specifically regardless of whether the children "are known to be homosexuals," because it is about protecting the children from the traditional Christian views of these potential foster parents. The children are being "safeguarded" for their own "welfare" from "disapproval of...same-sex relationships."
Let this serve as a warning to all not to believe those that advocate shifting the legal landscape on these important social issues when they pretend, at least in public, that the changes will either not have any unforeseen radical future consequences or that none are intended. It is clear that when the government begins to adopt the position that essentially says there is no difference between traditional sexual mores and white supremacy, that the sexual mores will be treated and targeted in the same way as that worst form of bigotry.
Why would the British High Court rule this way? The only answer is that the High Court is allowing for children to be protected from the religious views of these parents, insofar as it relates to traditional sexual mores (though I am not sure why it should be logically limited to this), because heaven forbid the foster child be influenced in the direction of traditional values. As the Court itself said, "If children, whether they are known to be homosexuals or not, are placed with carers who … evince an antipathy, objection to or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote' the 'welfare' of looked-after children." This ruling is specifically regardless of whether the children "are known to be homosexuals," because it is about protecting the children from the traditional Christian views of these potential foster parents. The children are being "safeguarded" for their own "welfare" from "disapproval of...same-sex relationships."
Let this serve as a warning to all not to believe those that advocate shifting the legal landscape on these important social issues when they pretend, at least in public, that the changes will either not have any unforeseen radical future consequences or that none are intended. It is clear that when the government begins to adopt the position that essentially says there is no difference between traditional sexual mores and white supremacy, that the sexual mores will be treated and targeted in the same way as that worst form of bigotry.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Judicial Watch Finally Obtains Redacted FBI Material On Ted Kennedy
Ted Kennedy is exposed "renting" brothels, as well as meeting with Communists, including an American Soviet spy, abroad. Among the statements previously withheld but now made available to Judicial Watch:
- “While Kennedy was in Santiago he made arrangements to ‘rent’ a brothel for an entire night. Kennedy allegedly invited one of the Embassy chauffeurs to participate in the night’s activities.”
- “[I]n each country Kennedy insisted on interviewing ‘the angry young men’ of the country. He wanted to meet with communists and others who had left-wing views. …Ambassador Freeman, Bogota, said the first person whom Kennedy wanted to meet was Lauchlin Currie.” (The document subsequently identifies Currie as a person who “had been mentioned in Washington investigations of Soviet spy rings.”). Lauchlin Currie was identified by the Venona cables as a spy for Stalin. He was also a senior White House aide to FDR, who alerted the NKVD (Soviet intelligence) to FBI investigations of its top agents.
- “[I]n Mexico Kennedy asked Ambassador Mann that certain left-wingers be invited to the Embassy residence where interviews could be held. Mann took the strong position that he would not invite such people and stated that if any such interviews were to be conducted, all arrangements should be made by Kennedy himself.”
Last American World War I Veteran Dies At 110
MSNBC reports that "Frank Buckles, the last surviving U.S. veteran of World War I, has died. He was 110. Buckles, who also survived being a civilian POW in the Philippines in World War II, died peacefully of natural causes early Sunday at his home in Charles Town, biographer and family spokesman David DeJonge said in a statement. Buckles turned 110 on Feb. 1 and had been advocating for a national memorial honoring veterans of World War I in Washington, D.C. Buckles lied about his age to join the army at age 16. The Missouri native was among nearly 5 million Americans who served in World War I in 1917 and 1918. 'I knew there'd be only one (survivor) someday. I didn't think it would be me,' he was quoted as saying in recent years... Born in Missouri in 1901 and raised in Oklahoma, Buckles visited a string of military recruiters after the United States entered the 'war to end all wars' in April 1917. He was repeatedly rejected before convincing an Army captain he was 18. He was 16½. 'A boy of (that age), he's not afraid of anything. He wants to get in there,' Buckles said."
Here is Buckles in 2007:
Here is Buckles in 2007:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Charlie Sheen On Chuck Lorre: "Chaim Levine"
Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCDAqybUD3E to watch CBS reporting on the rant.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Protester At Sacremento Rally Against Wisconsin Governor Walker's Reforms Attacks Tea Party Protester
This Fox News reporter, who was himself assaulted during a live shot in Wisconsin, says it all: