Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube

We Win They Lose archive
Date : June 2013

Russia Passes Anti-Gay Law [How About Russia Passes "Pro-Family Law?]

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin’s government wants to promote ‘traditional Russian values’ over what it sees as western liberalism and tolerance. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has signed into law a measure that stigmatises gay people and bans giving children any information about homosexuality.

The lower house of Russia’s parliament unanimously passed the Kremlin-backed bill on 11 June and the upper house approved it last week.

The Kremlin announced on Sunday that Putin had signed the legislation into law.

The ban on “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values over western liberalism, which the Kremlin and the Russian orthodox church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin’s rule.

Hefty fines can now be imposed on those who provide information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors or hold gay pride rallies.

Read More…

Rubio’s immigration strategy worked brilliantly, but disappointed many (Screwbio Is TOAST)

In the end, immigration reform really was a done deal in the Senate. Debates come down to numbers on Capitol Hill, and the Gang of Eight reform team had the numbers. Needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, they started with the Senate’s 54 Democrats and then added the four Republican Gang members. With 58 votes in the bag, it wasn’t hard to get to 60. So most of the 14 Republicans who ultimately voted to get the Gang bill past a filibuster were extras, not needed for passage but helpful to allow the reformers to claim a broad mandate.

From the beginning, many Senate Republicans were terrified of immigration reform. They knew a large part of their base opposed any measure that smelled of “amnesty.” But they were also deeply shaken by last November’s election results, in which Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Some GOP strategists, and some Senate colleagues, told them the Republican Party would be finished unless it supported reform.

What to do? First, they tried not to stick their necks out. For several months, if you asked a Republican senator a substantive question about immigration, the answer was, “Let’s see what Marco comes up with.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been more than the GOP point man on immigration. From January, when the Gang of Eight announced its intentions, until April, when it unveiled its bill, Rubio was the man Republicans hid behind. “We’re waiting for Marco” became the Senate Republican caucus’ unofficial position on immigration.

After the Gang unveiled its bill, one might have expected GOP lawmakers to take a stand. Instead, many still deferred to Rubio, saying they were waiting to see what kind of improvements he might deliver.

The Attempted Extortion of Paula Deen

The real story behind the Paula Deen scandal can be summed up in a single word: greed. The American judicial system and the media are being used as formidable weapons in a brazen attempt to extort money from Ms. Deen, in my opinion.

This isn’t a story about racism. It’s all about the money.

The mainstream media have reported with glee only some of the gory details as Paula Deen’s financial empire continue to crumble. The Food Channel, Wal-Mart, Target, and the publisher of her bestselling cookbook all have abruptly terminated their relationship with Ms. Deen. The firestorm erupted after it was widely reported that Ms. Deen gave a deposition in a civil lawsuit in which she admitted using the N-word.

Rarely if ever mentioned by the national press is the context in which the word was used, or the reason the deposition became public knowledge.

No one is interested in defending the use of that particular word, including this writer.

But for the record, the specific instance in which Ms. Deen admitted to using that specific word was in the privacy of her own home, used to describe a robber who had pointed a gun at her head. The mainstream media also doesn’t seem to care that Ms. Deen could easily have lied about that specific incident, yet chose to tell the truth under oath.

Apparently there’s a zero tolerance policy when certain people use the forbidden N-word.

Never mind that the epithet was uttered in privacy, after Ms. Deen had suffered considerable duress of being robbed at gunpoint.

That the usage became public knowledge only when Jackson’s attorney began conducting a smear campaign intended to inflict irreparable harm on Ms. Deen’s businesses also seems to be irrelevant information to the drive-by media.

The motive for the lawsuit has been made abundantly clear. Plaintiff Lisa T. Jackson wanted $1.25 million dollars that didn’t belong to her, so she decided to sue Paula Deen and her brother.

Read More…

Obama Hails Senate Passage of Immigration Bill (Rubio Assured Us That Obama Would Hate This Bill)

President Barack Obama is hailing Senate passage of a historic immigration bill that he says moves the country a step closer to fixing a broken immigration system.

Now he’s calling on the House to do the same.

The president is also urging supporters to keep a, quote, “watchful eye.” With the issue moving to the House, Obama says now is the time that opponents will try their hardest to block the bill from becoming law. He’s asking supporters to tell their representatives in the House to vote for the bill.

Read More…

Morning Bell: The Supreme Court’s Marriage Decisions by the Numbers (Great Heritage Analysis)

The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America. Some key numbers following the decisions:

50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.

38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

12 The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.

1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.

0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.

The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue. States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.

Read More…

Can gay marriage really lead to polygamy? Polygamists seem to think so!

