The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

In The Mailbox: 06.30.16

Posted on | June 30, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
90 Miles From Tyranny: Law Enforcement Sources Say Gun Used In Paris Attack Came From “Fast And Furious” Program
EBL: Coast Redwood – Sequoia sempervirens
Twitchy: So Terrible! Trump Chimes In On Clinton-Lynch Meeting


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Boris Johnson Withdraws From Leadership Contest, Upending Tories After Michael Gove Ambush
American Thinker: Heart Of Darkness – The Evil At The Core Of Modern Liberalism
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – A Certain Age by Beatriz Williams
Da Tech Guy: John Ruberry – Britain’s Reagan and Trump Moment
Don Surber: Fake Hate Crime Of The Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: House Dems Mistakenly Release Transcript Confirming Big Payments To Clinton Crony Sid Blumenthal
Joe For America: Fauxcahontas Warren Makes Anti-Trump Ad, Ends Up Humiliating Herself
JustOneMinute: I Believe It Is Prosperity For Our Time
Pamela Geller: Kerry Claims Istanbul Attack A Sign Daesh “Knows They Are Losing”
Shark Tank: NRA Releases New Anti-Clinton Ad Featuring Benghazi Survivor
Shot In The Dark: The Somme, Part I – The Accrington Pals
STUMP: Good News For Wednesday – The World Is Getting Better
The Jawa Report: Man Violently Attacked By So-Called “Anti-Fascists” While Police Stand Around And Watch
The Lonely Conservative: After Senate Dems Kill Zika Funding, NIH Says There’s No Money To Fight It
The Political Hat: The State – Stealing Your Children, Dividing Your Children, Indoctrinating Your Children
This Ain’t Hell: Seventh Circuit Judge Says Constitution Has “Absolutely No Value”
Weasel Zippers: State Dept Acknowledges 13-Year-Old Stabbed By Palestinian Is American – Seventh US Citizen Killed By Palestinians This Year


Shop Amazon Fashion – Up to 70% off Summer Savings
Shop Amazon Devices – All New Kindle 6-inch

Category: Linkagery

Anti-Marriage and Anti-Motherhood: Feminism’s War Against the Family

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 53 Comments

 

Feminism is the ideology of the Darwinian Dead End. It is a rationalization of human extinction, a philosophy that justifies self-imposed sterility as more personally fulfilling than motherhood. Because feminists hate babies, they advocate abortion, promote contraception, and encourage hatred of men, marriage and heterosexuality, per se.

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
— Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” 1970, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)

“We want to destroy . . . polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family. . .. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

Feminism is a movement devoted to destroying the family. Feminist theory condemns marriage and motherhood as institutions of “male domination,” which is why taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is sacred to feminists: The road to “equality” is paved with dead babies.

Misery loves company, and the leaders of this anti-male hate movement therefore encourage young women to pursue lifestyles that will lead them to the same attitude of embittered resentment that defines feminism. Crucial to this project is the promotion of abnormal sexual behavior.

“Sex is about reproductive biology,” as I have previously explained. “Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex. Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details.” Rejecting this normal common-sense understanding of sex, feminists adopt intellectual theories that are directly hostile to the reproductive purposes of human sexuality. One obvious reason for this hostility is because so many leaders of the feminist movement are lesbians:

Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement [in the 1960s and ’70s] because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” . . .
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

That quote from my book Sex Trouble is worth repeating because it helps explain why so many young women who mistakenly believe they can be both feminist and heterosexual discover that attempting this only results in personal misery. Heterosexual feminists become permanently unhappy in their romantic lives, because the movement’s ideology — a paranoid anti-male conspiracy theory — was so significantly influence by lesbians.

Left to right: Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys.

Women who had no interest in marrying men or having children (Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) could demonize men as patriarchal oppressors and be celebrated by their feminist comrades for doing so. Yet any heterosexual woman who adopts this hateful ideology will find that her feminism causes decent, honest and intelligent men to avoid her. She is forced to seek boyfriends among the vile dregs of the “progressive” movement, and she will not find good men among the corrupt adherents of socialism and other immoral causes.

 

Heterosexual feminists like self-proclaimed “Shameless Slut” Paloma Brierley Newton are notoriously promiscuous. All decent men shun such women, so that in seeking male companionship, the heterosexual feminist invariably finds herself scraping the scum from the bottom of the barrel. This in turn leads to profoundly unhealthy outcomes.

