Saturday, June 27, 2015

Overthrow the Judicial Dictatorship: The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.

Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”

Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.

In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.

The Amazing Disappearing ObamaCare Success Story

But did Obamacare REALLY save a kid with a tumor?

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks in reaction to the shooting deaths of nine people at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina, from the podium in the press briefing room of the White House in Washington June 18, 2015. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare Thursday, President Barack Obama spoke of the time he met a mom whose son was saved thanks to the law. But when asked to explain the story, the White House went silent.
“And they’ve told me that it has changed their lives for the better,” the president declared. “I’ve had moms come up and say, my son was able to see a doctor and get diagnosed, and catch a tumor early, and he’s alive today because of this law. This law is working. And it’s going to keep doing just that.”
After the detailed aside was made, The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to White House press secretary Josh Earnest directly asking for some additional details including the context of the conversation and what were the circumstances leading to the president meeting the mother.
Despite several requests over two days, the White House has refused to substantiate the story.
King v. Burwell was part of a series of lawsuit that argued that Obamacare was written so that only individuals in states with their own exchanges could get tax credits. Plaintiffs in the case argued that this means the Internal Revenue Service can’t provide tax credits for individuals in states that opted-out of setting up their own health care exchanges. The Supreme Court, however, ruled against the argument.
Though supporters can point to numerous success stories, opponents also have no shortage of examples from people who were directly hurt from the law.
People have lost their insurance plans, lost their doctors, taxes have gone up for many and the deficit has increased. But most of all, the law didn’t achieve its original purpose of insuring every American.
“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American,” Obama said.


Pike County officials haven’t issued marriage licenses in months, and today Probate Judge Wes Allen announced that his office is now permanently out of the marriage business.
“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” Allen wrote in a statement. “The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”
Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic also said he intends to permanently close the marriage license bureau in his office, if his attorneys don’t object.
Both judges cited Alabama Code Section 30-1-9: “Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties.”
The law says “may” instead of “shall”, Hamic said, which makes a big difference. He said the law permits probate judges to opt of of isuing marriage licenses.
“This decision is not based on me being a homophobic, people can do whatever they want in private,” Hamic said. “It is based strictly on my Christian beliefs.”
Via: Breitbart
Continue Reading....

Governor Abbott Asserts The Right Of Texas To Protect And Defend Religious Liberty..

Texas Gov. Abbott's statement on SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

Abbot 10 commandments

Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”

Christie unveils 2016 campaign website

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) now has a website to tout his 2016 presidential campaign.
Christie’s political operatives launched on Saturday, according to The Associated Press.
The site’s landing page reveals Christie’s slogan of “telling it like it is.”

It also says the site was paid for by “Chris Christie for President, Inc.”
Christie began promoting the new site on Twitter on Saturday morning. His first tweet shows the site’s banner with a gif revealing the webpage’s address word-by-word.
“Hey America, it’s Chris,” he said in his second tweet, again listing the site’s address and hashtagging his new campaign slogan.
Christie is widely expected to formally launch his 2016 Oval Office bid Tuesday in Livingston, N.J.
He reportedly plans on giving his announcement speech at Livingston High School, his alma mater.
Christie is potentially the GOP’s 14th White House competitor next election cycle should he enter the presidential race next week.
He has seen his political standing diminish following negativity towards his role in lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in 2013.
Christie has repeatedly denied a role in the move, which accusers say was made to exact political revenge on his rivals.
He currently places ninth nationally in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls of next year’s GOP White House hopefuls.
That ranking is critical, since early GOP presidential debates will separate the top ten candidates from the rest of the field.
Christie is planning a New Hampshire town hall after his 2016 entrance Tuesday, according to the Associated Press.

