Taking it to the courts is what resulted in Proposition 8, and likely its passing as well. Americans don’t like having what they feel should be legislative issues decided in courts.
So you’ve lost any further court cases before you’ve begun. You can’t amend a state constitution with a state court. The best you can hope for is the Supreme Court ruling that demands all states conform, and I doubt the Supreme Court will be willing to touch it.
So barring that, you need to return to the legislative process, and thus, Andrew Sullivan is exactly correct. You have to persuade the people, not a judge, because a judge can’t do anything more for you.
...
Re: Brown v. Board of Education–there was this funny little thing called the 14th Amendment that happened well before Brown v. Board. The South, arguing that not only had the Amendment been shoved down their throat (that whole Reconstruction thing) but that their society required blacks and whites to be separate, took matters to court and won (Plessy v. Ferguson).
It was only after decades of quietly trying to persuade people as well as that little matter of fighting ably in a World War, desegregation of the military, the Cold War, and the Southerners absolutely crapping the bed on separate but equal that SCOTUS decided to “restore the rights of the minority.” Even then, Brown does not say what you think it says–but I’m not going to give a history class in the comment section.
So, to wrap this around to the Prop 8 situation–there is no Amendment in the California state constitution that the California SC can point to and say, “Nope, unconstitutional.” Indeed, if you start having the courts say, “The voters can’t amend the Constitution…” or that actually CA is ran by whichever 5 justices decide to vote on an issue, you’re probably going to end up doing a whole lot more harm than good. Notice that all the shamrocks and shenanigans of amending state constitutions didn’t start until the Mass. Supreme Court decided to make its ruling? Do you happen to remember what effect all those ballot initiatives had on the 2004 election as far as getting out the conservative vote? Now you’re wanting to, after the second more definitive rejection of gay marriage, have the California Supreme Court once again tell voters to go screw themselves? That, “Oh, we don’t like how the vote turned out, so now we’re going to basically say you shouldn’t have voted anyway”? Not a good plan, methinks, especially with regards to what it’s going to do for future voter turnout, secondary effects, rule of law.
...
Hmmmm.
Frankly I’m a fiscal conservative and I personally couldn’t give a rat’s a– about gay marriage...At least that is how I used to feel until gay marriage proponents went to the courts.
Here’s the deal. Any change in -laws- is irrelevant without a corresponding change in the -people and culture-. Why? Because a change in law forced by a court decision will only anger the people even more.
IMO you face the very real probability that doing this will end up having the state constitution, and possibly even the US Constitution, forcibly amended in an irreversible process.
*shrug* up to you folks. After all your tactics certainly have been so successful up to now.
Right?
...
Dolphin,
Your battered wife comment, in addition to being hyperbolic, misses the point the rest of us are arguing. By going to the courts, you are doing the equivalent of pulling out a gun, shooting the bastard, and then expecting society to just accept your side of the story without question. While apparently this works in TN, in some places that would lead to the battered wife going to jail.
Quite frankly, if you can’t see the fact that giving the courts more power (i.e., allowing a handful of judges to overturn the will of millions) isn’t a shortcut to having the entire libertarian wing of this country turn against you, you’re lost. Yeah, it sucks. Trust me, as someone whose marriage greatly resembles the term miscegenation and whose grandparents can tell some wonderful stories of segregation, I understand why you may think that the courts are a panacea to the social ills. However, once again, how did that turn out for you in 2004? Do you think Arizona’s amendment didn’t suddenly grow a whole bunch of support in part because of what happened in CA (as well as the pro-side reframing the issue)?
So, yeah, rather than making crazy analogies to battered women and the civil rights movement as you go to court _again_, why not figure out ways to try and make people see that this has real human impact? Just a thought, but a little patience might ensure that not only you but thousands if not millions of homsexuals after you never have to fight this fight ever again.
Or, hey, keep shoving stuff down people’s throat via the legal system–then enjoy life in CT, MA, NJ, and maybe CA as your opponents shut the door in every other state in the union while they have the odds and examples of state supreme courts reversing the will of the people are fresh in others’ minds. Keep taking people’s kids to gay marriage ceremonies or trying to get things passed into school’s code of ethics–then acting surprised when parents pay you back in the voting booth. Let the mayor of San Francisco tell people things are going to happen whether they like it or not–then watch as they make sure the hill you have to climb to do so grows steeper and steeper.
...
As a practical matter, I do not believe the California Supreme Court will throw out this election or find ways of overturning the decision. The measure itself is a simple sentence with no wiggle room to reinterpret, and it is clearly a constitutional amendment (the argument that it’s a constitutional revision appears pretty weak to me). At least one of the justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage (in a 4-3 decision) will switch and support the validity of this vote.
If I’m wrong and the state Supreme Court does overturn it, there will be recalls initiated against those four justices. Many voters who were against Prop 8 would nevertheless be outraged that the Court was preventing the citizens from amending the constitution. The Court dares not be too blatant in substituting personal opinions for plausible legal interpretations. And the justices know that all too well; their jobs are on the line. They have the example of Rose Bird and two other justices who were recalled in 1986 over their categorical opposition to the death penalty (based purely on their personal philosophies).
What is much more likely to happen is a counter-initiative, targeted for the 2010 or 2012 general election, which would repeal Prop 8. And it will probably pass, since that’s clearly how public opinion is moving. In 2000, an identical legislative measure, consisting of the exact same sentence about marriage, was approved by 61% of the voters. Prop 8 received only 52% of the vote. Moreover, it laid down a precise blueprint for a future reversal.
The main argument by the Yes-on-8 side was that gay marriage would inevitably be taught in the schools if it remained legal. This was extremely effective, despite the No-on-8 attempts to pooh-pooh it. So now all a counter-measure needs to do is include language which strictly forbids the teaching or advocacy of gay marriage in public schools (at least without the explicit approval of parents). That will be sufficient to shift 2% of the vote.
Passing an initiative measure to allow gay marriage will be far more effective in the long run than relying on court rulings. Once such a measure is approved, much of the opposition will be eviscerated. After all, the majority will have spoken, and many people who oppose the idea will nonetheless acknowledge its legitimacy. Whereas if gay marriage is imposed by the courts, we’ll have another situation like the abortion controversy, which will fester for decades and contain the continuing threat that a realignment of justices could overturn the past decision.
...
Dolphin,
In this case, yes, trying to overturn Prop 8 via the court system _is_ like using extrajudiciary measures. The court derives its authority from the CA constitution. If you say that it is unconstitutional to amend the constitution and, therefore, the will of five justices counts more than those of millions, than said justices are conducting a vigilante action with a thin veneer of authority.
Put a different way, the predominant reason for the courts’ existence is to adjudicate the rule of law. If the courts now say, “Well, you know, the rule of law says that the people get to change things as they see fit, but we don’t agree with that…” then the justices will have undercut the very document that their authority is based upon.
I’m glad that you feel a 14% cut is a victory–but I’d look at it as the SSM side just motivated the people of California to actually enshrine a definition of marriage in the constitution. Moreover, if the Supreme Court and the supporters of SSM had simply shown a little restraint and said, “Fine, let’s see what the people think before we start issuing licenses”, I strongly suspect that the measure would have failed spectacularly. However, since there was a rush to perform marriages followed by actions that basically amounted to taunting of the Prop 8 proponents…well, ye reap what you sow.
What you are apparently failing to understand is I am _not_ saying that you should just be good little victims, lie back, and take whatever happens. If that’s what you keep hearing–well, that imposed disability may be what’s harming your cause also. What I _am_ saying is that looking for another 5-4 decision that will inevitably be followed by a recall and reversal that will be tacitly approved by many who would otherwise be your allies isn’t exactly prudent. Nor is not immediately and ruthlessly suppressing those in your movement who are calling for attacks against blacks, Mormons, or Catholics. (Because nothing will screw you over faster than some idiot attacking some Catholic family with a Yes to Prop 8 sticker on their van and subsequently forcing some car crash that kills the mother or children.)
Instead, once more for the hearing impaired, I am saying that you need to actually look at the whole Civil Rights movement (not just the parts you like) and realize there were many things that set the ground work for Brown v. Board and allowed to make it stick. No one likes being told to wait…wait…wait, but only petulant children get the luxury of stomping their feet, screaming, and making life uncomfortable for everyone around them in order to get their way. In short, you have had a tactical defeat–but don’t let that lead to you deciding to try and seek the same kind of victory King Pyhrrus achieved.
...
Daniel Wiener, it would be quite surprising to me (refreshingly so) if any counter-proposition did contain a prohibition of teaching about so-called “gay marriage” in schools. An awful lot of us suspect that indoctrinating the normalization of homosexuality in schools and in society at large (via force of law as applied to churches, etc, regarding “illegal discrimination” and “hate speech”) is really the whole point of the agenda, with so-called “gay marriage” being the convenient vehicle. Although most people have ample tolerance for homosexuals and their lifestyle, and even compassion and affection for gay individuals, they absolutely do not look with enthusiasm at the prospect of “coerced approval”. Now, maybe I’m wrong about the real agenda. But these are the kind of concerns that are going to have to be answered.
...
Dolphin,
Same sex marriage is simply not an underlying concept of the CA Constitution. Equal protection is, and the simple fact is that homosexuals are not banned by law from participating in the institution of one-man one-woman marriage. They do in fact, enjoy equal protection with respect to this institution. It really is that clearcut.
