The Other McCain

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

Midweek Rule 5 Catch-up

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


I should have known it went too quickly. Apparently while doing Monday’s Rule 5 roundup, I inadvertently omitted about half a dozen folks who sent in links. Let us begin with…


Valley of the Shadow, who shakes the tip jar with this homage to Bettie Page. Go drop some shekels in the pot.


Elsewhere, Proof Positive brought us Brooke Burke, Barbara Steele. and Shapewear. The Rio Norte Line had links to Tulisa Contostavlos and Roxanne Pallett. The NeoSexist wishes Christina Hendricks a happy birthday, while Randy’s Roundtable rolls with Danielle Knudson and Jorgie Porter.


American Power had Toni Garrn, Bar Rafaeli, The Unmentionable Armenian, Kate Upton, Kelly Brook, and extra Kelly Brook on Tumblr.


Thanks to everyone for their patience!

Category: Rule 5

Fox News Closet Case (Who’s Not Fooling Anybody) Declares GOP Opponents of Gay Marriage ‘On the Wrong Side of History’

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 43 Comments

How many “blind” items in the tabloids have we seen and knew they were talking about precious (formerly) pretty boy Shep, huh?

Fox News anchor Shep Smith made his own news today when he said President Obama was “now in the 21st century” after his support for same-sex marriage. Minutes later, in a conversation with colleague Bret Baier, he added:
“What I’m most curious about is whether it’s your belief that — in this time of rising debts, and medical issues, and all the rest — if Republicans would go out on a limb and try to make this a campaign issue while sitting very firmly, without much issue, on the wrong side of history on it.”

Spare us your sermons, you ridiculous phony. Shep once tried to run over a woman who was blocking a parking space he wanted.

Eight million dollars a year they pay that drama queen. As for his “wrong side of history” claim, let’s quote Professor Jeffrey Bell:

Regardless of what the consultants think, the gulf between the American people and what the Democratic party is likely to write into its platform this September in Charlotte is rendering the issue of gay marriage unavoidable this November. . . . partisan polarization of the marriage issue should be far from a source of comfort for Team Obama and its strategists.

Good-bye, Hope. Hello, old-fashioned All-American Hate.

Category: Fox News, Gays, Marriage

Go Help the Valley of the Shadow

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 5 Comments

Joe Fein at the Valley of the Shadow blog is having an emergency fundraiser. Remember that Joe let me crash on his sofa when I went to L.A. in January 2010. Please go hit his tip jar — I did.

Category: Valley of the Shadow

Hope and Change Go Gay

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 56 Comments

Predictable:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

Of course, as Ace of Spades pointed out earlier, Obama had stated his support for gay marriage as early as 1996:

Answering a questionnaire in 1996, he wrote: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

With the slavish assistance of the media, Obama has been conveniently permitted to pretend to be “moderate” on an issue where his actual position has always been radical.

UPDATE: Again, Ace of Spades:

Meanwhile, George Stephanopolous and Dianne Sawyer are greeting this news with giddy joy, as if they’re drunk.
In Dianne’s case, of course, that’s not an “as if” thing at all.

What is pathetic, as I say, is that everybody knows Obama could not have won even the Iowa caucus in 2008 if he had been campaigning as openly pro-gay-marriage — that is to say, clearly to the left of Hillary Clinton on this issue.

In order to enhance his “viability,” the media bit their tongues and looked the other way while Obama engaged in a flimflam charade of moderation. He would have carried on that dishonest scam as long as necessary to win the general election, except that his big-money gay donors threatened to cut him off. And what his media idolators now will celebrate as another “gutsy call” never would have happened otherwise!

UPDATE II: Video:

Bonus upside? Mitt Romney will now have to campaign against gay marriage. Not that he wants to, but now he must. The Newtonian principle of two-party politics requires it.

UPDATE III: Headline at Hot Air:

Breaking: Noted gay-marriage supporter
finally drops cynical charade

UPDATE IV: Donald Douglas at American Power:

If Mitt Romney really wants to show he’s conservative, the president couldn’t have handed him a better opportunity.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus says the GOP position is clear.