[COMMENTARY] Tax pledge numbers don't lie

Liberals and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) hate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge with, as Diane Chambers once put it on Cheers, “the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.” And there’s a very good reason for that …
It works.
In signing the Tax Pledge, a candidate promises the voters of his or her district that he or she will “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
And the reason for fiscal conservatives to oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes isn’t to oppose tax hikes for the sake of opposing tax hikes. It’s to deny government additional funding to grow bigger.
Indeed, if your political philosophy is that of a limited government fiscal conservative, the best strategy for achieving that objective is to “starve the beast.” It’s just that simple.
And the simple fact is those who sign the Pledge vote against tax and fee (taxes by another name) hikes FAR more often than those who don’t. Rare is the case of an elected official -- such as Republican Assembly Speaker John Hambrick -- who completely disavows their promise to their voters and goes over to the “dark side.”
Citizen Outreach CEO Dan Burdish recently completed a study of the tax-hike votes by members of the Nevada State Assembly for the 2015 legislative session. He identified 32 recorded votes on bills that increased taxes or fees.
And Hambrick voted for every last one of them.
As did Republican Assembly Majority Leader Paul Anderson and defrocked former Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey.
Forget the Three Amigos. These are the Three RINOs.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, three Republican Pledge signers had perfect no-new-taxes voting records: Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, Assemblyman John Moore and Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton. The other six Pledge signers only rarely voted for a tax or fee hike, ranging from 2 transgressions to 9.
But not one of them voted for Gov. Brian Sandoval’s largest tax hike in Nevada history.
On the other hand, a number of self-described “conservative” Republicans who refused to sign the Tax Pledge literally voted like Democrats.
The best of the worst was Assemblyman David Gardner, who voted in favor of 22 of the 32 tax hikes. Assemblyman Chris Edwards voted for 26 tax hikes. Assemblyman Erv Nelson voted for 27 of them. Taxation Committee Chairman Derek Armstrong and Assemblyman James Oscarson voted for higher taxes 29 out of 32 times.
And Carson City Assemblyman P.K. O’Neill, who replaced Tax Pledge signer Pete Livermore this session, voted for 30 of the 32 tax hikes.
The numbers don’t lie and the lesson is clear: If you don’t want your taxes to go up so the government blob can grow bigger, only vote for candidates who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

[COMMENTARY] Obamacare wins one, America loses

The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday in King v. Burwell has temporarily saved the Affordable Care Act, but millions of Americans are still hurting under Obamacare. The high court’s six-justice majority agreed that the IRS can change the wording of the law to the administration’s liking. No one, however, can change that Obamacare is an expensive failure — unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable.
Obamacare enrollees are facing double-digit premium increases, the opposite of what they were promised. The president’s health-care law was supposed to “bend the cost curve” — and it has, in the wrong direction. Obamacare piled mandates on the insurance industry while drastically increasing uncertainty in the market. Early on, insurers were working with incomplete data when setting rates. They didn’t know how sick or expensive their millions of new enrollees would be. Now they have a better idea and are proposing enormous rate hikes — 30 percent or more in states such as in Maryland, Tennessee and New Mexico.
Commentary: Obamacare wins one, America loses photo
The president has two options: He can ignore these staggering numbers and let the Obamacare juggernaut roll forward. Or he can sit down with Republicans and find ways to offer relief to hardworking Americans.
President Obama should welcome a full airing of ideas. The health care law still lacks the support of most Americans. A June 8 poll by the Washington Post and ABC News put support for Obamacare at 39 percent and opposition at 54 percent. Is it any wonder? The bill was written behind closed doors, with no real discussion of opposing views, and passed on a party-line vote. The plan was far too complicated, with too many mandates and penalties. It was never designed to increase choice and lower prices. The subsidies to buy insurance served only to hide the true costs.
One of the main arguments the law’s defenders made in King v. Burwell was that if the subsidies at issue were struck down, another 6 million Americans would find health care too expensive. In other words, they cannot afford insurance without government help. That is a clear sign that the law has failed to rein in costs and should be replaced.
It’s time for the president to focus on addressing the real problems with this law. Republicans have good ideas about how to lower costs, improve access and help Americans lead healthier lives.