Now, since it is *your* side that wants to make fundamental changes to long established meanings and practices, and to create an unprecedented new institution that must be recognized under penalty of law by the citizenry, even going so far as to usurp the name of a different institution, isn’t it *your* side that should be seeking *not an amendment*, but a *revision* to the CA Constitution?
...
“Human rights are not the kind of thing that are subject to popular opinion, and our system of government is set up to prevent that as much as possible.”
The problem is that there is no consenus as to what consitutes human rights. Hell, I would like to have the “human right” to a million dollars and a fast car.
The HBLT community are essentially arguing that setting up a social institution that doesn’t cater to their sexual preferences is equivalent to taking away the vote from blacks.
The problem is that gays do get equal rights - gays don’t lose the right to vote, or any other right guaranteed all other members of society. Gays do have preferences that are not catered for by some social institutions (they want to marry members of the same sex, not members of the opposite sex). But society catering non-homogenously to a small minority preference group doesn’t mean society is denying that group their human rights.
Let’s for example say that I am a collector of Bolivian stamps. I have a hard time to see it is valid to claim that my “human rights are being violated” because the city decided to build a football stadium and institute a “footballer of the year” award instead of a Bolivian Stamp Center and a BSCoTY award.
And yes, that goes even if you care really deeply about your preferences, or if your preferences have a genetic component (newsflash: Most preferences have a genetic component).
Finally, making end runs around the most important social institutions, such as the ballot box, is a violation of basic social norms and the rights of others far more flagrant than not getting your way with regards to the defintion of marriage.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Some More Prop 8 Comments
Here:
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Nicely Stated
Link (from the comments):
Let me help you evaluate "what went wrong."
The voters of CA rejected gay marriage by 62%.
Our courts foisted it on us by a 4-3 margin, ignoring our deliberate, well thought out, and considered votes.
Immediately going for all the gusto, we saw gay marriage being pushed in the public schools, through textbooks, teachable moments, and such things as trips to lesbian teacher's weddings for kindergartners.
We heard in the news from other states about Catholic charities having to stop adoption services due to being unwilling to place kids with gay families, wedding photographers sued (and losing) for being unwilling to photograph gay weddings, and churches getting hassled for not loaning out their sanctuaries for gay weddings.
Then, Jerry Brown goofed around with the constitutional amendment we managed to get on the ballot, deliberately confusing the issue.
Then, we voted again.
We'd appreciate our vote being respected this time. When the courts forced gay marriage upon us, we didn't go marching in the streets.
How About We Also Make A Statue Of Him In Every City, In Order To Make It Easier For Us To Bow Before Him And Offer Him A Pinch Of Incense?
Idolatry. But it would give added meaning to the Holiday if the God still walks among us when it is instituted. We owe Him more than we ever did to Jesus. Jesus had to Do Stuff. Obama only has to Be.
Reagan Quotes
Link:
Bush was simply a decent man who was not a Leftist Democrat. As McCain found out, being a decent man who is not a Leftist Democrat means nothing at all to the Left. Both men, like Bob Dole and like George H. Bush, are good Americans, admirable people, and men blissfully unaware that the Left is not just waging battles on issues like more socialism but are rather waging war on our entire way of life. Bush, Dole, McCain, and Bush Sr. were not wicked failures because they were not conservatives. They were more like Chamberlain at Munich: They did not grasp the true depth and nature of their adversary and, they thought, their adversary might be reasonable.
How far have "conservatives" come from Ronald Reagan's famous maxim "If you can't make them see the light, then let them feel the heat." In other words, conservatives must lead. Or, as Reagan also said "All they can do is hang us from a higher tree." This homey, typical truth trumped all the mush of moderation that brought Republicans in such disrepute over the last ten years or so. Courage is contagious and so is cowardice.
What 'Separation Of Church And State' Really Means
Comment:
Oh, I freaking love this photo where a protester is writing what appears to say, “KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE”. Doesn't that just sum it all up. “Give me your money! And shut the f**k up!”
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Shut Out
I've had a bit of back and forth in the comments to this post. I think I was making good points, but the person shut me out on my final comment. So, for the record (and because I have no intention of getting a LiveJournal account), here it is:
Thank you then, for giving me the last word
If you don't want anonymous comments, then turn the feature off instead of insulting those who use it. It is you who set the policy here, so it is you who need to live by it.
You say, "Keep your religion out of my laws is absolutely how I feel and I WILL NOT back down on it. If you have any actual evidence that states that gay marriage is somehow going to negatively affect society, I would like to hear it. If your evidence is an ancient book of mythology, that is not good enough. It is fine for you, your Church, and your family, but NOT good enough for law."
Are you making the implicit statement that you will not abide by the democratic process if things don't go your way? When you say you WILL NOT BACK down on it, do you mean to the point of jail time or armed revolution, or is this just some sort of drama-queen bombast?
Actually, as a voter, my evidence is good enough. It is wholly unnecessary for me to convince you of it. If I win the vote, I win the argument, at least for that round. If that weren't the case why would we bother to have voting at all?
You vehemently and self righteously state that "keep your religion out of my laws" is how you feel. Fine. I feel differently, and as we all know, it is feelings that are paramount, yes? I of course, am equally free to say "keep your atheism or agnosticism or heathenism or religious confusion or whatever it is out of MY laws." However, that is not my position. You are free to vote your conscience based on whatever metaphysical assumptions look correct to you.
It is amusing that you think you are somehow different from me in this respect. Almost without a doubt, you are "pro-choice". Now, by what right do you impose YOUR implicit religious viewpoint on the unborn? I'm just trying to protect my church from the persecution that will undoubtedly be unleashed should the legal fiction of "same sex marriage" become law. Otherwise I am entirely live and let live with respect to homosexuals and their unions. And you regard this as some sort of brutal imposition. Meanwhile you, free of the taint of religious insanity, impose your pure-as-the-driven-snow, and eminently caring and fair morality on the defenseless and inconvenient, with a body count in this country of 40 million and counting since the Courts usurped the legislative function and imposed Roe v Wade. But of course, stripping the unborn of the right to life itself is the neutral position, and anything else is merely the invalid imposition of religious lunatics. It must be quite convenient (and soothing) to have a position of utter metaphysical neutrality, yes?
Please clarify for me how voting according to religious conviction violates the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution are the religiously inclined stripped of their democratic rights?
The Constitution does no such thing. That being the case, all you are offering is a bit of bluster, intimidation, and "shut up, sit down, and don't vote your conscience".
I'm not buying it. Again, I would not ask you to do the same, since I do not really need to win you over to my side. All I need to do is outvote you. As I've just done!
The Big Picture
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
-- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
A Simple Message For The Peace And Wuv 52 to 48 Folks
If I made a poster for these guys, it would say "For 8 years you hated me, you slandered me, you kicked me to the curb. Now you want to be friends?"
Jim Treacher highlights a cogent response.
Jim Treacher highlights a cogent response.
Why I Voted For Prop 8
I just left this comment at GayPatriot:
----
I voted for Prop 8 for several reasons.
Number one: Because I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between men and women, and the simple fact is that the law prevents no one whatsoever from participating in this institution. Gays have precisely the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else. If they don't want to, they don't want to. Marriage remains marriage. The discrimination they claim simply does not exist. They are not shut out from the one man, one woman institution of marriage in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I wish a hell of a lot more of them would participate!
Number two: I strenuously object to judicial dictatorship.
Number three: Any claims that the institution of the legal fiction of "gay marriage" will have no effect on me are simply ludicrous. There is an obvious track record wherever it has been instituted. The age-old teachings of churches against homosexuality become (by force of law) "hate speech" and "discrimination". Children are taught in school that there is nothing whatsoever wrong about homosexuality, and that whoever says otherwise is a retrograde bigot. Children in school are conditioned in various subtle ways to find homosexuality alluring. Etc. The behavior of outraged gays against the Mormons (both in the No on 8 commercials and in their protests/riots), and the strong financial support of the teachers unions for "No on 8" only serves to confirm all of this for me. It is my conclusion, as an informed, socially aware, and serious Catholic, that the institution of this legal fiction will result in persecution of my Church and its members. It is my right as a voter to take this into consideration.
Number four: This whole fight over the word "marriage", which already has a clear meaning, and has for millenia, is really a fight for coerced approval of the homosexual lifestyle. The fact is, I don't approve. I am absolutely willing to live and let live in terms of homosexuals having any relationship they want, and privately calling it anything they want. But to hell if I'm not going to fight being forced by the state into calling a vice a virtue.
Number five: I believe that homosexuals have been offered an immense amount of compassion and tolerance over the last several decades. It appears that in exchange we are offered little more than threatening hate and outrage. It makes it very difficult for me not to want to thwart their holy cause.
Number six: Gay activists have attached themselves far too strongly to the whole panoply of leftwing causes. To the extent that the left wants to be a monolithic and revolutionary force, I am inclined to vote against it whenever and wherever I can.
----
I voted for Prop 8 for several reasons.
Number one: Because I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between men and women, and the simple fact is that the law prevents no one whatsoever from participating in this institution. Gays have precisely the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else. If they don't want to, they don't want to. Marriage remains marriage. The discrimination they claim simply does not exist. They are not shut out from the one man, one woman institution of marriage in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I wish a hell of a lot more of them would participate!
Number two: I strenuously object to judicial dictatorship.