“I am able to embrace my herpes positive status. . . .
“I have no shame in who I am. . . .
“I have sex, great sex. I write about sex. I talk openly about sex.”
— Emily Depasse, April 18, 2016

The disease-infected feminist Emily Depasse boasts of her “herpes positive status.” She is proud to call herself “The Carrie Bradshaw of Herpes” and seeks to “destigmatize” her disease, because otherwise someone might think irresponsible promiscuity is a bad thing. No one is really surprised to read Emily Depasse’s declaration on her blog: “I do not foresee myself having children, nor do I really want them. . . . Yes, I am self-admittedly too selfish to have children.” The Death Cult ideology of feminism celebrates selfishness for the same reason feminists celebrate lesbianism, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Anything that leads young women toward the Darwinian Dead End is good, from the perspective of feminism, which is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.

This destructive purpose explains why feminists are never content merely to ruin their own lives and wallow in their misery. No, the feminist must encourage others to emulate her self-destructive example.

Having made such a disastrous public spectacle of her life — her name is now practically synonymous with herpes — Emily Depasse’s future romantic prospects are obviously rather bleak. In addition to justifying herself with sour-grapes rationalizations, she must also disparage the aspirations of other women for whom marriage and motherhood are major sources of happiness. At her blog, Emily Depasse describes her decision to cease associating with a former friend who “became toxic” to her. What happened?

I think the one phrase that echoes in my head (probably more often than it should) was when this person said, “If you met the right man, you’d want to drop everything to get married right now. But you have goals and dreams and things, don’t you, Emily.” . . .
This person feels that her sole purpose in life is to be a wife and mother . . . But along her path to becoming a wife, she seemed to lose herself in the process. . . . Your quest for happiness and lack of self-esteem eventually manifests itself in all facets of your personality, and thus, you became a draining and toxic individual. . . .
From the moment I cut this person out of my life, I felt such a weight lifted from my shoulders. It felt freeing that my lips no longer had to mouth her name, or voice one more remark regarding my negative feelings towards her.

Translation: “Only women who lack self-esteem want husbands and families. Getting married and having children makes you toxic.”

The belief that marriage is incompatible with “goals and dreams and things” has been a central theme in feminist discourse for more than 50 years, since Betty Friedan compared suburban housewives to inmates of Nazi concentration camps (which implies that every husband is Hitler). Feminists have spent decades declaring that marriage is “slavery,” a prison of “male domination” from which women must “escape,” and this anti-marriage ideology has come to define the feminist movement to such a degree that young feminists now simply take it for granted. The young woman who calls herself a “feminist” in 2016 thereby effectively declares she has no desire for a husband or children. Having thus rejected human sexuality in its normal manifestation (i.e., as reproductive biology), the feminist may next begin to wonder, “Why bother with men at all?” Considering the low quality of men available as partners for the herpes-infected feminist, this is not an unreasonable question. No one would be surprised if Emily Depasse decided to reject the “subjugation of women by means of a phallocentric sexuality,” to quote Denise Thompson’s argument for “Lesbianism as a Political Practice.”

Feminism requires an all-encompassing contempt for men, based on a fanatical belief in male inferiority, and Emily Depasse has a proper scapegoat on which to focus blame for her misery. “The man who infected me just spat me out,” she writes, after she let him use her as “a living sex toy.” Alas, this was her choice, her decision. She practically stalked him for two years from the time they met until they finally had sex, and yet she is so invested in her victimhood that she cannot acknowledge her own bad judgment or her responsibility for having pursued him. Nothing that goes wrong in a feminist’s life can possibly be her fault, you see. The blame must be externalized, and every man in the world must be made to suffer in her campaign of sadistic revenge — “Male tears!”

 

Perhaps they are tears of pity, or maybe her father’s tears of shame at the way his daughter has brought such disgrace on herself and her family.

Anyway, today was #HeterosexualPrideDay on Twitter, and no one can accuse me of failing to do my part for the cause.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 06.29.16

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Play Misty for Me
Michelle Malkin: Outsourcing Security Is Dumb And Deadly
Twitchy: See How Much Illegal Immigration Is Costing Your State


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: This Is A Real Headline On Britain’s EU Referendum, You Ignorant Unwashed Racist Rubes
American Thinker: Good Riddance To George Will
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Hell’s Gate by Bill Schutt and J.R. Finch
Da Tech Guy: Some Satanic Traps For Christians Post Orlando
Don Surber: Turkey Needs Gun Control
Jammie Wearing Fools: Benghazi Report – Obama Skipped Intel Briefing The Day After, Went To Vegas Fundraiser Instead
Joe For America: The Return Of Clock Boy
JustOneMinute: Gay Lives Matter, Maybe, But Covering For The Orlando PD Matters More
Pamela Geller: Ted Cruz Holds Hearings On Obama Administration’s Coverup Of Islamic Terror
Shark Tank: “Marcodamus” Rubio Predicts Terror Attack In Turkey
Shot In The Dark: The Terrible Hours
STUMP: A Thought On Brexit And Nationalism – Contrast To The USA
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Lesbians And Gays Are Haram
The Lonely Conservative: No Wonder The White House Wants To Dismiss The House Benghazi Report
The Political Hat: Obama Claims AIDS Transmitted By H8
This Ain’t Hell: Gunnery Sergeant Geann Periera Saving The World
Weasel Zippers: Former Navy SEAL – Hillary Killed My Friends In Benghazi
Megan McArdle: Minneapolis Is The Wrong Place To Try A $15 Minimum Wage
Mark Steyn: The Insecure Security Line


