Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Category : Issues: Culture Wars


America In Transition (Gay Delusions)

LINK - America In Transition (Gay Delusions)

You get to be the sex you think you are (and everybody else has to acknowledge it).

I am used to surprises from the New York Times—a newspaper so far from me culturally and politically it might as well be a daily bulletin about life in a parallel universe—but last August I read a personal essay in the “Modern Love” space of the “Styles” section that really brought me up short. “My Husband is Now My Wife” (quite a tabloidy title for this genteel newspaper) was about the deeply ambivalent day the author escorted her husband to a hospital for surgery in which he would “take his first surgical step into womanhood.”

I’m a jaded ex-Manhattanite, awright? “Sexual reassignment surgery,” as it is called, is not news. I know about the clinics in Colorado where they slice up existing organs and then do Play-Doh sculpturing with the tissue that’s left. The surgery thing has been going on since the sixties. And I know from cross-dressing. On my Upper West Side block it was not uncommon to encounter a neighbor—skinny, middle-aged, bald pate surrounded by a cap of stringy graying locks—taking his daily constitutional…on roller skates, wearing a tiara and a pink tutu, blessing passersby with a Tinkerbell wand.

So it wasn’t the soo-last-century, Dude-Looks-Like-a-Lady part that startled, it was the part near the end where the author lets slip that all her fussing about losing a husband and gaining a wife was actually over a hospital stay in which her husband would have “facial feminization surgery, a not uncommon procedure in male-to-female transitions, in which a surgeon carves out a more femininely proportioned version of a male face.”

“In my husband’s case,” she wrote, “this meant higher eyebrows, a smaller nose and a more pronounced chin. A few months later, his Adam’s apple would be shaved down and he would receive breast implants.”

Almost as if it was an afterthought, she added “genital surgery would follow” on some unspecified date.

OK, he hadn’t had the genital surgery yet. It was unclear if he ever would. Certainly, for the average woman, the breast part could be hard to take. But the point is, at the moment, “Husband” had just messed around with his face. So what entitled him to claim membership in the sorority of majestic, complex, mysterious creatures called Women? It was actually a bit presumptuous. (If I were a feminist I would say, “How very male.”)

But here we had our author, one Diane Daniel of North Carolina, telling herself sternly that she must remember to stop referring to Husband with “him,” “his,” and “he.” We meet the couple’s therapist who has been “suggesting for months” that Daniel “use female pronouns at home” when addressing Husband, even before he went into the hospital:

“I will when I need to,” I’d told her on our last visit. “But for now he’s still a man to me.” I’d turned to my husband, dressed in jeans and a black button-down shirt. “When I look at you, hon, I see a man.”

“But she’s a woman,” our therapist countered, her words slicing through my denial.

By the end of the essay, Daniel has re-educated herself. Now she gently corrects nurses when they use the “incorrect” pronoun:

“After he eats a little something, we’ll give him pain pills,” a nurse said.

“Could you say ‘she’?” I asked gently.

Once I looked in to it, I found more “Modern Love” columns where it was just assumed the reader has already accepted that “gender identity” (what you decide you are) trumps “gender assigned at birth” (what your body says you are). There was, for instance, the woman who started her essay by writing, “Before we met, my partner had changed names from a female-sounding one to a male one…”

…and by the time we were together, everyone we knew either called him by this new name or spoke of him with male pronouns. He identified himself as a transgender man, woman to man. It wasn’t until two years after we began dating that he decided to have his breasts removed. For him, chest surgery was the next step in transitioning genders, a symbolic and physical gesture of leaving womanhood behind.

This essay, written by a younger woman than Daniel, was much more philosophically evolved. Apparently this boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, hadn’t had any medical interventions at all. She merely “identified himself as a transgender man” and began dressing as a man (what does that mean nowadays anyway?) and that was enough, the author says, for everyone they knew to either call him by this new name or speak of him with male pronouns.

WELCOME TO THE Brave New World of “gender identity” versus stick-in-the-mud old “gender.” This subjective aspect—the demand that the world recognize you as what you think you are, simply because you’ve decided you are—is new. It turns out law and theory to support this new definition have been proliferating quietly for quite some time as well.

In other words, when we stodgy old conservatives, not attuned to the latest reverberations of the “progressive” world, think of a “transsexual” or (this is much more correct) a “transgendered person,” we’re probably imagining, say, Christine Jorgensen (if we’re really old) or Jan Morris, i.e., someone who made a good old Protestant Work Ethic effort to “transition” to the other sex. We are thinking of people who have at least put a considerable amount of effort and in most cases, a lot of money, like their life savings, into this illusory project of “becoming the other sex.”