GUEST EDITORIAL: Federal data breach so much worse

As suspected or feared, the foreign hacking of U.S. government personnel data is far more expansive — and devastating — than originally admitted. This, no doubt, is why U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, called it “the most significant breach of federal networks in U.S. history.”
McCaul chairs the Homeland Security Committee and therefore has access to classified information. Now, too, do hackers believed to be operating from China, possibly on behalf of the Chinese government.
Initially estimated at affecting 4 million current or former government workers, the damage could be up to 14 million or more — including military and intelligence employees.
That shifted the comparison from annoying private-sector hacks like a Target or Home Depot to something that could endanger lives. …
What this hack apparently exposed was virtually every Standard Form 86 filled out by current and former government employees.
This 127-page form demands an applicant’s personal information, as well as details of relations, friends and current and former professional contacts.
Losing control of this information is potentially far more devastating than a stolen Social Security number, although millions of those are now in foreign hands, too.
It takes little imagination to see Chinese hackers using such breached data to track down relatives of U.S. officials abroad or scraping up evidence of love affairs or drug abuse that could be used to blackmail Americans in the field or possibly reveal covert operatives.
Officially, China has denied involvement.
“The potential loss here is truly staggering and, by the way, these records are a legitimate foreign intelligence target,” said retired Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA and NSA director. “This isn’t shame on China. This is shame on us.”
Indeed, the government was told of Office of Personnel Management’s systemic vulnerability eight years ago and apparently did little about it. According to an Ars Technica report, OPM had no IT staff until 2013.
It also had little idea about the scale of the data on its servers or how it was organized. Malware injected onto its network probably did its dirty work for a year or longer and reportedly was discovered only by chance during a product demonstration.
Some critics have labeled the hack as America’s cyber Pearl Harbor, and parallels to pre-Dec. 7, 1941, complacency are daunting.
What’s stolen is lost — and will endanger U.S. personnel for years — but the government must use this massive failure as a guide to better allocate resources and target security spending. Cyber-threats like this one will only intensify; so, too, must U.S. defenses.



How dare he! What the hell doesn’t have his no-good nose into? This is how he shows his grief…what a man!
Dudes and dudettes, I don’t know about the rest of you, but having to endure eighteen more months of this entity’s dictatorship has become our nation’s national nightmare! Plus, you can toss in his intentional endless divisiveness, race-baiting included.
Read this report and see what you think:
President Obama believes the Confederate flag “belongs in a museum,” the White House said Friday amid calls for it to be taken down, following a mass shooting in South Carolina.
“The president has said before he believes the Confederate flag belongs in a museum, and that is still his position,” spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters aboard Air Force One.
A mass shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C., has renewed the debate over whether the Confederate battle flag should continue to fly in the state.
The suspected shooter, Dylann Storm Roof, reportedly drove a car with Confederate flag license plates.
And while the U.S. and South Carolina flags were lowered to half-staff following the shooting, the Confederate flag that flies near the state capitol flew at full height, a move that drew criticism.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s office said Thursday she could not lower the flag without approval from the state legislature. The GOP governor has dismissed calls to remove it in the past.
Via: AWD
Continue Reading....

[FLASHBACK 2012] What percentage of the U.S. population is gay, lesbian or bisexual?

A survey released Tuesday by the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports:
Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].
More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.
The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate. But past data that I’ve seen had suggested that there were about twice as many gay or bisexual men as lesbian or bisexual women; this data suggests that there is no such gender gap.

[VIDEO] Ted Cruz Has An EPIC Message For ‘Rogue’ Supreme Court Justices

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did not hold back in expressing what he thinks about the Supreme Court’s two most controversial decisions in recent memory.
Cruz told radio talk show host Sean Hannity: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.
“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.
“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz went on. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”
“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

Will Democrats Apologize for Slavery and Segregation?

An open letter to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Dear Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz:

I note with interest this statement from you with regard to the controversy over the flying of the Confederate flag on the grounds of the South Carolina State Capitol. You said:
For decades community leaders in South Carolina — and across the country — have been calling to get rid of this symbol of hatred, and action has been long overdue.
But this is just the beginning of a conversation we as a society need to have about race, bigotry and violence in this country — not the end of one.
Good enough. It’s good to know you wish to begin this conversation and I am happy to oblige. Let me begin with this question:
Will the Democratic Party finally apologize for supporting slavery, segregation, lynching, and the Ku Klux Klan?
Let me recall these lines from some of your party platforms.
From your 1840 platform: 
Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.
And again in your 1844 platform:
That Congress has no power, under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States; and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything pertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts, by abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our Political Institutions.
This staunch support for slavery — not to mention the unsubtle threat that accompanied it (there would be “alarming and dangerous consequences” if serious attempts to abolish it were made) is repeated again in your party platforms of 1848 and 1852.