Number three: Any claims that the institution of the legal fiction of "gay marriage" will have no effect on me are simply ludicrous. There is an obvious track record wherever it has been instituted. The age-old teachings of churches against homosexuality become (by force of law) "hate speech" and "discrimination". Children are taught in school that there is nothing whatsoever wrong about homosexuality, and that whoever says otherwise is a retrograde bigot. Children in school are conditioned in various subtle ways to find homosexuality alluring. Etc. The behavior of outraged gays against the Mormons (both in the No on 8 commercials and in their protests/riots), and the strong financial support of the teachers unions for "No on 8" only serves to confirm all of this for me. It is my conclusion, as an informed, socially aware, and serious Catholic, that the institution of this legal fiction will result in persecution of my Church and its members. It is my right as a voter to take this into consideration.
Number four: This whole fight over the word "marriage", which already has a clear meaning, and has for millenia, is really a fight for coerced approval of the homosexual lifestyle. The fact is, I don't approve. I am absolutely willing to live and let live in terms of homosexuals having any relationship they want, and privately calling it anything they want. But to hell if I'm not going to fight being forced by the state into calling a vice a virtue.
Number five: I believe that homosexuals have been offered an immense amount of compassion and tolerance over the last several decades. It appears that in exchange we are offered little more than threatening hate and outrage. It makes it very difficult for me not to want to thwart their holy cause.
Number six: Gay activists have attached themselves far too strongly to the whole panoply of leftwing causes. To the extent that the left wants to be a monolithic and revolutionary force, I am inclined to vote against it whenever and wherever I can.
Please Be Reasonable And Fair And Vote For Our Side, And If We Lose, WE HATE YOU AND WISH YOU'D DIE!!!!!!!
The losers on the Prop 8 vote are going absolutely berzerk.
GayPatriot has something to say:
GayPatriot has something to say:
I just received yet another mass e-mail from Lorri L. Jean of the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, whining about the “reprehensible role that the [Mormon] Church hierarchy played in directing members to fund the campaign of lies and deceit promoted by the Yes on 8 leaders.”
In her missive, she spent more time blaming her opponents’ campaign for its success than she did looking at her own team’s failures. Perhaps, she should take a gander at some of the sensible conservative blogs as we look with admiration on the Obama team’s amazing organization and take stock of the mistakes the McCain campaign made. Yeah, we’re bummed about the election, but we’re trying to figure out where our side went wrong.
That’s what Ms. Jean and other opponents should be doing now instead of venting at Mormons. Since they’re not going to look inward, let me try to do so for them.
First, their slogans just didn’t work. “Equality for All” doesn’t resonate with people outside social and political activist circles of the left. A later slogan, “Unfair and Wrong,” did little more than express anger at the initiative. It didn’t do anything to convince voters opposed to discrimination yet favoring the traditional understanding of marriage. If anything, it suggested people were wrong to believe that sexual difference is a defining aspect of marriage.
Indeed, I believe, the “No on 8″ campaign failed primarily because its leaders did not appreciate those who favor that traditional understanding not out of anti-gay animus but due to their belief that sexual difference is essential to marriage. Opponents of the initiative needed explain why we should expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and acknowledge that this expansion would indeed promote a social change.
Social change can be a good thing, but is frightening to some. You need to reassure those who might fear such change by showing how it is good for society and do so in a manner which shows respect for those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage.
Instead of focusing on promoting social change, they, with help from ballot language provided by Attorney General Jerry Brown, contended the initiative’s passage would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, as if that “right’ had existed for generations, instead of having been mandated just six months ago by the State Supreme Court.
Had it not been for the court’s decision, it would have been much easier to defeat 8. Had the court ruled the other way, it would have deprived the “Yes” folks of their apparently quite effective line that “four judges ignored four million voters.”
Those who spoke of the initiative “eliminating a right” failed to appreciate that most Americans don’t like courts resolving controversial social issues. And whether we like it or not, gay marriage is just such an issue.
Not only did the “no” campaign fail to appreciate people’s opposition to court intrusion, they failed to offer an argument which appealed to socially moderate citizens who respect, but are not beholden to, certain social conservative ideas. All too often, initiative opponents told us that those who do not see marriage as a right were bigoted, hateful or just plain mean-spirited.
As a gay conservative blogger, I heard from both sides and found the language of the “No” folks far more hostile than that of the “Yes’ folks.
The “No” side failed to make an affirmative case for gay marriage. Their stuff was invariably negative, attacking the initiative and demonizing its supporters. The attacks on the Mormon Church in the wake of the initiative’s passage are public manifestations of the vitriol I’d been reading in private e-mails before the election.
Such angry e-mails caused me to waver in my opposition to the initiative. If I, a gay man, wavered, how then would straight people, knowing fewer married gay couples, have reacted to similar efforts at suasion?
...
Friday, November 07, 2008
You Got It
Comment:
Also:
Also:
Gypsy boots is correct. The same-sex marriage agenda is not against “right-wing” Christianity, but Christianity, period.
For the homosexual agenda, it simply isn’t good enough to be allowed to live their own lifestlyle and/or to create institutions that fit their “needs”, while leaving socially conservative institutions alone. The homosexual agenda will not been satisfied (and has not be satisfied) until the traditional nuclear family institutions are torn down, destroyed, and dilluted to the point where they become meaningless to the social conservatives that support them. Again, it is not enough to have their own instutions, they want to destroy and replace the institutions of social conservatives as well.
As part of this agenda of destroying conservative social institutions (which are, like it or not, the bedrock of our society), the homosexual agenda is attempting to capture the public bully pulpit so that they can force their abberrant values down the throat of social conservatives. Same sex marriage is simply a wedge that is being used to achieve greater legal and social leverage to support involuntary re-education and other elements of social control.
The attempt is nothing less than social rape, with activist courts and same sex marriage being used as a wedge to force social conservatives (and especially their children) to accept official indoctrination and education about the morality, legitimacy and normalcy of the homosexual lifestyle. This is misguided social policy, and social conservatives should be free to reject the tenets of this abberrant sexual “religion” in the same way that athiests are protected from public religious indoctrination. Social conservatives and their children should not be forced to suffer this type of forced indoctrination via judicial or legislative fiat. They should be free to reject the morality, legitimacy and normalcy of homosexuality, while at the same time respecting the basic human rights of all individuals (not some list of arbitrarily expanded rights), including homosexuals.
Social conservatives see this agenda with clarity. It is not a neutral issue, and they know that the end goal of homosexual activism is to destroy institutions that they hold sacred.
Consider this. For the short period of time in California when same sex marriage was lawful, were homosexuals content to enjoy their newly minted “rights” in private, or did they continue to push their agenda on social conservatives? Why were school children taken to homosexual marriage ceremonies in California? Why did a father in Massachussetts go to jail for trying to opt his child out of mandatory same sex education in public schools? Is this forced re-education really a legitimate use of public funds?
Social conservatives see these abuses and understand that the issue for gay activism lies not in securing rights for themselves, but in destroying and replacing the institutions that social conservatives hold dear. They further understand that homosexual activists are particularly intent on preaching their homosexual “religion” in public institutions as a means of obtaining greater political power and acceptance. That is why millions of Californians have now voted twice in favor of protecting marriage. The alternative was to lose a number of freedoms that we hold dear.
Also:
“That notion is a clear violation of the principle of equality of all before the law.”
Why? Some people get driver’s licenses, some people are blind. Some people can vote, some people are too young. Some people are doctors, some can’t get into med-school. And some people can marry, and some are too young, closely related, or homosexual.
Equality under the law also means that people get to decide the morality of their society. There really is nothing except morality that stops a man from marrying a nine year old. For much of human history in many cultures, this was an accepted practice. But it is not in ours. And neither is two men or two women marrying.
All our laws can be challenged on the basis that it isn’t fair. Is it fair that pedophiles were born with an urge to have sex with children? Certainly not. But that doesn’t mean society has to approve and support those urges.
And no free society would demand that the people do so.
Homosexuals are not child molestors (you know someone was cracking his knuckles to claim I said that.) But the same argument that is being used by homosexuals will certainly be used by all other forms of depravity.
Civil rights for every lifestyle is civilization for no one.
Also:
“Let me restate this clearly: Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.”
Homosexual marriage in not a civil right issue. What makes a person a homosexual? Is it that his skin is a certain color? Is it that he was born a man or a woman? No. The only thing that makes him a homosexual is that he chooses to engage in homosexuality. Just like the heterosexual, though he may have been born with the urge to have sex with women, refuses to engage in sex at all. Just like a rapist, though he may have been born with the urge to rape, chooses to engage in rape.
A black person can not pretend to be a white person. There is no don’t-ask-don’t-tell possibility for women.
This hiding behind the civil rights movement is disgusting. You are being judged not on who you are but by what you do. And if you deny this, and codify it in law, then nobody, no matter what they desire sexually, can be held responsible for their sexual choices or denied the ultimate approval of marriage.
If you want to have homosexual marriage, then go out and convince people that sodomy is just as good as coitus, that homosexual relationships are just important to maintaining a healthy society as heterosexual couples, that a handful of gay adoptive couples need societies entire moral and legal history turn on its head. This would be a hard sell, but at least it would be an honest argument. But please quit with the lame horsedung that you are not in control over who you put your penis into.
...
Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is a heterosexual institution, and heterosexuals have already defined its meaning and purpose in society. If homosexuals envy marriage and want their own special institution, then they should attempt to create one. Then they can make it whatever they want it to be.