The various stodgy old state laws (it is the states that control issuance of the all-important birth certificate) reflect this attachment to physical reality versus subjectivity. Most state laws are still like those in New York City, which, since 1971, has been willing to issue a “corrected” birth certificate to a transgender person provided he or she is able to prove, via a detailed medical record, that “the applicant has undergone ‘convertive’ surgery, which has generally but not exclusively been interpreted by the Department [of Health and Mental Hygiene] to mean genital surgery.”

This onerous surgery requirement has been excised in a several states but that’s hardly enough, say the gender activists. As lawyer Christopher Daley of the very activist Transgender Law Center explains, a transgender person is one “whose internal understanding of their own gender is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.…Transgender persons seek to live in accordance with the sex that takes proper account of the sex of their brain…” (The Transgender Law Center is apparently even so uncomfortable with the designations like “men’s room” or “women’s toilet” that they refer to “gendered” public bathrooms as “bathrooms intended for people who identify with a particular gender.”)

In the future, as Kristina Wertz of the Transgender Law Center puts it, all of official America will recognize “that gender identity is not dependent upon anatomy or the ability to access expensive medical treatment.” Wertz applauded the State Department for its June 2010 policy change, a small but important one, stating that applicants wishing to change the gender markers on their passports will only need to present certification that they have “undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.” The State of Vermont has amended its law to say that “hormonal or other treatments” are sufficient for a sex change on a birth certificate.

Chaz Bono, one of America’s most famous female-to-male transgendered people, was a beneficiary of California’s liberalized law. On May 2, 2010, Bono was able to leave a Santa Monica courthouse officially a man, after the court’s acceptance of a vaguely worded letter from a doctor stipulating that he had “performed an irreversible surgical procedure for the purpose of altering Chaz Bono’s sexual characteristics from female to male.” (At the time Bono had had a mastectomy and lots of testosterone.) Meanwhile the press had never questioned that Chaz Bono was anything other than all man, from the moment the Chaz persona appeared on the scene and throughout “his” turn on “Dancing With the Stars.” When Hollywood Reporter reviewed the documentary Becoming Chaz, it obediently informed us that Chaz Bono “was a male trapped in a female body since birth.”

Outside of the Mainstream Media, there are, of course, still some dinosaurs skulking around who are not comfortable with the notion that you can change your sex by whacking something off and soldering something else on. There is the matter of chromosomes, and wombs, and the fact that the newly constructed genitals aren’t good for much of anything except just kind of sitting there—like a trophy, a symbol. They are useless for procreation. Both kinds of sex reassignment surgeries, female-to-male and male-to-female, render the recipient irreversibly sterile. And they are not too good for other uses either. As Chaz Bono explained on the David Letterman show, she has not been rushing the decision to get what the trans community calls “bottom surgery” because “you can end up with something functional but very small or something that’s more normal sized but without much erotic sensation.” (Chaz did admit that “There’s different ways to do the surgery, from real basic to more and more options. It’s like a car.”)

In short, the long-standing “surgery requirement” laws may have seemed silly when they first appeared, but they now stir up something like nostalgia. At least they are a nod to the idea that gender is rooted in anatomy, and that maybe human beings are defined by their role in the procreative project.

SO IS THERE SUCH A THING as “the sex of one’s brain”? Questions like this raged back and forth in 1966 when Johns Hopkins Hospital opened its Gender Identity Clinic and became the first hospital in America to do sex change operations. The doctors had a variety of opinions about why these operations were worth doing. Some, bolstered by a new genre of psychological theory, were downright messianic about “correcting the body to match the real gender.” Some seemed to feel that the surgeries were like a nose job or any other cosmetic surgery, a chance to make a body-part-obsessed person feel better. Some, like psychiatrist Paul McHugh, who did psychological screenings for the program, eventually became fiercely opposed. He saw other doctors’ relatively easy acceptance of the project as a kind of abdication of the professional’s role and a symptom of a social climate in which “all standards by which behaviours are judged are simply matters of opinion—and emotional opinions at that.” The new relativism was even reflected in new attitudes toward schizophrenics—who, increasingly, were deinstitutionalized as a matter of course and treated as if they were just expressing “a different lifestyle choice.” With a similar reluctance to “be judgmental” about someone else’s life choice, McHugh felt that patients were too often approved for surgery without much probing, out of “the spirit of doing your thing, following your bliss, an aesthetic that sees diversity as everything and can accept any idea, including that of permanent sex change, as interesting and that views resistance to such ideas as uptight if not oppressive,” he wrote in a scathing article for the American Scholar titled “Psychiatric Misadventures.”

“Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should,” wrote McHugh. In his intake interviews, the typical applicant claimed it was “torture for him to live as a man, especially now that he has read in the newspapers about the possibility of switching surgically to womanhood.” But “[u]pon examination it is not difficult to identify other mental and personality difficulties…” which McHugh believed, unless resolved, would follow the patient into his new body and torment him again after attaching to a new external target.

“It is not obvious,” he note, “how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia nervosa that she is obese despite her emaciated, cachectic state.”

“We don’t do liposuction on anorexics,” he wrote. “Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely, the fault is in the mind not the member.”

BUT THE STANDARDS McHugh complained about in the late sixties have become so entrenched, I may as well be quoting cuneiform off a stone tablet. Allowing some patriarchal white male Ob/Gyn to have the power to take a cursory glance at your baby genitalia and “assign a gender” doesn’t seem to fit in a world where “self-definition” has become a mantra.

And this may explain why, according to the New York Times, “a growing number of high school and college students…are pushing for the right to change their pronoun whenever they feel like it.” Katy Butler, one of those high school students, identifies herself as part of the “nonconforming gender community” and is one of those enthusiastic about “Preferred Gender Pronouns” (PGPs).

“You have to understand, this has nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with who you feel like inside,” Katy said, explaining that at the start of every Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Association meeting, participants are first asked if they would like to share their PGPs.

A PGP can change as often as one likes. If the pronouns in the dictionary don’t suffice, there are numerous made-up ones now in use, including “ze,” “hir,” and “hirs,” words that connote both genders because, as Katy explained, “Maybe one day you wake up and feel more like a boy.”

Butler is lucky enough to live in the anything-goes enclave of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Out in the hinterlands the idea that a newly chosen “gender identity and expression” must be tolerated at all times does not always go down so well. Men who have recently decided they are women, for example, and show up at work wearing a dress have been fired or been harassed until they quit. There have been a number of savage attacks on trans people who attempted to use the public restroom corresponding to their gender identity.

Enter what the New Republic last year called “America’s Next Great Civil Rights Struggle,” the struggle to end discrimination against transsexuals in housing, the workplace—and eventually any other place a trial lawyer can discover it. Sixteen states (plus D.C.) and 143 cities or counties have added “gender identity or expression” to their protected categories lists—alongside the usual race, religion, gender (the other kind of gender), age, and disability. A more subtle but telling sign that more states will probably add the new category is the news that 207 major corporations (places like Coca-Cola, Apple, Chevron, Kellogg, and Best Buy) now offer insurance covering the cost of full-scale “transitions.” According to 2011 numbers collected by the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Corporate Equity Index, this is an increase “from just 85 a year earlier.” When HRC began following the issue a decade ago, no corporations covered the surgery.

A number of recent gender identity discrimination cases have been settled in the plaintiffs’ favor. If Johnny is hired as a paper pusher, and then starts to come to work as Jane, and then is fired, his lawsuit for workplace discrimination and wrongful termination is relatively straightforward, because the defendants cannot usually prove the sex change affected the job of paper pusher.

Things get murkier when a workplace has established a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” to justify hiring only males or only females. Yes, there are jobs where one can still discriminate. Take “urine monitors”—the people who would watch you pee into a cup if you went for a drug test.

El’Jai Devoureau is currently embroiled in a gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Urban Treatment Centers of Camden, New Jersey. Devoureau, a fortysomething who claims to have been dressing as a man for years, to have had years of hormone therapy and some kind of surgery which she/he has so far been very opaque about, and who even has a “male” driver’s license, applied for the male-only job but was fired after two days because Devoureau’s supervisor said rumors were going around that she/he was not a man. Devoureau, who wears long corn rows, sports a wispy beard, and looks a bit like the ’80s singer Terence Trent D’Arby, said, “But I am a man.” The supervisor said something to the effect of, “Um, we don’t think so.” And the standoff began. The case has thus begun its crawl through the New Jersey court system. More evidence to support Devoureau’s claim may have to be…er, unveiled to support Devoureau’s claim—but maybe not. As the New York Times says, the outcome could turn on “the question of what is a man.” It could certainly be precedent-setting.

WHAT I FIND REALLY ODD about this “new Civil Rights movement” is that it’s happening now—after decades of struggle over the boundaries of sex roles and a great expansion of norms. As one of the online commenters to the New Republic’s “Great New Civil Rights Struggle” article put it, “Isn’t the trans-sexual phenomenon at heart conservative? Instead of enlarging the range of human behavior, it narrows the options down to ‘girls act one way and boys another so if you act one way, you have to be trapped in the wrong gender’s body.’   ”

But exactly. As a sign of how far we have come, there is a film, Alfred Nobbs, currently in theaters. It’s about a 19th century woman “living as a man” apparently because she seeks the love of women. But in 2012 no woman has to dress as a man in order to openly partner with another woman. (Well, in most parts of the country!) No woman has to attempt to “pass” as a man to take a job on a highway crew, or to enter a training program for fighter jet pilots.