Can gay marriage really lead to polygamy? Polygamists seem to think so.

Immediately following the Supreme Court’s ruling this week, conservative radio host Glenn Beck warned that legalized polygamy wouldn’t be far behind. “If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman,” he said, “you cannot then tell me that you cannot logically tell me you can’t change the other variable: one man, three women. One woman, four men.”

Many gay marriage supporters scoff at the notion, declaring that no such thing could ever happen. But if that’s the case, no one apparently told the polygamists.

According to the Daily Mail, they’re pretty darned excited about the ruling:

‘I was very glad,’ polygamist Anne Wilde told Buzzfeed in the aftermath of the rulings. ‘The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore.’

She added that many people in polygamous relationships were not in fact seeking the right to marry, but wanted to ensure that they were safe from prosecution.

Read More…

thumbVideo: A-Hole Rubio Blubbers About How His Amnesty Bill Is Conservative (Laugh Riot)

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, passes on Proposition 8

Protest_against_a_constitutional_amendment_banning_same_sex_marriage

The United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected an appeal about Proposition 8 on Wednesday, in two significant wins for supporters of same-sex marriages.

Neither ruling established a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but they invalidated one federal law that defined marriage as only a union between a man and a woman, and ended an appeal to reinstate a California referendum that barred same-sex marriages in that state.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor that the federal law known as DOMA deprived the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Constitution.

“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” said Kennedy.

Read More…

Boehner tells House GOP that he won’t bring Gang of Eight bill up for a vote

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 26, 2013

Doesn’t mean the House won’t pass something of its own, and it doesn’t mean something resembling the Gang of Eight bill won’t emerge from the conference committee later. But let’s appreciate good news while we have it.

I wonder if Boehner’s main concern here is PR or if he’s worried that the damned thing might actually pass if he allows a vote on it. In terms of PR, he doesn’t want to make it any easier for Democrats to paint the GOP as anti-reform; shelving the bill is better in that sense than putting it on the floor and letting House Republicans demolish it. On the other hand, maybe he’s not so sure that it would actually be demolished. Pelosi can probably pull together 170-80 Democratic votes for it. In that case, all you’d need are 40-50 wayward RINOs to defy leadership and cross the aisle and the bill will be on Obama’s desk. Can’t chance it.

Read More…

Stossel: Puritanical Government

People say America is a free country. But what if you want to drink, have a cigarette or make a bet? Government often says “no” to protect us from ourselves.

It’s as if the government is still run by the Puritans who settled this land four centuries ago. They said pleasure and luxury are sinful.

Today’s government has a better argument when it seeks to restrict activities that might harm others, but I notice that even then, it often focuses more on things that upset modern-day Puritans.

Drinking and driving can be fatal. But government data show that sleeplessness and driving are just as deadly. Having kids in the back seat, looking at GPS map instructions, fiddling with the radio and eating while driving are often deadly, too.

But sleeplessness doesn’t seem as decadent and irresponsible as drinking. Nor is there an easy way for police to test for such discretions — no breathalyzer test for excessive radio tuning.

Why is the DUI test all about alcohol level, rather than behavior? Government keeps lowering legal blood-alcohol levels — recently from .10 to .08 — and now they want to lower it to .05. But some people are good drivers even after a drink or two. It would be better to punish people for “reckless” driving.

Alcohol-related driving deaths are down. Groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) credit tougher DUI laws, but it’s not clear that they are right.

Maybe people are simply more aware of the dangers, thanks to publicity from groups like MADD. Safer car designs helped, too. Non-alcohol-related driving deaths are also down.

Stats that some cite to claim alcohol is the cause of a third of highway accidents are misleading. That just means that a third of the people had alcohol in their systems; it doesn’t necessarily mean alcohol caused the accident.

I don’t suggest that drinking and driving is safe or smart. But the puritanical obsession with drinking distracts us from other ways we could make driving safer.

Read More…

Senate GOP Cut Their Own Throats With Amnesty Bill

I don’t know how Democrats do it

The immigration reform proposal wending its way through the Senate is tearing the Republican Party to pieces. Poor Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), once the golden boy of the Tea Party and the conservative movement, is being treated like a guy who wants to leave a gang but must submit to a group beating first.

But Rubio is simply the latest javelin catcher in the right’s immigration Olympiad. Attention will soon shift to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). House conservatives are poised to block out the sun with arrows aimed at him if he moves the bill without a majority of GOP support.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce just released a TV ad campaign to promote immigration reform that features Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), even though Paul has come out against the legislation because it doesn’t include his border security requirements. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board — always a passionate supporter of maximizing immigration — seems on the verge of a collective aneurysm as it deals with what it sees as a Republican Party giving in to nativist madness.