Forcing heterosexuals to accept a homosexual interpretation of marriage is at least as oppressive and dogmatic as forcing conservative christian religious morality on homosexuals. Wouldn’t it just be better to agree to disagree and to go our separate ways instead of being at each others throats? Strangely, homosexuals just aren’t willing to let this issue go regardless of the concessions made. They insist on forcing their homosexual “religion” on a heterosexual institution even though heterosexuals, for the most part, are just fine with letting homosexuals have their own institution in the form of civil unions, or garriage, or whatever you want to call it. So really, which group is the intolerant one? I’ll give you a hint… it’s not the Mormons.
Some Thoughts On Legal Challenges To Prop 8
Challenges that would, in effect, declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. I don't know if even leftist judges are insane enough to try this. Especially on behalf of a tiny sliver of a minority.
From the comments to this Volokh post:
From the comments to this Volokh post:
Group sues in court to prevent the voters from exercising their power to 'correct' the court's interpretation of the constitution and reverse a decision of that Court granting the group their personal red pen over the English language.
'Mommy, Daddy says I can't take the car out Friday night even though you said I could... Make him stop!'
Can't you just smell the fear? The petulance?
I wonder how the court will decide? I think they'll side-step the issue for fear of pitchforks.
...
If you are presented with the spectacle of the CA Supreme Court changing the law, then disallowing the people from amending their constitution to restore the law as it was, it becomes more difficult to suppose we still have a government answerable to the people.
Mario Savio's words echo down through the decades:
There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!
Good thing the Justices in California have to face the voters periodically. This wouldn't be the first time they've gone too far and the people have had to take corrective measures.
...
LA Brave, are you saying that it would be legal to have an amendment creating same-sex marriage, but not an amendment abolishing it? Are there some amendments that cannot be repealed under any circumstances?
...
MPP,
If the people of California voted for same sex marriage, I'm sure you would consider it valid and binding until the end of time. That's one of the problems, the elites keep trying to tell us that we can vote yes, but we can't vote no.
Corneilian,
Maybe the people will toss a few justices overboard, maybe they won't. They've done it before and it changed the character of the court for over a decade, making it much more conservative. Even those that don't care much about gay marriage can detect an abuse of power if the Supreme Court decides its judgement on gay marriage can't be challenged by the people.
...
People weren't told to do anything follwing the In re Marriages decision.
Yes, they were. The People were told that a Constitution that was enacted more than 100 years ago by the People of the State of California meant to provide a fundamental right to homosexual so-called "marriage" even though at the time homosexual activity was a felony. I didn't realize that the People were so adept in doublethink.
You can continue living your life unaffected. Nothing's changed for you. You don't have to accept gay marriage.
I don't? Well then, I guess I'll start an adoption agency. Oh, wait, that'll affect me. Maybe I'll run a dormatory for married couples in college. Oops! That'll affect me too. Maybe then, I'll just become a wedding photographer. Wait, nope, that'll get me also.
Moreover than that, homosexual "marriage" is another example of cultural degeneracy. It affects the culture I live in. Homosexual "marriage" basically destroys motherhood and fatherhood, and hence, destroys family. It says there is nothing important in having both a mother and a father for children.
What you (and others) are mad about is that fact that the Court has protected a minority from the will of some people (who you will wrongfully consider a majority) to oppress it. You see, DangerMouse, it is YOU who wants to assert your tyranny over others, not the Court.
I suppose then that the polygamists and the necrophiliacs and the bestialitsts have similar claims for protection, then?
...
MPP, I did not say that contracts are somehow weaker when they are made with the knowledge that the law might change. I am saying that all those who enter a same-sex marriage contract are doing so with the understanding that a Nov. election may terminate the contract. If they want their contract to survive the Nov. election, then they have the opportunity to get a domestic partnership. If they choose not to get a domestic partnership, then they are voluntarily agreeing to get their contract terminated in Nov, if the vote goes that way.
People often sign contracts that allow external events to terminate the contract. It would really be wrong for a court to extend a contract when it is supposed to be terminated.
...
[T]here is this question: what are the limits of governmental power?
Any government powerful enough to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals is also powerful to require it. Right now, you know that this isn't likely, because homosexuals are so powerful. But you have created a dangerous precedent: that there are no limits to governmental power, and nothing is outside the realm of governmental authority to control in the pretended public interest.
What happens if the majority ever gets in control of the judiciary? Do you worry about the prospect that 3% of the population might suddenly find itself on the losing end? It has happened before (in fact, throughout most of the last few centuries). Homosexuals, in their pursuit of unlimited power over the government, have created a dangerous precedent for when the pendulum swings back.
Still Standing
A middlin' quality Bill Whittle column contains this:
So consider this: On Tuesday, the Left — armed with the most attractive, eloquent, young, hip, and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television, and musical icon without pause or challenge for 20 months . . . who ran against the oldest nominee in the country’s history, against a campaign rent with internal disarray and determined not to attack in the one area where attack could have succeeded, and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one in a cycle where not a single debate question was unfavorable to his opponent — that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity . . .
Yielded a result of 53 percent.
A Bottomless Pit Of Paranoid Delusion
Let the fisking begin:
It's good! It's great! It's all fantastic, and I'm thrilled! Really. I do mean it. But something seems to be escaping our attention amidst the exaltation. In spite of the wars, the lies, the torture, the stacking of the courts, and the rollbacks to civil liberties; in spite of the religious fundamentalism, the fanaticism, and the utter disdain toward the population that's been expressed; in spite of the Katrina fiasco, the wire tapping, and the raping and pillaging of our economy for corporate gain (not to mention the ridiculousness and horrendous idiocy of the Republican campaign, including the Palin monstrosity) 56 million, 378 thousand, 316 Americans still voted for the other side [Geez, every last mantra of the contrived litany of make-believe infamy. This guy is quite the independent and nuanced thinker!].
To humanize that just a bit, that means that 56,378,316 individuals waited in line just as long as you did, and worked just as hard as anyone else, to try to make sure that Barack Obama would not become president of the United States. I don't know about you, but that scares the [stuffing] out of me. It means -- for reasons that go way beyond any immediate financial crises -- we're still in very deep trouble [There are people who differ in opinion from me. The outrage of it!].
Who are they, and why do they feel this way? Well, they're 4.6 out of every 10 people you pass on the street. In other words, in spite of an electoral landslide and a historically significant popular margin, we still barely won. Just about as many people wanted it to go the other way [then why did you just call the popular margin historically significant, fool? BTW Prop 8 had about the same margin in California. Was that a historically significant landslide too? Let me guess. Not.]
So, with those facts on the table, how do we pursue an aggressive agenda, and how do we sway some of those people and get them on board to reverse course? One possibility would be to take the route the Republicans took: they forced an extremist agenda down the country's throat [I guess I was asleep for that] in spite of having lost the popular vote [losing the popular vote when running an entire campaign based on winning the electoral vote--you know, the vote that actually elects presidents--is such the outrage!!! Under our Constitution, it clearly says that it is the popular vote winner who really won!!!] (and still kept 46% support this past Tuesday!). Somehow I don't see an Obama administration tacking that tack [then you are truly blind].
I've been spewing a joke around for the two or three weeks leading up to the election. I've been saying that, should Obama prevail, every woman who can stomach it should immediately go out, find a Republican man, and give him a blow job. Just make sure to impress upon him that the only reason he's getting the blow job is in celebration of a Democratic victory. The theory being that, come the next election, when he finds himself alone in a voting cubicle, his dick will point the way toward the Democratic lever. Kind of a reverse Lysistrata effect. Crass, perhaps, but not an insubstantial strategy [Now that's a damned funny joke! Please discuss with your therapist. Don't assume that because you are entirely controlled by your own disordered sexual appetites, that everyone else is].
And now I find myself thinking in even crasser terms. Like, if you've got some money stashed away in these economically stormy days, if you've got some major purchases anywhere on your horizon, time them out for the first ninety days of the new administration. Need a washer/dryer or an automobile? Thinking of buying a new home? Want to get back into the stock market? Hold off 'till after January 20th, and let the numbers show sudden economic improvement during the first three months of a new Democratic majority. Because I've got a sneaking suspicion that those 56,378,316 misguided souls aren't the most sophisticated sailors on the sea [Good heavens, these lefties have already effectively voted their jobs away, but now this guy wants to speed up the process? Not exactly sophisticated, are you, Sailor? You know what's kind of funny? If I hadn't voted, this guy would have had to type the number 56,378,315 instead of the number 56,378,316. I mean that's kind of funny, isn't it?]
I'm not suggesting we'd be successfully addressing any of the serious issues that need to be sorted out. But I am thinking that, if they're crass enough, and easily hoodwinked enough, to have voted Republican after the last eight years, we might as well do a little psychological manipulation of our own. We might not be able to win their hearts and minds, or erase whatever bigotry [And if we know anything at all about this guy, we know he is against bigotry! That, and that I made him type 56,378,316 instead of 56,378,315] led them to vote as they did. But we should be able to outwit them. Let 'em read a few positive economic headlines just as they're fearing the wrath of God is about to drop down upon us. Let 'em think that, even if the "Godless," "unreal" Americans have prevailed, it might be good for their pocketbooks. And then, maybe then, they might climb aboard the Peace Train. (Though, if you're up for the adventure, those blow jobs might not be a bad insurance policy. Just don't leave the Democratic boys out completely) [Again, just because you can be bought and sold via money and sexual favors, please don't assume that the rest of us can].
The Day The Laughter Died
Poor comedy industry. Whatever shall they do now? I guess there's always the possibility of a bailout.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Striking The Perfect Tone
Iowahawk.
Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster
Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don't care whether you are a conservative or a liberal -- when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation's highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.
Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.
Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country's top job -- which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn't mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.
It's also heartening to realize that as president Mr. Obama will soon be working hand-in-hand with a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard like Senator Robert Byrd to craft the incoherent and destructive programs that will plunge the American economy into a nightmare of full-blown sustained depression. As Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has repeatedly warned, there will be difficult times ahead and the programs will not always be popular, or even sane. But as we look out over the wreckage of bankrupt coal companies, nationalized banks, and hyperinflation, we can always look back with sustained pride on the great National Reconciliation of 2008. Call me an optimist, but I like to think when America's breadlines erupt into riots it will be because of our shared starvation, not the differences in our color.
It's obvious that this newfound pride is not confined to Americans alone. All across the world, Mr. Obama's election has helped mend America's tattered image as a racist, violent cowboy, willing to retaliate with bombs at the slightest provocation. The huge outpouring of international support following the election shows that America can still win new friendships while rebuilding its old ones, and provides Mr. Obama with unprecedented diplomatic leverage over our remaining enemies. When Russian tanks start pouring into eastern Europe and Iranian missiles begin raining down on Jerusalem, their leaders will know they will be facing a man who not only conquered America's racial divide but the hearts of the entire Cannes film community. And those Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a dirty nuke or chemical attack on San Francisco face a stark new reality: while they may no longer need to worry about US Marines, they are looking down the barrel of a strongly worded diplomatic condemnation by a Europe fully united in their deep sympathy for surviving Americans.
So for now, let's put politics aside and celebrate this historic milestone. In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.
What The Dems Don't Realize Is That We're Still In The Hoover Part Of This Thing
They're way premature on the second FDR thing. They'll eventually be long remembered as Hoover II.
"Y'All, Conservativism Is Useless Without A Delivery System!"
Another great one. And he says more inspiring stuff in the first two minutes than Obama has said in two years.
GOP Defeat and the 'New Tone'
Link
This is also quite good.
excerpt (from the second link):
This is also quite good.
excerpt (from the second link):
Yet I admit my own relief, despite the costs we will bear in the short term, that Obama was the victor.
For the Democrats, it was an act of sublime short-term calculation to trot out Obama. A man whose easy, telegenic charm was able to narcotize into irrelevance all the facts that would have rendered him unelectable in anyone else's skin. The sewage of slum lords, communist sympathizers and domestic terrorists swirl about his ankles. And yet a flash of smile and a few words in his soothing baritone captured the American imagination and soothed a majority of the electorate. But now the work is going to start. Results are going to matter, and if there's one fact about Barry that the media was unable to obscure, it's that he is a candidate truly uncluttered by moderation.
He is the proto-Democrat; liberalism's gleaming new flagship. And that's going to be a long-term problem for Democrats in ways they can scarcely now imagine.
Obama's ideological roster ticks off all the requisite good-liberal boxes. Where he differs critically from say, a Hillary Clinton, is that he has done away with all pretense of social justice or fiscal sanity as rationales for positions that Americans have found historically repellant. He is the candidate that everyone now knows values wealth redistribution not because he can fumble his way through contorted reasoning that it "helps the poor." As he revealed when he endorsed raising capital gains taxes despite no benefit to the treasury; he is a redistributionist in the crudest Machiavellian sense. Admitting that redistributing wealth, even to no fruitful end, is just 'fair', and wishing to secure his power by ensuring he's the one handing out alms.
Unlike other Democrats, we know he openly supports abortion and infanticide as a matter of lifestyle convenience, not unlike the decisions one makes while flipping through an Ikea catalogue. Gone is the talk of medical necessity, or the older tradition of draping abortion in obfuscating language pulled from the left's ‘1001 Things to Call a Civil Right' playbook. In defending his infanticide vote by insisting that women shouldn't be "punished with a child" he's thrown up his hands with a smirk and declared "That's enough of that 'women's rights' kabuki theater. We all know what this is really about."
Obama is not just a Democrat, or a liberal. Obama is liberalism. He is liberalism stripped of all of its false fronts of civic mindedness. Shorn of all its bogus declarations of interest in the public good, or lip service to free markets or property rights. He is liberalism as it exists only in the psyche of the petty tyrant, rarely glimpsed emerging in public. Shrieking, demanding as a newborn, nakedly ravenous for power. Worshipping expedience, debasing of life, and viewing everyone else's wealth as his own, with which he may conduct his vast social experiments on the subdued human landscape.
But as an ideological flagship surrounded by hysterically unrealistic expectations, if he fails, Obama is going to drag the Democrat ship down to truly crushing depths. And when he does, the redemption of the Democrats will not be swift in coming. With Obama, they have bet the ideological farm, and several surrounding properties too. They have damned the torpedoes and abandoned the strategy of advancing themselves in managed increments. By pushing Obama into the spotlight, they're tipping their entire ideological hand a good twenty years ahead of schedule.
It's difficult to tell how much utterly unchecked leftism America will be willing to endure, or for how long. But one thing for certain is that Obama, in tandem with Pelosi/Reid is the greatest gift the Republicans and conservatives everywhere could have been given. Over the next four years, there will be no political 'moderation' in Obama to muddy the waters, confuse his identity, or cast doubts about who's to blame for what.
It's an odd (and maddening) trait of elected conservatives that they come alive almost exclusively in the face of opposition. They define themselves most persuasively when juxtaposed against runaway state largesse, oppressive economic conditions, or the sheer buckling incompetence of Carter-esque liberalism. Conversely, as they were and would have been with McCain, they're on their weakest footing when squandering intellectual resources and goodwill in the defense of ideologically compromised leadership. And now they've been blessed with an undiluted, unambiguously radical leftist with which they have four years to contrast themselves and make their case.
Disappointed as some will be, Obama's win is not surprising in the present climate. Sadly, Cavuto had it right on McCain's lack of economic conviction. With one hand committed to vague free-marketisms and the other dealing out murky condemnations of 'Wall Street greed', he was unable to deliver a coherent counter-punch that addressed the Democrat-driven interventions that birthed the subprime crisis.
In a painful campaign video from Wisconsin, a famously enraged voter declares "I'm mad!" about the "socialists taking over the country". The audience was in a fervor over the gentleman's comments and salivating for partisan red meat. McCain promptly deflated the crowd by stammering that he would again 'reach across the aisle' and work with everyone to fix the problem. The silent groan of agony that settled on the leadership-starved crowd was palpable. Obama by comparison, was consistent and on message with his serial deceptions and class warfare; but at least he was consistent and on message.
I'm Sure That High Tech Will Just Love Card Check
Good point:
And hey, it's high time that law firms be unionized, too, yes, Dems?
SO DOES THIS MEAN the conservative cause is lost? Not at all. It simply means that conservatives are going to have to stop appealing to the frustrations of the inarticulate and start making a more intelligent case. The Democratic alliance that has won this election is bound to stumble over its own contradictions. One of the most disappointing developments of recent years has been the decision of West Coast entrepreneurs to think of themselves as bobos rather than businessmen. Silicon Valley has become a Democratic stronghold and tech money was one of the major sources of Obama's millions. Tucked into that Democratic coalition, however, is Organized Labor, now essentially a legion of government employees that is anxious to break back into the high-tech economy. Wait until Microsoft, Google, Cisco and Yahoo find themselves being "organized" by the United Auto Workers on the "Freedom of Choice" check-off system. Then Silicon Valley may find that Republican ideas have a little more virtue.
And hey, it's high time that law firms be unionized, too, yes, Dems?
Outraged About The Failure Of Prop 4
Link:
Oh, did I say Prop 4? My bad. This person doesn't really give a damn about the rights of human beings (Prop 4 was a parental abortion notification initiative, Prop 8 was to rescind coerced approval of homosexuality).
Rights for chickens
Editor - Only in California do we vote for the rights of chickens over the rights of human beings. Proposition 8 is a black mark against an otherwise inspirational election. Shame on us.
LAURA BRADLEY
Petaluma
Oh, did I say Prop 4? My bad. This person doesn't really give a damn about the rights of human beings (Prop 4 was a parental abortion notification initiative, Prop 8 was to rescind coerced approval of homosexuality).
Only An American When She Gets Her Way
Otherwise, not so much:
So proud
Editor - I awoke this morning from an eight-year sleep to a new day. I awoke with joy in my heart, gladness filled my being.
On Jan. 20, I will hang my American flag with pride. It will hang as a symbol for all of the potential we have to change, to grow, to come together as a nation and to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. Today I am so very proud of our country and so proud to be an American.
WENDY WINTER
Oakland
I Doubt That 40 Years Of Bitterness, Delusion, And Paranoia End Quite That Easily, Betty
Letter to the SF Chronicle:
Editor - For 40 years I have not risen for the American flag or national anthem. It started with the My Lai massacre. Today I have decided to again honor the flag and anthem. Now they stands for a population that says "we can," that gives us hope, that charges us to work for change.
As proud as I am that Barack Obama has won, I am even more proud of what America has accomplished in casting ballots for him and the concepts for which he stands.
BETTY SIMMONS
Vallejo
Let The Fun Begin
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
Link:
Link:
Conservatives may not realize just how difficult it might be to recover from this week's elections.
...
Too many conservatives think we've seen all this before -- in 1964 and 1974 and 1992 -- and that we know how to handle it. Fly, meet ointment: We're not dealing with the same sorts of opponents. These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles. They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs.