Another curiously retrograde part: Once they “transition” many transgenders become the most devout standard-bearers for sex stereotypes. “When you discuss what the patient means by ‘feeling like a woman’ you often get a sex stereotype in return—something that woman physicians note immediately is a male caricature of women’s attitudes and interests,” Paul McHugh wrote. “One of our patients, for example, said that, as a woman, he would be more ‘invested with being than with doing.’”

“Ever since I became a woman, I just can’t do math anymore,” trills the main source in the New Republic’s “Civil Rights” article.

Chaz Bono is now infamous for having become a walking sexist-comment-machine. (“I can be a a-hole; I can be insensitive.…There is something in testosterone that makes talking and gossiping really grating.…I’ve stopped talking as much. I’ve noticed that [my girlfriend] can talk endlessly.…I got way more gadget-oriented.…Definitely since transitioning I’ve wanted to be up on the latest, coolest toy.”)

Accordingly, Warren Beatty’s oldest child (who started life as Kathlyn but is known, after hormone treatments, as “Stephen Ira Beatty”) has taken to excoriating Bono from her blog, with flamers like: “I don’t want any rich white trans guy…telling the media that testosterone made him a misogynist…he has some deep-seated misogyny to work through.”

If your head is spinning with all this gender-bending, join the club. But keep in mind that there is one reference point that will hold steady like the North Star: With this new category of victim slouching toward Bethlehem to be born, the trial lawyers are girding happily. I await the day a male-to-female trans applies for a job at Hooters.


Toldya About the Lesbian Nuns in Leavenworth (MUST READ!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

I mentioned not too long ago that I was exposed to a bunch of lesbian ex-nuns (and active nuns) when I was a kid outside of Kansas City. My bedroom window looked out onto the bell towers of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth’s headquarters, less than a mile away. The sisters who were old-school, pre-Vatican II wore habits and were generally conservative, but sidelined because of their age. The 1960′s and forward “nuns” were pretty much all lesbians, or if they weren’t, they were sure fooling a lot of people with their high-and-tight six-dollar haircuts, manly clothing and overall butch affectations and comportment. If a child can’t instantly tell whether a person is a man or a woman, there are some serious, serious psychosexual problems afoot with the androgyne in question. And, like I said, Leavenworth was never lacking for “courageous ex-nuns”, who always ended up living with fellow ex-nun “roommates”. Uh-huh.

Well, the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth officially jumped the ol’ shark and have declared according to their own pagan magisterium that abortifacients are just fine with them.

Here’s the citation from the Topeka Capital Journal.

Now, you may be thinking that a little cabal of nuns in Leavenworth, Kansas is no big shakes, right? Wrong. This is a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR business concern, and this example perfectly demonstrates what I and so many others (such as Karl Denninger) have been saying about the evil incestuous problem with the Marxist-infiltrators of the Church and how they have intentionally pushed for government takeover of the care of the sick and the poor.

First, here is a URL documenting the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Healthcare System’s (SCLHS) size:


Fitch rates their bonds as AA-. Yes, that’s right. They have a Fitch rating. Um, is it just me, or does that seem . . . wrong somehow?

Yeah. So, one more time for those of you who might be new or still haven’t figured this out yet. The Marxist infiltrators of the Catholic Church have specifically and consciously pushed for the government takeover of pretty much all charitable functions that WERE the domain of the Church – hence the traitorous alliance with the “democrat” party in the United States.

In doing this, these traitors to Our Lord have essentially used the power of the State to enforce a “mandatory tithe”, coercing every earner in the United States through the Internal Revenue Service, regardless of religious affiliation or personal preference, to pay for the services that the Church SHOULD be paying for, but has ABANDONED. That’s right. The Church has almost totally abandoned caring for the sick and the poor. Now what we have are these massive for-profit outfits like the SCLHS which are for-profit middle-men who bill everything that would have formerly been “charity” to the United States government – while still trying to lord “moral authority” over everyone else by falsely claiming to be “the Church.”

Aside from this being pure evil, the result is a mathematical inevitability: a Ponzi scheme doomed to collapse and failure. But then, that is exactly what the Marxists were driving toward – total systemic collapse leading to the Marxist oligarchs taking complete totalitarian control of the former United States, and then the entire world. The Church has been infiltrated and used as a stooge to push state control of healthcare, care of the poor and the elderly.