Don't Let Dylann Roof and the SPLC Define the Confederate Flag

I am going to go against what seems to be the wave of public opinion, including that of prominent Republicans, by urging South Carolina to keep the Confederate flag.  I also encourage people to circumvent's and eBay's bans on Confederate flag merchandise by looking for alternate distribution channels.  Let somebody other than Amazon and eBay collect the commissions on the sales.

The reason is simple: if we go along with repudiation of the Confederate flag, then (alleged until proven guilty) murderer Dylann Roof wins.  We will have allowed him and the Ku Klux Klan on one side, and race hustlers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Al Sharpton on the other, to hand the Confederate flag over to white supremacists to use as their symbol.  There is even conversation about removing the names of Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee from Army bases.  Al Sharpton, of course, supports this agenda, even though he, unlike General Lee, was at least partially responsible for two incidents of racist violence (Crown Heights and Freddy's Fashion Mart).
Robert E. Lee never participated in, much less led, a KKK rally around a black-owned store in a Caucasian neighborhood.  He therefore compares very favorably to Al Sharpton, who personally called the owner of Freddy's Fashion Mart a "white interloper" while his followers threatened to set fire to the store, and one finally did.  Come to think of it, it would be instructive to determine whether Lee ever used the N-word (even when it was socially acceptable) in contrast to Al Sharpton, who applied it to New York mayor David Dinkins. 

 Sharpton has also often used colorful language for white people in general and Jews in particular.


EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that even if the Supreme Court strikes down the agency’s pollution regulations, since the regulations have been in place for three years, most plants are already in compliance on Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time.”
McCarthy predicted that the EPA would win at the Supreme Court. And added “but even if we don’t, it was three years ago. Most of them are already in compliance. Investments have been made and will catch up. And we’re still going to get at the toxic pollution from these facilities.”

Republican Weekly Address, Saturday June 27, 2015

Senator John Boozman Delivers Weekly Republican Address

Via: You Tube

Obama Weekly Address: The Affordable Care Act is Here to Stay

In this week's address, the President called the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act a victory for hardworking Americans across the country, whose lives are more secure because of this law.  The Affordable Care Act is working, and it is here to stay. So far more than 16 million uninsured Americans have gained coverage.  Nearly one in three Americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today. The uninsured rate in America is the lowest since we began to keep such records. With this case behind us, the President reaffirmed his commitment to getting more people covered and making health care in America even better and more affordable.

Advice for Arguing with Millennials

RUSH: Max in Scottsdale, Arizona, next up, how are you, sir?
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. It's a pleasure to speak with you. My dad recently gave me a signed copy of your book, "See, I told you so." It belonged to my grandpa. I've been reading it a little bit. It seems like things have gotten a lot worse. You wrote about Ice-T and a song about killing cops and how they're really celebrated. And I'll tell you that today that pop culture, and hip hop in particular, is even worse than it was back then.
And today what it means to be a man and a rugged individual is no longer something that's respected or celebrated. It's ridiculed and we hold up these other guys like Ice-T and the cop killers. It makes me feel kind of alone out here trying to live up to my grandparents and their values. It was cool opening your book and seeing all this stuff and I appreciate it. But I'm a little lost as to where we go today and also wanted to check in on your marketing plan for Millennials and see how that was going.
RUSH: You want to know how my marketing plan for Millennials is going.
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Not very well. (laughing) What do you think, how's it going?
CALLER: You kind of keep it close to the vest.
RUSH: That's it. When you have a marketing strategy, my theory and philosophy is you don't announce it, you just implement it. If you admit to people that you're targeting them for anything, either to separate them from their money or to get them to change their mind and agree with you, why tell them that that's your objective, because they just prepare a resistance to you.
So I'm prepared not to give any details of the secret marketing plan to persuade Millennials. And I'm not going to now. I'm not going to now either. It's not going to be easy, and I'll tell you why. And again, I hate to be repetitive. But I'm sure there are people listening today that haven't in a while. I'm sure there's all kinds of people tuning in today, Snerdley, who just want to gloat and they're hoping to hear all kinds of sadness and anger and misery. I'm not going to give them the satisfaction of that. But the Millennials in this country, the vast majority of them, they know things aren't right. Most everybody does.