Shop Amazon Prime Exclusive Phones – Blu at $49.99
Shop Amazon Prime Exclusive Phone – Moto g4 at $149.99

Category: Linkagery

SJW Feminist @SamanthaPajor Has Finally Solved the Terrorism Problem

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 36 Comments

 

Samantha Pajor “is a freelance journalist living in Chicago. She runs one of Tumblr’s most popular feminist blogs, I Write About Feminism.” She supported Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, which she celebrated as “a movement that centers the intersectionalities of economic equality, environmental stability, and social justice.” Not to put too fine a point on it, Samantha Pajor is an idiot, as she proved Tuesday.

 

Not content to spew this deranged nonsense on her Twitter account, Pajor then amplified her assertions on her feminist Tumblr blog:

The purpose of terrorism is to control others through fear.
We fight this by doing the opposite.
We empower people through compassion.
People who feel loved and accepted, people who are able to meet their basic human needs, do not become terrorists. They become healers.
This is why every small act of compassion, understanding, and respect for the dignity of others is so powerful, and why actions, small and large, that detract from compassion, understanding, and respect, are so dangerous. There’s no such thing as harmless bigotry.
This is a fight we can win.
We can win if we choose, every day, to do good. To heal. To fix. To speak. To love.

The terrorists who killed 36 people in Istanbul were devoted to ISIS, whose goal is to impose a global Islamic caliphate. These radical young fanatics were willing to die in a suicide attack to advance that cause.

Radical Islam will not be defeated by your pseudo-therapeutic psychobabble and pacifist “social justice” nonsense, Ms. Pajor. These vicious killers despise you and your “compassion, understanding, and respect.” The hateful ideology of radical Islam has no compassion for you, nor does any supporter of ISIS have any respect for feminists like you.

“The saddest thing I remember, during those terrible months, was this little girl, 12 years old. They raped her without mercy.”
— Amal, 18, who survived nearly a year in ISIS captivity

Islamic jihad is about raping girls and enslaving women, Ms. Pajor, and yet you dare speak of the “dignity” of these murderous monsters?

No, ma’am, we will not stop ISIS with “compassion, understanding, and respect.” We will stop them with high-velocity 5.56-mm fire, as well as .50-caliber rounds, JDAMs and other such weapons of war. ISIS will not be defeated by “intersectionalities of economic equality, environmental stability, and social justice,” but by the courage of heroic warriors like Charles Keating IV, Joshua Wheeler and Louis Cardin.

Navy SEAL Charles Keating, Army Sgt. Joshua Wheeler, Marine Sgt. Louis Cardin.

Obama administration officials have tried to avoid saying that there are combat troops in Iraq and Syria. But on [Memorial Day] Mr. Obama said three men “had given their lives in combat on our behalf.”
The service members, Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin, who was 27 years old, Petty Officer First Class Charles Keating IV, who was 31, and Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler, who was 39, had all served multiple tours in the Middle East. Mr. Wheeler in October became the first to die in combat in Iraq since 2011.
Last May, there were about 3,000 troops in Iraq and none in Syria. Now, about 5,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq and about 300 in Syria. About 10,000 troops serve in Afghanistan.

These brave men died to defend you, Ms. Pajor, from the unspeakable brutality Muslims inflict on women wherever sharia law is imposed.

Since she is running “one of Tumblr’s most popular feminist blogs,” doesn’t Samantha Pajor have an obligation to tell her readers the truth about what sharia and Islamic jihad mean for women? Ah, but Samantha Pajor is a Democrat, and Democrats don’t care about the truth.




Category: Iraq, Islam, Sex Trouble, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey

ISIS Suspected in Terrorist Attack; 36 Dead, 147 Wounded at Istanbul Airport

Posted on | June 28, 2016 | 22 Comments

An attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk International Airport reportedly killed 36 people and left 147 others wounded Tuesday. A member of the House Intelligence Committee suggested ISIS was likely to blame.