It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents). Right now the libs (and yes, all the Democratic senators, with the possible exception of Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are libs) have 56, with three Republican moderates and one conservative leading their races but awaiting recounts or runoffs. Watch for the Alinskyites to try stealing all four, and to succeed in at least two. We've seen this game before. They did it in Indiana's "Bloody Eighth" congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor's race in 2004. Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances.
Next, watch what happens if they regularly can't peel off enough Republicans (or hold their own semi-fairminded people like Nelson and Joe Lieberman) to overcome whatever filibuster attempts Republicans do mount. Watch for an assault on the filibuster itself. Watch how they use as precedent the GOP "nuclear/constitutional option" on judges in 2005 -- except instead of just using it for judges, watch them use it against all filibusters. It's easy: Make the ruling from the chair that the filibuster is out of order for some reason. Instruct the parliamentarian to rule in their favor. Win the appeal of the parliamentarian's ruling by simple majority vote. And watch the courts pronounce it an internal matter of the legislative branch and thus outside of courtroom purview.
Watch a cheerleading establishment media -- the Fourth Estate as a veritable Fifth Column -- actually back these lefty maneuvers. It's all in the name of one-man/one-vote democracy, dontcha know? The filibuster once served its purpose, they'll say, but as a vestige of Southern "massive resistance" to integration it is now being used for massive resistance to the first black president, which invalidates it (suddenly) as a legitimate tool.
Watch the left use these tactics and others to pass even more liberalized voting laws -- an open invitation to even more fraud that is more creative, easier to hide, and less challengeable in court.
Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama "thugocracy" use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with "vote suppression." Anybody who complains about DoJ's actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation. And the accused won't be able to look to the Supreme Court for help: Anthony Kennedy's "evolving standards" of justice will evolve to match the new zeitgeist, providing a 5-4 majority for the administration. Meanwhile, of course, Obama's other appointments will be filling up the rest of the judiciary at a rapid clip, with nobody able to stop them.
Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: "card check" legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents. Invasive IRS audits of conservative think tanks, other conservative 501 organizations, and PACs.
What Ohio officials did in rifling through so many of Joe Wurzelbacher's files will serve as ample precedent. (Just watch, by the way: Nobody ever will be effectively disciplined for the violation of Wurzelbacher's rights.)
And, only when the time is right and the ground (or air) has been well prepared, will come the grand-daddy of all fights, the re-enactment of the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine."
[lots more fun predictions]
The Emaciated Junkies In The Alley Welcome Us To The Party
Great piece by Melanie Phillips. With Bush we had all the right enemies. With Obama it looks like we'll have all the wrong friends.
Communication Strategies
If the GOP ever gets a clue it is going to need to do a few things:
*Impose message discipline and voting discipline on its members.
*Cut off the bolshevik drive-by media. Reward those outlets that give a fair shake, ignore those that don't. Empower conservative media by giving them the scoops and the inside track. Disempower the bolsheviks by cutting them out of the loop. Ignore the outraged cries of unfairness from those who show little familiarity with the very concept of fairness.
*Control the terminology of debate. For example, no Republican should even use the term "same sex marriage" when discussing the issue. Using the term carries an implicit message that such a thing exists, and that people are being denied the right to it. The simple fact is, such a thing does not exist. Pick something more pertinent to the issue as seen by your supporters. How about "coerced approval?" A GOP politician could simply say when asked about "gay marriage": "I am opposed to coerced approval of homosexual lifestyles. As far as I'm concerned, two people can have any relationship they like, and privately call it whatever they like. But what they cannot do is use the power of the state (which in the final analysis comes at the point of a gun) and force everyone else to change the meaning of an already defined term. They want this term for the purpose of compelling others, under penalty of law, to voice approval of their lifestyle. I oppose this, and find this to be a very ungrateful way to reward those who have already extended them so much tolerance and understanding." GOP politicians should stick to the message and make sure they refer to the issue as "coerced approval," no matter how much crying the other side does. It's a point of basic honesty, because the term most accurately describes the issue. Having the correct term means the battle is half won. And it makes it very clear to supporters what the ramifications of losing the battle are.
Again, this all assumes that the GOP is capable of getting a clue.
*Impose message discipline and voting discipline on its members.
*Cut off the bolshevik drive-by media. Reward those outlets that give a fair shake, ignore those that don't. Empower conservative media by giving them the scoops and the inside track. Disempower the bolsheviks by cutting them out of the loop. Ignore the outraged cries of unfairness from those who show little familiarity with the very concept of fairness.
*Control the terminology of debate. For example, no Republican should even use the term "same sex marriage" when discussing the issue. Using the term carries an implicit message that such a thing exists, and that people are being denied the right to it. The simple fact is, such a thing does not exist. Pick something more pertinent to the issue as seen by your supporters. How about "coerced approval?" A GOP politician could simply say when asked about "gay marriage": "I am opposed to coerced approval of homosexual lifestyles. As far as I'm concerned, two people can have any relationship they like, and privately call it whatever they like. But what they cannot do is use the power of the state (which in the final analysis comes at the point of a gun) and force everyone else to change the meaning of an already defined term. They want this term for the purpose of compelling others, under penalty of law, to voice approval of their lifestyle. I oppose this, and find this to be a very ungrateful way to reward those who have already extended them so much tolerance and understanding." GOP politicians should stick to the message and make sure they refer to the issue as "coerced approval," no matter how much crying the other side does. It's a point of basic honesty, because the term most accurately describes the issue. Having the correct term means the battle is half won. And it makes it very clear to supporters what the ramifications of losing the battle are.
Again, this all assumes that the GOP is capable of getting a clue.
Typical RINO Reasoning: Baby Killin' And Sodomy Were Worth 73 Electoral Votes, So Let's Go After Those Votes!
Greg Mankiw:
BZZZZTT!! I'm sorry. But thanks for playing!
Nothing could possibly be more revolting to the base and (everyone else) than the GOP trying to be "hip" and "cool" in order to try (and fail miserably) to win the bong hit, gay chic, hookup college vote.
A country that needs to appeal to the utter irresponsibility, selfishness, and naivete of the young for salvation is a country unworthy of salvation. Better to employ the unusual and risky strategy of sticking to principles, win back those who care about principles, and become winners again instead of pathetic losers. The youth vote will follow.
More details on how the 73 vote figure was come up with.
This picture from Andrew Gelman is striking. It suggests that the major difference between the past two elections and this one was the youth vote. In this election, the young left the Republican party in droves.
Why? I am not enough of a political scientist to be sure, but recent conversations I have had with some Harvard undergrads have led me to a conjecture: It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.
So what does the Republican Party need to do to get the youth vote back? If these Harvard students are typical (and perhaps they are not, as Harvard students are hardly a random sample), the party needs to scale back its social conservatism. Put simply, it needs to become a party for moderate and mainstream libertarians. The actual Libertarian Party is far too extreme in its views to attract these students. And it is too much of a strange fringe group. These students are, after all, part of the establishment. But a reformed Republican Party could, I think, win them back.
Can the Republican Party move in this direction without losing much of its base? I have no idea, but for the GOP, that seems to be the challenge ahead.
BZZZZTT!! I'm sorry. But thanks for playing!
Nothing could possibly be more revolting to the base and (everyone else) than the GOP trying to be "hip" and "cool" in order to try (and fail miserably) to win the bong hit, gay chic, hookup college vote.
A country that needs to appeal to the utter irresponsibility, selfishness, and naivete of the young for salvation is a country unworthy of salvation. Better to employ the unusual and risky strategy of sticking to principles, win back those who care about principles, and become winners again instead of pathetic losers. The youth vote will follow.
More details on how the 73 vote figure was come up with.
The Mood Is Good
Strangely enough, when my side loses, I don't roll up into a little ball of volcanic rage. I suppose that's why I'm a conservative.
There are some reasons to be kind of jazzed:
* If I meet some starry eyed Obama supporter, I can say in all sincerity, "I got hope that things are going to get better and better!" It's true. I do.
* For the first time in my life I have a President that cannot possibly disappoint me. The other guys cannot say the same. In fact, there is a single direction their emotions can go from here.
* "Conservatism" had a good run as people naturally reacted against the catastrophe of the Carter years. But that was almost 30 years ago, more than an entire generation. Plenty of folks just don't have any feeling for the awfulness of Democrat rule. If they vote accordingly, what are you gonna do?
* Half-assed Republicanism is deservedly dead, dead, dead. I will not have to witness economic and socialistic catastrophe with the Republican name attached to it.
* Political movements are not top-down things. You cannot exhort people to adopt conservative principles. Big government socialism will be overthrown when the vast majority hate it. Right now, they don't.
* A downturn is when you see in the news that someone, somewhere is losing his job. A recession is when your friend loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. Psychologically, we are only at stage 1. The Democrats are absolutely going to own stage 3. Simple poetic justice.
* Poor Israel. Perhaps secular Jews will reconsider their links to the party that sells it up the river.
* Foaming at the mouth leftists will suddenly look like the unhip tools that they actually are. If you keep tantruming even after you get your way, there is really no question anymore who the a-hole is, is there? A lot of lefties coming into power are suddenly going to start feeling strong incentives for sobriety. Ravers will be seen as threats to a good thing. They will be shunned.
* Maybe, just maybe, a few people will see fit to STFU about what a racist country this is.