This isn't the United States of America that most people know or expect, not economically, not in terms of people's good vibes about the future. But the percentage of people in poll after poll think the country is going in the wrong direction and the number keeps expanding. Here's the difference, though: In previous times when people have thought the country was in the wrong direction, or in the right direction, either one, there was always, in the world of politics, people always tied those opinions to a particular political party or a particular president given who was in power.
Meaning, when the economy was in the tank, the president got the blame for it. When the country was on the wrong track, the president and his party got the blame for it. And when parties lost elections, particularly if they lost big in landslides, then it was incumbent upon that party to respect public opinion, go out and openly promise the changes they were going to make to once again appeal to people who voted against them.
That's gone because today's Millennials do not associate any of the current circumstances of the country with the political party in power. Amazingly, everybody's blaming the Republicans for everything, and the Republicans haven't been in power for six years. The Republicans had nothing to do with what happened in Charleston, South Carolina, had nothing to do with any mass shooting. The Republicans had nothing to do with what went on in Baltimore. The Republicans had nothing to do with what went on in Ferguson. The Republicans had nothing to do with the economic policies in the last seven years, and yet Millennials blame them. And a lot of other people blame the Republicans. It's the most amazing thing

THE SILENCING: Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.
“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 
After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.
Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”
Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”
The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”
A wealth of commenters were not pleased.
  • “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”
  • “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”
  • And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”
  • “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”
The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

The Media's Vile Attacks on Conservative Assimilationists by Michelle Malkin

Michelle MalkinI have had enough of smug liberal elites wrapped in their "Celebrate Diversity" banners tearing down minority conservatives.
Look in the mirror, media and academia bigots. Your own reflexive racism and divisive rhetoric are poisoning public discourse. There's nothing "progressive" about attacking the children and grandchildren of immigrants who proudly embrace an American identity.
We are not "self-hating." You just hate what we believe.
The most recent grenade tossed by the jack-booted Enforcers of Ethnic Authenticity came from The Washington Post this week. The Beltway fish-wrapper hyped a 2,100-word investigation of GOP Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal with a condescending quote from Professor G. Pearson Cross, who sneered: "There's not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal."
Has pallid Professor Cross invented an ambient diagnostic test to measure sufficiently acceptable levels of ethnicity?
The Post quoted a grand total of one disgruntled Democratic donor who railed against Jindal for "forgetting" his "heritage" and his "roots." But that was more than enough for the apartheid-lite adherents to heed the dog whistle immediately. The Post's splashy attack on Jindal's assimilationist ethic spawned a vile Twitter hashtag game: #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite.
Left-wing racists mocked his skin color, his kids and his decision to change his name from "Piyush" to "Bobby." A New York Times digital editor, Shreeya Sinha, gleefully linked to a BBC compilation of "The best of #BobbyJindalisSoWhite." NBC News gloated over tweets from liberal Indian-Americans who mocked the accomplished governor, Rhodes scholar and father of three as a "Jindian."
It's the same old, same old from radical academics and reporters who spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. As I've long observed, the media-ivory tower complex's fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), ethnic militancy, extreme multiculturalism and a borderless continent.
If we conservatives "of color" refuse to promote the welfare state, unfettered abortion, affirmative action and massive immigration, we are guilty of "selling out."
Conversely, if I point out that my skin is far darker than that of the TV progressives of pallor who presume to know more than me about what it's like to experience prejudice, I'm accused of exploiting my ethnicity.
We're coconuts, bananas and Oreos (brown, yellow or black on the outside and "white" on the inside).
We're accused of "thinking" and "acting" white if we quote the Constitution, shoot, hunt, oppose high taxes, homeschool, take personal responsibility or demand that government leave us alone.

Popular Posts