By comparison, while the GOP increasingly looks like the fight scene in the movie “Anchorman,” the Democrats under New York Sen. Charles Schumer’s leadership look like Snow White’s dwarfs, whistling while they work.

Read More…

Passage of the Amnesty Bill Will Spell the End of Our Republic

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a cloture motion (which ends debate) on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Gang of Eight’s horrifying illegal alien amnesty bill – mislabeled “immigration reform.”

The true purpose of this amnesty proposal is to capture future votes for the Democratic Party. Those who do not acknowledge that blatantly obvious fact either suffer from some debilitating mental illness or are working for the other side.

On rare occasions, even the Left admit the objective. Eliseo Medina, the honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and International Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in 2008:

…If we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have …even two out of three, if we get 8 million new voters… we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

The “governing coalition for the long term” refers of course to the “permanent progressive majority” Democrats have fantasized about for decades.

Read More…

Republicans are worried about a wave of town hall protests that could derail momentum for Amnesty

Advocates of immigration reform, who once hoped to have a bill on President Obama’s desk before Congress leaves for their annual August recess, should be nervously checking the calendar. If the House and Senate adjourn before a bill is finished, members will begin feeling pressure, especially from conservative critics who think the bill amounts to little more than amnesty.

Immigration reform backers need only recall four years ago, when the August recess gave rise to scenes of angry protests at town hall meetings across the country, protests that effectively ended any hope Democrats had of winning Republican support for comprehensive health care reform.

Six months into Obama’s first term in office, Democrats held out hope that they could fashion a bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was working closely with Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee’s ranking member. Obama himself was assiduously wooing Sen. Olympia Snowe, who seemed open to reform. And White House officials believed they could find areas of common ground with dozens of Republicans in the House to form a truly bipartisan set of reforms.

Then came August, when conservative protesters who affiliated themselves with the nascent Tea Party movement descended upon town hall meetings held by members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. Democrats were on the defensive while Republicans, who might have once considered supporting a compromise, realized the level of anger their base felt over the bill.

As August recess began, Jim Manley, then a top advisor to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, had snuck away from the office to get in a quick vacation in his native Minneapolis. He was on the golf course when he received phone calls from two reporters, asking him to respond to comments Grassley had made at a town hall meeting in Panora, Iowa.

Read More…

Kingston on Immigration: House Unlikely to consider Senate Bill

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 25, 2013

Congressman Jack Kingston says he still believes immigration reform is important but doubts that House republicans will ever consider a bill from the Senate. “The Senate bill does not have enough border security measures,” says Kingston. “Right now border security is a joke.”

Kingston says he would vote for border security, an electronic verification system that would help keep track of the status of current immigrants and for some measure that would be a “pathway to legalization.” Kingston says that is legalization, not automatically a pathway citizenship.

Read More…

Protests and riots are spreading around the world. Where do they come from and what do they signify?

Mideast Egypt

Not long before he went to the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris last month and put a pistol to his head and killed himself, the French historian Dominique Venner was contemplating the contagion of revolt that occasionally sweeps around the globe like a pandemic. “How are revolutions born?” he asked.

Despite Venner’s radical right-wing background the principles he listed in a blog post were not so much ideological as sociological. And as we look at the tumult in the streets from Brazil to Turkey; the ferocious politics of post-uprising Egypt and the sucking wound of the Syrian civil war, I’m struck by a maxim in Venner’s essay that’s so floridly French, it’s hard to utter, unless you’re sitting at Café de Flore in Paris with a cup of espresso and a Gauloises. “The effervescence,” Venner wrote, “is not the revolution.”

Effervescence may mean fizz as in English but in French it also means excitement or turmoil, and effervescence often wells up when a regime—often caught completely by surprise—suddenly has to face several different conflicts. The fizz is the screw-the-system, we’re-all-in-this-together, down-with-whoever, up-with-whatever part of the process that takes place when the government starts to lose its grip on power, and disorder becomes endemic.

You see that in Brazil right now, where a million people turned out to protest on Thursday. There was violence, sure, and one person died, but there was samba, too, and the kind of adrenaline rush that comes from massive collective excitement. A lot of people find the effervescence fun in its early stages. But as Chairman Mao famously said, a revolution is not a dinner party. Effervescence doesn’t become a revolution until it’s organized and lead by a party or a person, and then things start to get really serious, and can get really ugly.

Read More…

Translate
ArabicChinese (Traditional)DanishDutchEnglishFilipinoFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanNorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedish
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab


Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!


Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Tuesday, July 30, 2013