The massacre in Turkey had “all the signatures of an ISIS attack,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, told CNN’s Don Lemon. The attack was made by three gunman, each of whom detonated suicide bombs, according to Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim:

Police fired shots to try to stop two of the attackers just before they reached a security checkpoint at the arrivals hall, but they detonated their explosives, a Turkish official said.
“It became clear with this incident again that terrorism is a global threat. This attack, targeting innocent people is a vile, planned terrorist act,” Prime Minister Binali Yildirim told reporters at the airport.
“There is initial evidence that each of the three suicide bombers blew themselves up after opening fire,” he said, adding that they had come to the airport by taxi and that preliminary findings pointed to Islamic State responsibility.

UPDATE: Donald Trump weighs in:

UPDATE II: A surveillance camera inside the airport caught an amazing scene — as one of the gunmen charges through the terminal, he is shot by a policeman. The officer then approaches the wounded gunman before realizing that the terrorist is attempting to detonate his suicide vest. The officer runs away with seconds to spare before the terrorist’s vest explodes:

 

Category: Islam, Terrorism, Turkey

In The Mailbox: 06.28.16

Posted on | June 28, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Trump Serve Man
Louder With Crowder: “Well Regulated Militia” Only?
EBL: Hillary, Obama, And Benghazi
Twitchy: Dana Loesch Shuts Down Another Feminist And Shows Her The Door


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: UKIP’s Nigel Farage To The EU – “You’re Not Laughing Now, Are You?”
American Thinker: Why Trump Frightens The GOP Illuminati
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Wake Up America By Eric Bolling
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – Oh, That EU Micromanagement
Don Surber: Best Spin NYT Can Give Is “No New Evidence Of Wrongdoing By Hillary Clinton”
Jammie Wearing Fools: Gay Man Threatens To Shoot GOP Senators, Claims It Was “Inartful Political Discourse”
Joe For America: Benghazi Survivor Lays Out Hillary Lies
JustOneMinute: No New News
Pamela Geller: Final Benghazi Report Shows White House And Hillary Lied, Our Boys Died – PR Was Priority
Shark Tank: Marco Rubio To Help Trump In Florida
Shot In The Dark: If I Were A Betting Man…
STUMP: Good News For Tuesday – The Vine In The Grocery Store
The Jawa Report: Crooked Hillary CC’d Muslim Brotherhood Lie
The Lonely Conservative: Playing Politics, Senate Dems Block Zika Funding Bill
The Political Hat: Venezuela Is Burning, And The Nomenklatura Feel Fine
This Ain’t Hell: Enablers, Part 2
Weasel Zippers: Suicide Bombers Attack Istanbul Airport, Over 50 Dead, Indications That [Omitted] Did It
Megan McArdle: Trump Bets It All On The Brand
Mark Steyn: “Steyn Was Right” (Continued) (Again)


Category: Linkagery

Because Feminists Know Everything

Posted on | June 28, 2016 | 27 Comments

 

“Who is Elleke Boehmer?”

That question crossed my mind while I was reading another one of those “masculinity in crisis” essays that are nowadays a dime a dozen (see “The Myth of the Masculinity Crisis,” May 9). This tsunami of hand-wringing about the plight of men has emerged from academic feminism in recent years and, like everything else that emerges from postmodern academia, is usually 180 degrees opposite of truth. Anyway, I had done one of those Google searches — using feminist buzzwords like “sexuality” and “hegemony” — that is guaranteed to turn up interesting results (and by “interesting,” of course, I mean crazy), when I came across a column in the U.K. Guardian by a left-wring writer named Owen Jones:

Being a man is not static: it can change and be redefined. “Masculinity is a performance that has a deep relationship to power,” says Gina Heathcote, a senior lecturer in gender studies at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). “There are a lot of rewards from it, even if you think of it as a continuum of experience.” . . .
An estimated 1.4 million women suffered domestic violence last year in England and Wales; 400,000 were sexually assaulted and as many as 90,000 were raped. Why do men commit these crimes? “Because they can,” says Elleke Boehmer. “It’s still in some senses socially sanctioned. Male violence against women is triggered by feelings of defensiveness, threat and insecurity.” She links some of the phenomenon to men losing their position as breadwinner, or their sense of power. “So you lash out in the way you know best, that has been socially sanctioned in the past.” Deindustrialisation, change of political regime, conflict – “In the end, it leads to women’s bodies bearing the brunt of male violence.” . . .
What it means to be a man has changed in some sections of society but Gina Heathcote is troubled by how “hegemonic masculinities” have not been so influenced. . . .