* Sayonara, Clintons. Obama shunned you and won anyway. The PUMA's accomplished nothing. You didn't campaign or fight for him. He owes you nothing. His empire will now dismantle yours brick-by-brick-by-brick so that nothing is left standing. Then they will salt the ground so that nothing ever grows there again. Good riddance!
* Prop 8 passed! Coerced approval of sexual depravity, when it comes, will not be limited to just a blue state. And the churches can enjoy a couple more persecution-free years.
On the topic of disillusionment: It's not possible for folks who haven't gotten what they wanted to become disillusioned. They can keep running on fantasy and paranoia. That has now been taken away from the leftists. In 1992, I was a bitter leftist dreamer. I was psyched when Clinton got elected. I voted for him enthusiastically. In 1993, the disillusionment started because I saw the man back down on radical issue after radical issue. I even made up a joke: "How many Bill Clintons does it take to change a lightbulb? (I don't know, how many?) Uhh, okay, we won't change the lightbulb, then!" In 1994 I was pretty horrified by the attempted health care takeover, once I saw the details. I remember going to DC to visit a friend in October of that year. We'd both been fairly left, but we spent a lot of time mocking "Change" (Obama isn't the one who came up with that empty mantra), and commenting how the Democrats needed some kind of electoral punishment. Which they got. Six months later my conversion to Catholicism began, and I became a conservative. It's hard for me to remember all the feelings and motivations of the process, but that's what happened. Afterwards I was vastly happier than I ever was as a leftist. And if it happened to me, it can happen to anyone.
There are some reasons to be kind of jazzed:
* If I meet some starry eyed Obama supporter, I can say in all sincerity, "I got hope that things are going to get better and better!" It's true. I do.
* For the first time in my life I have a President that cannot possibly disappoint me. The other guys cannot say the same. In fact, there is a single direction their emotions can go from here.
* "Conservatism" had a good run as people naturally reacted against the catastrophe of the Carter years. But that was almost 30 years ago, more than an entire generation. Plenty of folks just don't have any feeling for the awfulness of Democrat rule. If they vote accordingly, what are you gonna do?
* Half-assed Republicanism is deservedly dead, dead, dead. I will not have to witness economic and socialistic catastrophe with the Republican name attached to it.
* Political movements are not top-down things. You cannot exhort people to adopt conservative principles. Big government socialism will be overthrown when the vast majority hate it. Right now, they don't.
* A downturn is when you see in the news that someone, somewhere is losing his job. A recession is when your friend loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. Psychologically, we are only at stage 1. The Democrats are absolutely going to own stage 3. Simple poetic justice.
* Poor Israel. Perhaps secular Jews will reconsider their links to the party that sells it up the river.
* Foaming at the mouth leftists will suddenly look like the unhip tools that they actually are. If you keep tantruming even after you get your way, there is really no question anymore who the a-hole is, is there? A lot of lefties coming into power are suddenly going to start feeling strong incentives for sobriety. Ravers will be seen as threats to a good thing. They will be shunned.
* Maybe, just maybe, a few people will see fit to STFU about what a racist country this is.
* Sayonara, Clintons. Obama shunned you and won anyway. The PUMA's accomplished nothing. You didn't campaign or fight for him. He owes you nothing. His empire will now dismantle yours brick-by-brick-by-brick so that nothing is left standing. Then they will salt the ground so that nothing ever grows there again. Good riddance!
* Prop 8 passed! Coerced approval of sexual depravity, when it comes, will not be limited to just a blue state. And the churches can enjoy a couple more persecution-free years.
On the topic of disillusionment: It's not possible for folks who haven't gotten what they wanted to become disillusioned. They can keep running on fantasy and paranoia. That has now been taken away from the leftists. In 1992, I was a bitter leftist dreamer. I was psyched when Clinton got elected. I voted for him enthusiastically. In 1993, the disillusionment started because I saw the man back down on radical issue after radical issue. I even made up a joke: "How many Bill Clintons does it take to change a lightbulb? (I don't know, how many?) Uhh, okay, we won't change the lightbulb, then!" In 1994 I was pretty horrified by the attempted health care takeover, once I saw the details. I remember going to DC to visit a friend in October of that year. We'd both been fairly left, but we spent a lot of time mocking "Change" (Obama isn't the one who came up with that empty mantra), and commenting how the Democrats needed some kind of electoral punishment. Which they got. Six months later my conversion to Catholicism began, and I became a conservative. It's hard for me to remember all the feelings and motivations of the process, but that's what happened. Afterwards I was vastly happier than I ever was as a leftist. And if it happened to me, it can happen to anyone.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Constitutional Amendments Are Constitutional By Definition
But the lefties never give up:
-------------
Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
November 5, 2008.
The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.
This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.
The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.
The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.
It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “ . . . only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).
The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.
-------------
Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
November 5, 2008.
The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.
This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.
The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.
The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.
It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “ . . . only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).
The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.
Always Remember
Jesus ran a superb three year campaign, absolutely perfect in every respect, and still lost to Barabbas.
I'm Glad Their Desperate, Bigoted Ploy Failed
I just saw the latest No on Prop 8 ad. Delusional on many counts.
Can you imagine an equivalent commercial where evil gays go in search of kids to recruit? Shear bigotry.
A couple of bright spots from the election: I won't have to support some kind of lame half-assed, Republicanism for the next four years, and Prop 8 just delayed outright persecution of the churches for a year or two.
Can you imagine an equivalent commercial where evil gays go in search of kids to recruit? Shear bigotry.
A couple of bright spots from the election: I won't have to support some kind of lame half-assed, Republicanism for the next four years, and Prop 8 just delayed outright persecution of the churches for a year or two.
Free People Do Not Have A President
But their government does.
Comment:
Comment:
That said, I hope Obama does genuine good for the country as the President. I am quite unlike his supporters, since I cannot be disappointed by him.
Comment:
Obama will not be my President. Neither will McCain. Neither will Biden, Palin, or Barr. As a citizen of the United States, I have never had a President. Unless the Constitution changes, I will never have a President.
Will the winner of today’s election be the legitimate head of the executive branch of the US Government? Yes. Will he be the commander-in-chief of the US Military? Yes. Does he have the power to walk up to me, as a civilian, and start barking orders? No, unless he usurps that power using armed force. The fact that citizens are free from such an obligation is part of what makes this place special.
So, no. Obama will not be my president.
Comment:
This whole “my President” thing is a really unfortunate new coinage. There is no such thing as “my President” as there is for “my God” or “my King.” As far as I can tell, the phrase was invented solely by left-wingers seeking to demonstrate that “George Bush will never be ‘my President’.”
Americans are governed by laws, not men. Our loyalty to our country should never depend on who is President, but he can never be more than head of state and head of government or, for a person in the military, commander in chief. But the President of the United States is never the head of me.
That said, I hope Obama does genuine good for the country as the President. I am quite unlike his supporters, since I cannot be disappointed by him.
Den Beste Chimes In
Link
Intro:
Also:
Intro:
Not the end of the world
It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly f*cked" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.
I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.
And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.
I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.
But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.
And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.
A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.
The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.
The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.
And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.
Oh, the Democrats try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.
If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.
And it ain't possible for the Democrats to deliver what's been promised. Gonna be a hell of a lot of disillusioned lefties out there. A lot of people who felt they were deceived. A lot of people who will eventually realize that the Obama campaign was something of a cult.
Disillusionment will turn to a feeling of betrayal. And that will, in turn, convert to anger.
Also:
Now, a few predictions for the next four years:
1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.
2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.
3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.
4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)
5. There will eventually be a press backlash against Obama which will make their treatment of Bush look mild. Partly that's going to be because Obama is going to disappoint them just as much as all his other supporters. Partly it will be the MSM desperately trying to regain its own credibility, by trying to show that they're not in his tank any longer. And because of that they are eventually going to do the reporting they should have done during this campaign, about Obama's less-than-savory friends, and about voter fraud, and about illegal fund-raising, and about a lot of other things.
and 6. Obama will not be re-elected in 2012. He may even end up doing an LBJ and not even running again.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Stay Sane Today
Ignore what the sworn enemies of the Republic (the Press) have to say, and get out there and vote! You have better things to do with your time, emotions, and sanity than to tune in to the Level 5 hurricane of leaked exit polls, spin, psy-ops, and OCD blogging! I'm going on a "news fast" until 7PM PST.
And I'm headed out the door to vote!
It's on!!!!!
And I'm headed out the door to vote!
It's on!!!!!
Monday, November 03, 2008
What Kind Of World Do We Want?
Outstanding essay by a former pro-choicer. I couldn't agree more (I, too am a former pro-choicer).
What To Expect In The Event Of An Upset
More or less, we'll see that all of the monumental leftist a-holism during the campaign period was nothing but a low-intensity trial run.
American Thinker:
American Thinker:
No matter who wins Tuesday America is going to be a different country.
When the sun rises on November 5, regardless of who the president-elect is, a more un-United States than has existed since the Civil War will wake to dispute the results of the disgusting campaign that has mercifully come to an end.
Whoever the losers, they will believe they were cheated, and will point fingers at those they believe responsible. Almost half the nation will view the winner as illegitimate, and will do everything in their power to undermine his authority as long as he's in the White House.
With this animosity will come a new level of hatred between those of differing political persuasions like nothing our country has experienced in the modern era.
Putting it bluntly, and without sounding too much like Rev. Jeremiah "G-d Damn America" Wright, there will be no such thing as Americans anymore.
Instead, there'll be Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, and encounters between the members of these groups will for years nay decades be at best unfriendly, and at worst quite hostile if not downright violent.
Think this an overstatement? Consider first what Wednesday will look like if John McCain pulls off the upset.
To begin with, let's be very clear about one thing: Democrats believe that if they lose an election it's because their opponent cheated. It's never their fault. It's never because they ran a poor campaign. It's never because their opponent ran a better one.
Heck no!
It's always about voter fraud, disenfranchisement, not enough ballots, faulty machinery, hanging chads, negative advertising, intimidation tactics, campaign finance abuses, you name it.
...
To make my point, I offer the now overly-discussed Bradley effect and how it relates to exit polls: How many people as they leave the voting booth Tuesday will lie to pollsters about who they voted for?
Before you answer, try to imagine the pressures many people are going to feel in certain districts around the country to answer "Obama" rather than "McCain" irrespective of the truth. Also consider the possibility that many McCain supporters will just refuse to answer the question thereby skewing the results.
Although Democrat strategist Donna Brazile has talked for months about racism being the elephant in the room this campaign, here's an elephant Donna and her ilk are afraid to address: in some districts in this country, it will be VERY difficult for pollsters to find folks willing to admit they voted for McCain.
With the election as tight as it is, just a few percent of such embarrassed-to-look-like-racists will give the appearance that Obama has won key battleground states.
Here's another elephant: it is almost a metaphysical certitude the exit polls in at least one state will conflict with the actual results thereby opening the door for the perpetually sore losing Democrats to cry foul.
Now that's a big elephant.
Can you imagine the Rodney King-style rioting that might occur as a result, especially when folks like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the usual suspects get in front of television cameras blaming Republicans and John McCain for stealing another election, this time from a black man?
They'll be on all the morning shows Wednesday doing what they do best: fomenting hate, and pointing fingers.
Lest we not forget how quickly Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton will be on planes heading to that state (or states!) with their teeming hordes of NAACP and ACLU lawyers.
Can you imagine the chaos?
But that's just the beginning, for the Obama-loving media are also going to feel scorned, and will spend all day Wednesday airing hideously biased segment after hideously biased segment demonstrating to viewers how Republicans prevented people from voting in largely black districts in the state(s) in question. Op-eds and editorials in newspapers across the fruited plain will do the same.
Rest assured if folks aren't mad enough about the election's outcome, you can count on angry press representatives to stoke the fires of discontent until riots start somewhere, for nothing would please sycophants like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Jack Cafferty more than rioting across the country if McCain wins.
Of course, they'll refer to it as civil disobedience regardless of how uncivil it gets.
And don't expect the Messiah to do anything to quell the hostilities. Being gracious in defeat isn't a Democrat virtue.
The Bigger Picture
Link:
The Obama/Pelosi/Reid platform in a nutshell (helped along by timid Republicans, of course)...
[P]onder the words of the Scottish jurist and historian, Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler. Over 200 years ago, he provided a chilling observation on the fall of the Athenian Republic. America has been a beacon of liberty and hope for our citizens and the world for over 230 years. But Tytler warned of the natural rise and fall of every democracy:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence; from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."
The Obama/Pelosi/Reid platform in a nutshell (helped along by timid Republicans, of course)...
Prediction
The Anchoress:
Okay, here’s one prediction I’ll make: If McCain/Palin wins, the press and the Dems will stroke out and Obama will play The Ultimate Chutzpah Card and say that at least 14 states (the big ACORN states) must be challenged because “the rolls were suspect and the integrity of the election was compromised” - by his very own supporters. Then he’ll proceed to tear the nation apart, in an effort to wrest the White House from the GOP. If Obama wins, the Dems and the press will declare that this was the “cleanest” and most “widely observed” election in our nation’s history; they will declare the people have spoken, call it a mandate and tell John McCain that if he dares to challenge things, he’ll be a most dishonorable man willing to tear his nation apart to serve his own ambition. John McCain will ultimately not challenge such a loss, because - like Nixon in 1960 - he’ll put his country first, and decide America may not survive such a fight.
Who Has Had Absolute Mastery Of The Tag Words, Rhetoric And Symbolism At The End?
That's the guy who will win, according to Clark Judge. McCain has owned the final few weeks.
Parallels
A psychological look at the parallels between leftist and Islamic paranoia.
Tidbit:
Tidbit:
If they lose, there probably will be "blood on the streets"--they are certainly capable of such destruction and sociopathic behavior. But I don't expect that an Obama win will "heal" the fundamental psychopathological and paranoid defect that drives them currently. On the contrary, winning will only further harden the projection and paranoia and extend the delusions and conspiracies.
After all, they will now have to explain why their policies make things worse, instead of better.
There's Something Pathological About This Guy
Keep it classy, Messiah.
I can't help but think that his attempted "getting away with this" is a small-scale telegraphing of "getting away with" something much bigger and much worse.
What kind of raving narcissist pulls something like this the day before an election?
Hey leftists, bolsheviks, and the unclued: if your guy that you've put your hopes on and fought so hard for is going to jeopardize things this way on the last day, then he's not flipping off McCain, he's flipping off you.
I can't help but think that his attempted "getting away with this" is a small-scale telegraphing of "getting away with" something much bigger and much worse.
What kind of raving narcissist pulls something like this the day before an election?
Hey leftists, bolsheviks, and the unclued: if your guy that you've put your hopes on and fought so hard for is going to jeopardize things this way on the last day, then he's not flipping off McCain, he's flipping off you.
Thumb Puppet Debate
Highlarious. Good satire. Gets a little silly at the end, but the silliness is so darned over the top that the laughs keep on. Someone had a lot of fun making this.
“Wake Up And Smell The Soviet Bread Lines, Comrades”
Ace of Spades post takes it to Obama re:bankrupting the coal industry, and his willingness to see "energy prices skyrocket". Seriously I can't understand how a Bolshevik buffoon like this has any support whatsoever in this country.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
For Goodness Sake, Of What Possible Comfort Is 'Probably'?
A short critique of Dawkins' latest atheist PR campaign, which features a blatantly irrational non-sequitur of a slogan.
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Anecdote:
This is a true conversation I had recently:
"Well, I finally decided who to vote for: Obama."
"Oh yea, why?"
"Because that Sara Palin is such a ditz."
"Why do you say that?"
"Have you seen those Saturday Night Live skits of her?"
"They are so funny, they show how stupid she really is, they are hilarious."
Stunned silence.
"Yea, she is really stupid. What does that say about McCain for picking her."
A Succinct Prophecy
Link:
A huge taxpayer backlash against overly generous public pension plans is brewing. Boomers with destroyed stock funds and IRAs are not going to want to have taxes increased so that public workers can get 90% of their salaries for the rest of their lives during retirement.
Riveting
You need to read the late David Foster Wallace's reflection on the McCain POW experience. Now.
The Logic Of The Thing
In a discussion at Patterico re: California's Proposition 8:
Patterico,
Although I disagree with you, I commend your honesty and courage to stand by your convictions in front of an audience that, on whole, is apt to disagree with you. I do take issue with your logic.
You state:
homosexuals are made to feel that they are second-class citizens
and also
Since gays do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, refusing to give them access to an institution available to heterosexuals is discrimination
Discrimination, IMHO, is the act of prohibiting one citizen from doing something that other citizens are allowed to do. Gay men (women) are not prohibited from marrying women (men). Based on their sexual orientation, this may not FEEL like a choice, but nonetheless it is. They do have access to that institution, just not with the same sex. Hence no discrimination.
As homosexuals have access to the same rights, via civil unions, as hetrosexuals, it appears that this battle is about appropriating the title of “marriage”. The State has a right, as long as it does not discriminate, to restrict marraige to its traditional definition. I consider it analogous to professional regulation that the State enforces. For example:
I may consider myself, and may be recognized by others, as a “healer” but I may not appropriate the title of “M.D.” unless I comply with the regulations and licensing of the State. I may argue that I am revolted by the sight of blood and therefore cannot complete medical school, but that does not mean that the State is discriminating against me...
McCain Is Darned Funny
Hilarious stuff on SNL last night (including the brutally on-target Olbermann skit).
Saturday, November 01, 2008
VDH: Mum's The Word
Link:
The Wizards of Oz
I don't think in my lifetime I have ever witnessed quite a campaign in which the wife of the Presidential candidate has been sequestered lest she voice yet another sweeping generalization that can be rightfully interpreted as denigrating both the American system at large or the values of other Americans; or in which the Vice Presidential candidate has been sequestered from press questioning lest he once again in an interview or an impromptu says something that either is so bizarre that it makes no sense at all or serves as a good argument not to vote for his running mate; or in which the Presidential nominee himself knows that if he stays on the teleprompter he has a good chance of winning, but if he wades in to banter wtih the crowd there is equally a good chance that he may say something so disturbing that the entire facade that he has so carefully constructed simply collapses.
In sum, the voters suspect that there is something wrong with these faux-wizardly images on the campaign stump, but on the rare occasions they hear or see a gimpse of something real behind them that understandably makes them uneasy, they are sort of given the message "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Get Your Terms Straight, Senator Government
Link:
One more thing...
Dear Senator Obama...
Not wanting to give the government more of our money to spend irresponsibly and inefficiently on someone who didn't earn it, but wanting to keep as much as possible to provide for our own family's safety, comfort and general welfare is not "selfishness", it is "self-reliance".
Try looking that word up some time and learn the difference.
Yours,
Kat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