Category: Barack Obama, Gays, Marriage

Some Guy You Never Heard Of Wants to Be Some Woman You Never Heard Of

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 30 Comments

We must preface this with the observation that any pop music group with an exclamation point in their name is almost certainly gay:

Against Me! singer Tom Gabel reveals plans to begin living as a woman in the new issue of Rolling Stone. Gabel, who has dealt privately with gender dysphoria for years, will soon begin the process of transition, by taking hormones and undergoing electrolysis treatments.
Gabel will eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace, and will remain married to her wife Heather. “For me, the most terrifying thing about this was how she would accept the news,” says Gabel. “But she’s been super-amazing and understanding.”

Ladies: When your husband gets a sex change, that’s what we call, “Becoming a lesbian the hard way.”

Also notice the “Fun With Pronouns” factor in that article: Tom Gabel “will remain married to her wife Heather.” Except that her marriage won’t be legal in North Carolina, I suppose. Is this “gender dysphoria” or just semantic confusion? Has pro-gay-marriage Obama denounced anti-gay-marriage Obama yet?

(Via Memeorandum, as if this were about politics.)

Category: Gays, Sex

This Might Be What You’d Call ‘Relevant’

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 35 Comments

Remember how Liz McMillen threw Naomi Schaefer Riley to the wolves over accusations of racism? Headline at American Power:

Naomi Schaefer Riley Is Married to the
Wall Street Journal‘s Jason Riley, Who is Black

Routine conversation at the Riley household, as imagined by typical readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Naomi: Honey, will you take out the garbage?
Jason: Stop oppressing me, cracker!
Naomi: You left your dirty laundry on the bathroom floor again.
Jason: Orval Faubus! Bull Connor! Selma!
Naomi: Could you run to the store and get a gallon of milk?
Jason: “We shall overcome . . .”

Once you start seeing the world through the lens of oppression and victimization, you see it everywhere. When the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Naomi Riley offers a few highlights of the absurdity:

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry spewed a four-minute rant about my post, invoking the memory of Trayvon Martin and accusing me of “small-mindedness.” . . .
If you want to know why almost all of the responses to my original post consist of personal attacks on me, along with irrelevant mentions of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and George Zimmerman, it is because black studies is a cause, not a course of study. By doubting the academic worthiness of black studies, my critics conclude, I am opposed to racial justice — and therefore a racist.

There is also a separate Wall Street Journal editorial, plus a Memeorandum thread, with commentary by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, Benjamin Plotinsky at National Review and Ann Althouse.

Category: American Power, Education, Intellectuals, Racism

Which Is Worse: Gang-Rape or Racism?

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 26 Comments

British teens must be grateful their rapists weren’t victims of racism

“Individuals opposed to Party rule are selected as targets of disapproval, usually to the point of demonization. Criticism usually extends to allegations of personal corruption, wickedness, or barbarism. Terms used to vilify Party opponents are formulaic, seeming to draw from a lexicon developed for the purpose; there is little if any verbal creativity in criticism of Party-designated targets.”
— David G. Muller Jr., American Thinker, “A Leninist View of the American Media,” March 26, 2009

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself … she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Suppose you had to choose between living in two societies: One in which police are racists, or one in which teenagers are gang-raped. Believe it or not, this isn’t entirely a hypothetical question in England:

Police and social workers were last night accused of failing to investigate an Asian paedophile gang for fear of being perceived as racist, allowing them to prey on up to 50 young white girls.
The nine men from Rochdale were yesterday convicted of abusing five vulnerable teenagers after plying them with alcohol, food and small sums of money in return for sex.
However, the true number of victims, who were “passed around” by the gang, is likely to be nearer to 50, police have admitted.
Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have now apologised after they failed to bring the case of the first victim — Girl A — to trial following her cry for help in August 2008. . . .
Complaints to social workers and the police were ignored because they were “petrified of being called racist”, former Labour MP for Keighley Ann Cryer said. . . .
“This is an absolute scandal. They were petrified of being called racist and so reverted to the default of political correctness,” she said.
“They had a greater fear of being perceived in that light than in dealing with the issues in front of them.”
Girl A told police that she had been raped and provided DNA evidence from her attacker, however the CPS twice decided not to prosecute him.
The 15 year-old’s abuse continued and at its height she was being driven to flats and houses to be raped by up to five men a night, four or five days a week. She was singled out because she was white, vulnerable and under-age.

It is here necessary to explain that, while Americans usually employ the term “Asian” to mean East Asian — Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. — in Britain the term generally denotes immigrants from Pakistan, India or the Middle East. Thus, among the “Asians” convicted in the  gang-rape case were Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rauf, Mohammed Sajid, Adil Khan, Abdul Qayyum, Mohammed Amin and Hamid Safi.

Blogmocracy call them “Muslim scum who gang raped a 13 year old,” a description that CAIR would likely disapprove, but the question remains: What happens when fear of being accused of “racism” prevents the police from effectively enforcing the law?

We first called attention to this problem in England with a series of posts in November 2010:

Those posts concerned an entirely separate case in Derbyshire, where the accused included Abid ­Saddique, Mohammed Liaqat, Akshay Kumar, Faisal Mehmood, Mohamed Imran Rehman and Ziafat Yasin. Which is to say that we cannot dismiss these cases as isolated incidents, but must ask what underlying cultural factors are involved.

We are unlikely to get useful answers to such questions if the discussion is hemmed in by political correctness, where police and social workers — and yes, journalists — cower in fear of being accused of racism. And this leaves aside entirely the larger policy question of whether Great Britain (and other Western countries including the United States) are accepting immigrants more quickly than they can effectively assimilate them.

Two weeks ago, when two Muslim men were arrested in yet another British gang-rape case, I remarked, “You might be a right-wing extremist if . . . you think Rashid and Hussain represent an argument for stricter immigration policies.” Lots of ordinary people automatically make that mental connection, but most journalists are afraid even to take notice of this, except to abhor xenophobia, and to suggest or imply that anyone who thinks that way is in need of sensitivity training. Read more

Category: Crime, Great Britain, Islam, National Offend a Feminist Week, Racism, Sex

‘When You Wish Upon Cthulhu
Makes No Difference What You Do
Anything Your Heart Desires
Burns In Those Political Fires’

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

The Postmodern/Progressive ideology that grips the Left continues to amaze. Its only principle is power. The capacity of the Left to use various constituencies, the LGBT folks being the most recent example, in a cynical manner should not surprise. Yet it continues to be a source of amazement and blog posts.

The Lackeys Out In Force

Start with the IPBS on Sunday, where Joe Biden and Arne Duncan were playing coy about Obama’s position (canine?) about gay marriage on the talking head shows. Allah Pundit was, perhaps, coy:

Actually, I can’t decide whether the back-to-back Biden/Duncan endorsements are a case of those guys going rogue or something they’re coordinating with O’s campaign to test the waters on Obama himself possibly backing gay marriage.

Bill Quick was having none of this:

Allah, if you think there is even the remotest possibility that Biden and Duncan are “going rogue,” then you’re too clueless to be commenting on political affairs at all.

Concur. If Biden were any more of a lapdog, BHO would be tempted to cannibalism.

Ryan T. Anderson at the National Review: “North Carolina, Biden, and Same-Sex Marriage”

On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden declared his support of same-sex marriage: “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”
But this isn’t really about civil rights or civil liberties. No one is suggesting the state deny people who self-identify as gay or lesbian their rights to free speech, religious liberty, free association, or any other traditional civil liberty. The question is whether a new “civil right” — the right to have the government and private citizens recognize your same-sex sexual partnership as a marriage — ought to be created, redefining marriage in the process.

How is that a question? You have to stand on the Left while you manufacture rights ex nihilo for constituencies in exchange for power. Who doesn’t grasp this? Oh, yes: those with principles.

 

Brave, Brave Sir Obama

Ace had a good set of riffs on Twitter, as reported by Twitchy. He broke out the weapons-grade mockery on the blog:

“President Gutsy Call: Okay With Giving Campaign Speeches in Afghanistan; Too Craven To Give Them In North Carolina“

See, Ace: no one can sense a losing battle quite like someone who’s a total loser themselves.

This is a big old sticky wicket for Obama. The press corps is openly laughing at Jay Carney’s absurd insistence that Obama is still “evolving,” and doesn’t know if he’ll endorse gay marriage… after the election.
Hey, he needs some “space” on this issue. He’ll have more flexibility after the elections, you know.

Morrissey at Hot Air: “Obama bailed out of North Carolina visit as traditional-marriage amendment goes to voters”

Just as in Minnesota this fall, the amendment gives voters in North Carolina a chance to keep judges from redefining marriage from the bench. That’s it.

I heard on the news last night that NC makes 30 states thus far where voters, given the chance, seem to contradict lawyers and legistlators out to do the thinking for the voters. Wild, strange, and unexpected, that.

Bryan Preston at The Tatler has this gem from 2004:

OBAMA: What I believe is, that, marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to be, to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they’re not discriminated on the job. I think that bundle of rights…
MODERATOR: But as far as why, what in your religious faith calls you to be against gay marriage?
OBAMA: What I believe, in my faith, is that, a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God. And it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn’t mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy, or with respect to civil unions.

Thankfully, Barack’s religious faith, apparently, comes with an on/off switch.

 

Aftermath

Breitbart: “NAPOLITANO DODGES GAY MARRIAGE QUESTION; ‘PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES'” They sure do, Big Sis. Same falsetto as Prince, only a paraphrase: “I just want your extra cash and your kiss.”

Anthony Holm at Brietbart: “OBAMA’S GAY MARRIAGE VIEWS ‘EVOLVE’ BASED ON TIME, AUDIENCE, MONEY”

What is most significant about Obama’s reversals on gay marriage is the timing; each reversal of position just happened to greatly benefit Obama’s political interests at precisely the time they occurred.

Ed Driscoll at Instapundit: “AP: NORTH CAROLINA VOTERS APPROVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage as union between a man and woman.”

 

Slightly Off Topic

Flamboyantly gay heterosexual ministry partners are reclaiming language and symbols. They’re pumping the rainbow and the word ‘gay’ full of hot, hot traditional meaning.

Now, I know what you’re thinking — Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys, is referencing his views on sexuality. But this isn’t the case. Instead, the heterosexual preacher is talking about attitude. Recently, he made some interesting statements about reclaiming the word “gay” from the LGBT community (i.e. their definition of “gay” is “happy”).
Rather than serving as a word used to describe sexual preference, Hutcherson hopes that it will return to its roots of being a descriptive for “happy” or “joyous.” So he took to his church‘s web site along with fellow Pastor James Hansen to publish an article that delves into what he’s hoping to accomplish.

I read this and feel there is traditional hope, not ObamaHope, for our future.

 

What I think

The Federal government is chartered to handle multi-state and international affairs. Not bedroom affairs. I don’t even think I’m libertarian on Constitutional matters anymore: I’m for examining the objects and components of the system in context, and avoiding the Lefty conflations they’ve used, in the Cthulhu fashion, to amass power.

It seems as though things are playing out as they should; blue states are gay-friendly. Perhaps co-incidentally, the people of those blue states are reaping the economic rewards of deviating from the fundamental principle of form following function.

I need not set myself up as judge. History and Economics are doing far better than I ever could.

If the LGBT community thinks that supporting Cthulhu is their best rout to achieving their goals, one can’t fault their free-will choice to do so. Even if the results are kinda predictable, on a variety of levels.

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats, Gays, Progressivism
« 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