Upon reading the name Elleke Boehmer, my first thought was that she must be a sociologist or some other sort of “expert” on domestic violence, but in fact she’s an English literature professor at Oxford whose work, according to Wikipedia, “has been seen as foundational to the field of Postcolonial Studies,” whatever the hell that means.

Why did Owen Jones ask Professor Boehmer to comment on domestic violence statistics? Apparently she’s an all-purpose expert:

Elleke Boehmer, a professor of literature at Oxford University who specialises in gender, says that workforce changes in the UK have brought about an “incredible undermining of masculine self-confidence” and have “induced severe and troubling feelings of insecurity”. . . .
Elleke Boehmer offers a note of caution. The rise of LGBT and feminist movements has “thrown masculinity on to the defence”, she says. Indeed, you can see a “male backlash” against the chipping away of traditional masculine power . . .
Boehmer hopes that she has brought up her two sons as feminists but she realises that there is countervailing pressure in the playground, at school, on the football pitch. This might “militate against the feminism which is, in any case, quite irritating coming from their mother”.

There are obvious contradictions here. First is Professor Boehmer’s ostentatious concern for “masculine self-confidence,” a concern exposed as phony by her assertion that “she has brought up her two sons as feminists,” which would require destroying both their masculinity and their self-confidence. Feminists are united in their implacable hatred of masculinity and, as success is the usual basis of self-confidence, there can be no reason that Professor Boehmer could be in favor of men having self-confidence, because the prevention of male success is necessary to the destruction of patriarchy. Feminism is derived from Marxism, and approaches male/female relations from the perspective of class struggle, a zero-sum game in which whatever economic success or social prestige any man possesses is presumed to be illegitimate — a product of male privilege, derived by the unjust exploitation and oppression women. There is no such thing as a good man, according to feminist ideology, and why would Professor Boehmer suppose her sons should be exempt from the anti-male hatred that the feminist movement encourages?

This raises more questions: If Professor Boehmer is a feminist, why does she have children at all? Feminists hate babies. Feminists are anti-motherhood, so why didn’t Profesor Boehmer get abortions when she became pregnant, especially when she learned she was carrying boys?

Well, feminists “want men to be easily-controlled, neutered lapdogs,” as John Hawkins has observed, and Professor Boehmer probably used her sons as experimental guinea pigs in this feminist project. Professor Boehmer’s boys were likely raised under a regime of psychological tyranny so severe that they will never recover from it.

Professor Boehmer is a Ph.D. who “specializes in gender,” which means that she knows everything, while the rest of us know nothing, so we must sit in silence while the academic expert tells us what to think.

Far be it from me to contribute to the “male backlash” by suggesting that Professor Boehmer is a pretentious academic idiot whose all-purpose expertise in such matters has as much credibility as we might expect from any elite university literature professor, i.e., zero.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

More Scenes from a Wedding

Posted on | June 28, 2016 | 10 Comments

We were dining on barbecue beef brisket Sunday beneath the shade trees at Ole Gilliam Mill near Sanford, N.C., when Cassie asked, “When are you going to dance?” Cassie is a friend of my son Bob, and also of his twin brother Jim and Jim’s wife Danielle. Cassie remembered how I danced at Jim’s wedding — the old man busting out his old disco moves circa 1979 — and was eager for another show. “Not yet,” I said. The music wasn’t right.

About 15 minutes later, however, the deejay unleashed the classic groove, “Play That Funky Music,” and I was like, “OK, now.”

Cassie and I jumped up and started dancing, and immediately everybody else was dancing, too. There is something about the sight of an old man dancing like a fool that breaks the ice that way. Then I yelled, “Soul train!” Everybody formed up in two lines, and we took turns dancing down the line, showing our moves. By the time the song hit the key change (“Let me take you higher now”), we were, uh, moving and grooving.

Weddings are excellent occasions for a cardiovascular workout and, by the time the song ended, I’d had enough to last me until the next wedding.

After I’d caught my breath, I was content to be a spectator while the youngsters line-danced to “Uptown Funk,” and I hope somebody got video of my wife dancing the Macarena next to our 13-year-old daughter Reagan, our 15-year-old son Emerson, and our 17-year-old son Jefferson. We really are a fun family. Meanwhile, here are some more photos of the wedding, courtesy of my wife’s cellphone.

The groom, the groomsmen, two brothers and a brother-in-law.

The bride and groom, smiling after their wedding.

First dance of the newlyweds.

Mrs. McCain with our son, the groom.

The best man, Jim, with his lovely wife, Danielle.

Jade loves Jefferson, for some reason.

Myself and Mrs. McCain on the road; Reagan and Emerson in the back seat.

 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: Family, Marriage
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin