Colorado and the Liberal Blame Game

Has anyone noticed something odd about the Left's attempts to blame pro-lifers for the Colorado Springs shooting spree?  As the days go by, we read more statements blaming "angry rhetoric" for the crimes.  Leaving aside the fact that as of now there is no clear evidence that Robert Dear is even a pro-lifer, isn't it funny that liberals claim that killing babies and then running a baby chop shop with their parts isn't morally reprehensible; it's TALKING about it that makes you a promoter of evil.

There's nothing quite like the exquisite moral conscience of the liberal -- thank God.

Time to get a grip, Trump supporters

From Charles Codswallop Cooke on National Review Online:

"While he has been running for president, he has praised single-payer health care, advocated campaign-speech restrictions, backed raising taxes, endorsed funding Planned Parenthood, and suggested that the entitlement crisis should be pretty much ignored — all positions that would have sunk any other hopeful."

Read the whole article (please) here.

Abraham Lincoln, were he alive today, might be sorely tempted to say that nominating Trump as the Presidential candidate of the only patriotic major party remaining in America would be to "meanly lose the last, best hope of Earth."

More from the morons at BSPN

Let me see if I have this straight.  Seattle cornerback Richard Sherman says that the #BlackLivesMatter mob is going wrong, and that "If black lives matter, they should matter all of the time."  One of the boring leftist soapbox-mounters, Michael Smith, at the increasingly embarrassing sports network ESPN says that he was completely wrong in his comments.  In the new normal at BSPN, the comments were given in a tone of condescending superiority.  Smith even said Sherman should learn more about a subject before presuming to speak on it.

Completely means in entirety.  So when Michael Smith said Richard Sherman was completely wrong, he said that Sherman was wrong to say black lives matter all of the time.

Michael Smith, maybe you should try learning more about the English language before presuming to speak in it.

What Megyn Kelly was getting at

Didn't anyone besides me understand Megyn Kelly's question to Donald Trump?  In asking about the crude terms with which Trump has referred to women who he doesn't like, Kelly was pointing out that since the Democrats are surely going to play the worn, greasy "War on Women" card again, wouldn't a Trump nomination make their work in that regard a little too easy?  WE GOPers would like to know how he plans to respond when they play it.

That is a perfectly reasonable question, and there was nothing wrong with Megyn Kelly asking it.

What I found more revealing was Trump's after-the-debate actions, including his crude (again) insult to Megyn Kelly.  He has once again revealed himself to be too juvenile, whiny, and sophomoric to head our government.  Can you really imagine a man-child inherited wealth type like Trump dealing successfully with Vlad the Impaler Putin.  Vlad would give him a wedgie.

Steve Deace slanders National Review

This column is twaddle.  National Review hosts a wide variety of conservative thought in its pages, including social conservatives like George Weigel and Kathryn Jean Lopez, who helped found the National Organization for Marriage.  (That's heterosexual marriage, to avoid any further distortions)  Mark Steyn broke with National Review over defense strategy in the lawsuit filed by notorious global warming hockey stick fraudster Michael Mann, not over social conservatism. As for William F Buckley, he was such a "social conservative" that he championed marijuana legalization.  To read a real conservative position on marijuana, read "Going to Pot" by William Bennett.

Furthering conservative principles is not aided by ill-informed writers like Deace slandering other conservatives like National Review.

In today's America

I've been thinking about life in 2015 America:

Thanks to Lois Lerner and John Koskinen, I no longer instantly delete those emails that say "I'm thinking about f___ing you".  I check to make sure they're not from the IRS first.



Seeing Bill Clinton lying with his characteristic shamelessness about Peter Schweitzer, author of the eye-opening (I hope) expose of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation "Clinton Cash", I experienced a wave of nauseastalgia - that sick feeling you get when you remember experiences you wish had never happened to begin with.  Damn it, why can't the Clintons take their ill-gotten millions AND GO AWAY??

Test week for liberals, etc.

I wake today to the news that two more police officers (AKA the people who make civilization possible, as Charles Barkley pointed out) have been murdered by thugs, this time in Mississippi.  This poses a test for President Obama and new Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

Can B.O. come right out and say this is wrong, murder is never justified, and STOP KILLING THE POLICE?  This time, can he avoid the usual boilerplate about "the problems of the black community" and "distrust of the police"?  He needs to stop condemning the police before the police start resigning because they feel that the authorities who should be on their side are on the other.

As for the new AG, can Lynch come right out and say that this incident is a horrific crime against those we depend on to keep us safe from criminals?  Can she call for the prosecution of the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law?  Can she rise to the dream of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and judge the perpetrators "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?



Peter Schweitzer's new book "Clinton Cash" has caused quite a furor and reminded us of the rampant, fantastic corruption of the Clinton Crime Syndicate.  I wish these people would just go away and leave us alone, but obviously that's not going to happen.  Anyway, Bill Clinton, aka the sleaziest liar in the history of American politics, made a television appearance that was disgraceful even by his sleazy standards.  As Charles Krauthammer mentioned on FoxNews Special Report, every word was false.  Every word.  Many of the lies he told are verifiable, meaning they are lies about facts which can be proven positively.

The challenge is to the so-called mainstream media - can they label the lies as lies this time?  The whole reason Billy Jeff Horndog doesn't even bother nodding toward the truth while shoveling his manure is because the media has let him get away with lying (sometimes under oath) for so long.  This time, can they behave as truth-seeking journalists and point out the lies?  Peter Schweitzer, like any prominent conservative writer, documents his allegation thoroughly.  He knows he'll be accused of making things up, so he gives references.  Schweitzer is not making things up; the Clintons (don't forget Hilliary's involved, too) are lying, as they have their entire lives.

Will the alphabet-soup media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) label the lies of the Clintons this once?

I shouldn't bet the mortgage on it.

Liberty Counsel on the Florida Ruling and the Redefinition of Marriage

"The New Year has brought a new era to Florida: lawlessness. Clerks of court throughout the state began Tuesday issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, disregarding their oaths to uphold the Florida Constitution. Not to be outdone, Florida Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel, a day earlier, ordered same-sex “marriages" to begin immediately in Miami-Dade County. More troubling than her ruling, however, was the fact that she immediately inserted herself into the ensuing celebration of the litigants for whom she had just ruled by eagerly officiating their "marriages," destroying any impression of impartiality in an active case. Lawlessness is masquerading as law.

When 5 million Florida voters passed the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in 2008, they did not act out of hate or "animus," as they have been spuriously accused by a few insular judges. Rather, Floridians democratically affirmed in their Constitution the historical, natural definition of marriage, in accordance with the millennia of history in which marriage has been recognized as the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, and the foundational social institution upon which the future of children and family, and the state and nation depend. Natural marriage uniquely fosters stability, permanency, prosperity, and the optimal healthy environment for children. Outcomes for children are best when raised with a mom and a dad; same-sex “marriage" permanently robs children of ever having a mom and a dad. No judge has provided a sufficient reason for dismantling this granite foundation and replacing it with the shifting sand and artificial construct of same-sex "marriage."

To be clear, no Floridian—and certainly no judge—defines marriage. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment memorialized, but did not create, the definition of marriage as what it always has been and always will be. Marriage is defined by its nature, and predates government, which is limited to regulating marriage in accordance with its nature.

Do not be deceived: Same-sex "marriage" is NOT the law of Florida. The now infamous opinion of Judge Hinkle in the federal case Brenner v. Scott does not require the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples throughout the state, regardless of how the order has been (intentionally) misrepresented by the media and others. But Florida clerks are using the opinion as cover to violate their oaths and the Florida Constitution to issue illegal licenses. Nor is legal same-sex "marriage" in Florida inevitable: All of the Florida marriage rulings are on appeal, and since those rulings four federal judges in other cases have upheld the rights of states to recognize the natural definition of marriage. A Florida appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say. Until then, natural marriage is the law of Florida.

Florida clerks of court should respect Florida's citizens enough to uphold their oaths of office and the legal, democratic process that will ultimately decide Florida law. Florida clerks are not allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow. Until a court with proper jurisdiction rules otherwise, Florida clerks in all but two counties are bound by Florida's Constitution and its memorialization of the historical, natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. No matter how any of these clerks personally feels, issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is lawless.

When the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Liberty Counsel warned that the decision would lead to legal misinterpretation, judicial activism, and unbridled intolerance toward those of us who insist that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Regrettably, that warning has become prophetic in Florida and in far too many other jurisdictions across America."

To be clear, I agree with every word above.  The federal government didn't invent marriage, and it cannot legally redefine it.