The point of the Marxists specifically recruiting homosexualists into the clergy is playing out before our very eyes right now. First, the homosexualists were charged with degrading and draining the Church of its capacity to preach the Gospel, and eventually to have the Church become operationally Marxist itself. The final step in this process has already begun, namely schisming the Church and forming an “American Catholic Church”, which will be a neo-pagan Marxist “Revolutionary church” and will operate as a client and front for the Marxist regime in Washington D.C.

The SCLHS is a perfect example of this. First, they want the billion-dollar gravy train to keep flowing and so they will support the Marxist regime to the very end, because the thought of them actually cutting into their TEN-FIGURE portfolio to actually, you know, PAY for healthcare for the poor in a Christ-like spirit of true charity is utterly beyond their comprehension. Are we surprised, given that they approve of killing innocent babies?

Second, since the SCLHS is almost entirely comprised of lesbians, they WANT the Church to schism and they want to form an “American Catholic Church” that will ratify and celebrate their psychosexual perversions, ordain them as priestesses, and then let those “priestesses” MARRY and engage in sodomite acts. They need statist intervention in order to make this happen, and that is EXACTLY what they are getting. The Obama regime has declared war on the Bride of Christ, and is erecting the frame of the “Revolutionary church”.

So, at the end of the day, it is all about the love of money, and perverted sex.


Finally, one more time, CHARITY and COERCION are absolutely, totally, completely 100% MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. The moment that even the slightest HINT of coercion enters into the picture, charity is DESTROYED. Gone. Adios.

Love (caritas) MUST be freely given. It HAS to be a free choice of the giver. Putting the gun and jackboot of the IRS to people’s heads and necks BY DEFINITION exterminates charity. Apparently, every jackass bishop in the Western World today is either too stupid or too Marxist to comprehend or acknowledge this utterly fundamental truth.

ANY bishop who crows on and on and waxes philosophical about the state’s NECESSARY role in healthcare, care of the poor or care of the elderly is a heretical jackass who needs to sit down, shut up, beg God’s forgiveness for being a Marxist jackass, and then beg the Holy Spirit for a modicum of intelligence and understanding of simple, obvious truths.

Christ charged THE CHURCH with caring for the sick, poor and elderly – IN CHARITY, meaning that the Church FREELY GIVES, beginning with the FREELY GIVEN tithes of the individual faithful, and then FREELY GIVEN by the Church itself to the poor, sick and elderly.

This system worked beautifully up until 50 years ago, when the Marxist-homosexualists took over. Not only did it work, but there was even enough money to build BEAUTIFUL churches. Now the Church pays for none of these things out of its own coffers, and instead money is spent on building butt-ulgy churches. There is a relatively new parish here in the Denver metro area for which the rectory – that is the priest’s house – cost $800,000. Apparently this priest felt that he “deserved” to be rewarded with an $800,000 pad. Meanwhile, at the Latin Mass parish I attend, the priests live in a small, old house, and donate their $13,000 per year salaries back to the parish. That’s telling, don’t you think?

These Novus Ordo clergy and religious are TERRIFIED at the thought of being held to the charge and discipline of the pre-Vatican II Church and actually having to spend tithe revenue on CHARITY and embrace poverty themselves, and they will schism the Church before they turn loose of their government coerced ObamaCare/Medicare/Medicaid/SocialSecurity/Welfare gravy train.


Posted by Ann Barnhardt


Dislike soda bans? Then restore the Constitution

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Dislike Soda Bans? Then Restore the Constitution

Last month, the day before National Doughnut Day, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced plans to tackle obesity by banning the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. Eager for the newly nicknamed “Soda Jerk” to Think Again, comedian Jon Stewart joked that Bloomberg’s proposal “combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect.”

The website “Renegade Chicks” reflected citywide disapproval in asking, “Weren’t there bigger issues at hand (like) … say the declining economy and rising unemployment rates? If this soda ban is passed, what’s next?” Apparently, milk drinks and popcorn, which goes to show that there is nothing so bad that politicians can’t make worse. At least New Yorkers can move to a different city.

Not so for Americans wishing to escape the interventionist sweep of the Affordable Care Act, whose constitutionality we’ll soon know. Perhaps more important than whether the law stands is whether the Supreme Court decision will enable the steady mission and power creep of the federal government beyond the boundaries set by our constitutional framers.

Those who advocate such creep believe in a “living Constitution” that allows government to concentrate power in order to meet societal challenges, a noble goal. The ends justify the means for such advocates as UC-Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who asserts, “Congress can force economic transactions” and “in theory … use its commerce power to require people to buy cars. Power can be used in silly ways, and the Constitution isn’t our protector against undesirable government actions.”

One needn’t be a constitutional scholar to know that unlimited and unchecked federal government power was the evil our founders wanted to prevent. They designed the government to limit federal authority to enumerated purposes, leaving remaining powers to sovereign states and individuals. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained, “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

Embedded in our founding documents is a uniquely American and revolutionary set of governing principles designed to protect our natural rights and liberties, not create man-made ones. This philosophy created the freest and most prosperous society on earth by proclaiming that every human being is born free, equal, and independent with inalienable rights that are permanent parts of our nature. Because we’re equal, no one — not a king, a neighbor or a mayor — can be the ruler of any other human being, and each of us is equal in our natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Since a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed it must be, as Thomas Jefferson said, a “wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Nevertheless, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate trade, has been used to justify dramatic federal government expansion. Congress wants to stretch this power further to include the regulation of individual choices never before considered commercial or interstate — like deciding not to purchase health insurance. If Congress can mandate Americans to purchase health insurance simply because we’re alive, what constitutional principle prevents government from forcing individuals into other purchases?

The debates surrounding this question, and other constitutional issues like executive privileges and orders, are instructive. Not only have Americans learned more about the Constitution, we’ve discovered that many lawmakers neither understand nor respect the document they’re sworn to uphold. Even worse, we have leaders intent on fundamentally transforming the relationship between the citizen and government in a manner the Constitution doesn’t allow.

By allowing these politicians to create and impose solutions better left to sovereign states and individuals, we permit their government-driven agenda to trump our liberties and their Leviathan government to limit our choices and make our decisions. This is not the fulfillment of our Founder’s dream — it’s their nightmare.

Americans must ask: Do we want a government whose role is limited by the sovereign people to certain designated purposes, or an amorphous and unlimited one that can do to us whatever it wants? How long before the federal government deems a 32-ounce soda oversized or worse, a $320,000 salary excessive?

On July 4, Americans celebrate the liberty and natural rights for which our Founders fought. They gave us a brilliant political system which, to paraphrase William Gladstone, was the most perfect ever devised in the history of mankind. Now, it’s up to us to reclaim it.

Think Again — your liberty depends on it.

Melanie Sturm lives in Aspen. Her column runs every other Thursday. She reminds readers to Think Again. You might change your mind. Melanie welcomes comments at .


Malkin Unloads on Liberal ‘Hannity’ Guest Over Fast and Furious: ‘The Blood Is on Your People’s Hands!’

Original Article - Malkin Unloads on Liberal ‘Hannity’ Guest Over Fast and Furious: ‘The Blood Is on Your People’s Hands!’

Michelle Malkin Tells Tamara Holder The Blood Is on Your Peoples Hands on Hannity

Last week, Michelle Malkin stoked the conservative fire after she challenged Juan Williams for calling her “just” a blogger. But if that was stoking the fire, what she did Wednesday night on “Hannity” to liberal Tamara Holder was torching the place with napalm.

Malkin was a guest along with Holder on a segment talking about the day’s Fast and Furious news (Obama granting executive privilege and Holder being held in contempt). About three minutes in, Holder tried to use the liberal talking point that the entire operation was really started under the Bush administration (the “blame Bush” mantra is really popular these days). That’s where things first got tense, after Holder scolded Hannity who tried to make a point and told him, “No no, let me finish. Give me the same amount of time you give all your Republican friends.”

Michelle Malkin Tells Tamara Holder The Blood Is on Your Peoples Hands on Hannity

But after Holder continued to try and use the argument, Malkin eventually had enough.

“Can I just go back to this, the tiresome blame Bush card, because I don‘t think that Tamara knows what she’s talking about when we talk about the difference between Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver and Project Gunrunner,” Malkin said.

“Excuse me!” Malkin shouted back when Holder tried to interrupt. “This is not a partisan thing!”

Holder, clearly offended, took a shot at Malkin: “Sure, sure, I don’t know what I am talking about. No no, to be attacked and say that I don‘t know what I am talking about just because I’m not a New York Times best-selling author–.”

Hannity stepped in and let Malkin finish, who delivered another blow: “For some of us the core issues of national security, Second Amendment rights, integrity in government actually matters, it is not just some sort of TV game debate for us, Tamara.”

Holder did not appreciate that, and there were plenty more raised voices before Malkin pointed out that Wide Receiver was “planned, controlled delivery and retrieval“ and that ”they got those guns back,” but that didn’t happen in the Obama administration because there was “underlying gun control agenda that is clear in these documents.”

“Clearly they are the ones with the ideological zealotry that caused bloodshed in this country. The blood is on your people’s hands, Tamara!” she said passionately.

“No, actually we‘re all Americans and it’s on all of our hands,” Holder responded, before saying these things just “take time” to figure out and that the contempt charge is too soon.

Malkin interrupted, and when Holder objected Malkin shot back, “No, I’m not going to let you get away with that lie!”

Watch the segment below. The setup starts at about 3:30, but the fireworks show begins about two minutes later:


Southern Baptists: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Southern Baptists: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights

A day after electing their first African-American president in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, Southern Baptists passed a resolution opposing the idea that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

Thousands of delegates at the denomination’s annual meeting in New Orleans on Wednesday were nearly unanimous in their support for the resolution that affirms their belief that marriage is “the exclusive union of one man and one woman” and that “all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful.”

The nation’s largest Protestant denomination is attempting to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional white Southern base. At the same time, leaders said they feel it is important to take a public stand on their opposition to same-sex marriage.

The resolution acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience “unique struggles” but declares that they lack the “distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections.”

“It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of ‘same-sex marriage’ have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement,” the resolution states.

Another resolution passed on Wednesday is intended to protect religious liberty. It includes a call for the U.S. Justice Department to cease efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Obama administration to ensure that military personnel and chaplains can freely express their religious convictions about homosexuality.

It also condemns the administration’s mandate requiring religiously affiliated institutions, but not houses of worship, to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.

Leaders of several other faiths and Christian denominations, especially Roman Catholics, have also organized and filed lawsuits against Obama administration policies that they see as threatening religious expression.

The Rev. Dwight McKissic,

In this June 19, 2012 photo, IN this June 19, 2012 photo, participants in the Southern Baptist Convention, listen during a debate about changing the name of the organization, at the convention in New Orleans. The nation’s largest Protestant denomination has voted to adopt an alternative name for churches that feel the title “Southern Baptist” could be a turn-off to potential believers. Although the denomination’s name will officially remain Southern Baptist Convention, many delegates still opposed the optional “Great Commission Baptists.” ((AP Photo/Gerald Herbert))

pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, was one of the authors of the gay marriage resolution.

“It’s important to sound the alarm again, because the culture is changing,” he said in an interview after the vote.

McKissic, who is black, said it was “an unfair comparison” for gays to equate same-sex marriage with civil rights because there is not incontrovertible scientific evidence that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color.

“They’re equating their sin with my skin,” he said.

David W. Key Sr., director of Baptist Studies at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology, said that as gays and lesbians become accepted in the larger American society, the Southern Baptist Convention

In this June 19, 2012 photo, participants in the Southern Baptist Convention, listen during a debate about changing the name of the organization, at the convention in New Orleans. The nation’s largest Protestant denomination has voted to adopt an alternative name for churches that feel the title “Southern Baptist” could be a turn-off to potential believers. Although the denomination’s name will officially remain Southern Baptist Convention, many delegates still opposed the optional “Great Commission Baptists.” ((AP Photo/Gerald Herbert))

is trying to separate itself from some of the more hateful rhetoric while still staying true to its beliefs.

The resolution includes a statement that the SBC stands against “any form or gay-bashing, whether disrespectful attitudes, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions.”

But even with those disclaimers, Key said statements like this could hurt evangelism because they are likely to be objectionable to many people who are “not necessarily affirming, but also not rejecting” of gay rights issues.

Key said the Southern Baptists have continued to be outspoken on issues regarding gays and lesbians where other denominations with similar beliefs have not made the same type of public statements. He noted the SBC’s previous eight-year boycott of The Walt Disney Co. for its gay-friendly policies.

The civil rights resolution comes at the same time the 16-million strong Nashville-based denomination is taking stands in other areas that will help it reach out to new members.

The election of the Rev. Fred Luter Jr. on Tuesday as the first African American president of the SBC was hailed as historic by denomination leaders who see it as a sign that Southern Baptists have truly moved beyond a divisive racial past.

In a news conference after the vote, Luter said he doesn’t think his election is some kind of token gesture.

“If we stop appointing African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics to leadership positions after this, we’ve failed,” he said. “… I promise you I’m going to do all that I can to make sure this is not just a one-and-done deal.”

Delegates to the annual meeting also voted to adopt an alternative name for churches that feel the “Southern Baptist” title could be a turn-off to potential believers.

Supporters of the optional name “Great Commission Baptists” argued it would help missionaries and church planters to reach more people for Christ.

And the Southern Baptists have been less provocative on gay issues than they once were. The denomination ended its Disney boycott in 2005 and this year, as outgoing President Bryant Wright passed the gavel to Luter, the new president asked about Wright’s plans.

“I’m going to Disney World!” Wright said.


GOP Lawmaker Says Gays in Military Issue Settled (GOP Homosex Caves?)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - GOP Lawmaker Says Gays in Military Issue Settled (GOP Homosex Caves?)

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a settled issue that he won’t try to reverse even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency in November and the GOP captures the Senate.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California said his focus is on restoring money for the military after the latest round of defense cuts – a planned reduction of $487 billion over 10 years that could nearly double if Congress fails to avert automatic, across-the-board cuts that begin in January. Pressed on the divisive issue of gay rights that roiled Congress two years ago, McKeon said he wouldn’t revisit it.

“We fought that fight,” McKeon told defense reporters at an hourlong breakfast interview. He said his goal is to “get the things that our war-fighters need.”

The committee chairman said other GOP lawmakers might try to reinstate the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” that was in effect for nearly two decades. “That’s not something that I would personally bring up,” he said.

He recalled that in 1994, when Republicans took control of the House after 40 years, there were high expectations for ambitious changes. “They expected us to pull off miracles. That’s not how things work. I’d rather focus on money for defense,” McKeon said.

Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed legislation in December 2010 repealing the policy. The change took effect last year, and military leaders have concluded that it has not affected morale or readiness. In fact, this month, the Pentagon is marking gay pride month with an official salute.

Addressing a range of issues from the automatic cuts to intelligence leaks, McKeon recommended that Congress look for a short-term solution to delay the automatic cuts and do it now rather than wait for a lame-duck congressional session after the election. He said the November elections have the potential to be the nastiest ever, especially with heavy spending by outside political groups, and that it was ridiculous to expect all sides – the president, Republicans and Democrats – to “come together in a ‘Kumbaya’ moment.”

As he said earlier this year, McKeon is willing to consider increasing revenue through taxes to avert the defense cuts, making him one of few Republicans open to that possibility. “I’m willing to look at anything,” he said.

Congress is scrambling to come up with a way to avoid automatic, $1.2 trillion cuts in domestic and military programs over a decade. The failure of a bipartisan congressional supercommittee last year to come up with a deficit-cutting plan will trigger the cuts, scheduled to begin Jan. 2.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned about the meat ax approach of the automatic cuts, arguing it would hollow out the force. The $492 billion, decade-long reduction would come on top of the $487 billion cut over 10 years that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer.

McKeon was one of those Republicans. He said Thursday it was a mistake, putting lawmakers in a difficult position.

Separately, the Senate voted for a measure calling on the Pentagon to release a report by Aug. 15 on the impact of the automatic cuts. The measure, backed by voice vote, also calls on the White House budget office to release a report within 30 days and the president to produce a report within 60 days on the impact on defense and domestic spending. The measure was added to the farm bill that cleared the Senate Thursday.

Calling the automatic cuts a “a terrible way to cut spending,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said that while Congress tries to come up with a deal to avert the cuts, “we should know exactly how the administration would enact sequestration if we don’t get a deal.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also backed the measure.

The recent leaks of classified information, including reports of a cyberwar against Iran and U.S. counterterrorism actions, has prompted an outcry in Congress, especially from Republicans who argue that they were intentional to enhance Obama’s national security reputation in an election year.

McKeon said his committee, like the one on the Senate side, will hold a hearing on the issue. At the same time, he said he had no quarrel with some of the steps taken by the Democratic administration.

“Frankly, I’m glad to hear we’re doing some of these things,” he said.


Transgendered Athlete Vies for Spot on Olympic Team (Homosex Freakshow Alert!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article – Transgendered Athlete Vies for Spot on Olympic Team (Homosex Freakshow Alert!) Keelin Godsey, 28, was born a woman but identifies as a man. The 5’9″, 186-pound hammer thrower is competing in the women’s Olympic trials today in Eugene, Oregon; if he makes it onto the team, he’ll be the first transgendered American[...]


MSNBC Host: 9-11 Gave America PTSD… ‘Muslim Terrorists’ Were An ‘Imagined Racial Enemy’ for White America (Video)

On Monday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry made some startling accusations. Harris-Perry told her audience that 9-11 gave America PTSD. She added that Muslim terrorists were an imagined racial enemy for “whie America.”

It’s whitey’s fault.


The Blaze reported:

Wow. She may even out-crazy Michael Moore.
Congratulations MSNBC. You’ve got a real jewel there.


School Uses Planned Parenthood Curriculum to Teach Kids Oral Sex

Original Article - School Uses Planned Parenthood Curriculum to Teach Kids Oral Sex

Parents could tell something was wrong with the children when they came home from school. They were quiet and withdrawn, embarrassed, and didn’t want to talk about what had happened. When Curtis and Jean Pannkuk began questioning their young daughter, they discovered that her elementary school principal had instructed her that day in how to perform oral and anal sex. The traumatizing instruction was delivered as a part of state approved sex education that was orchestrated, developed, pushed, and policed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, SIECUS, and a host of other agencies.

Though parents in the small town of Onalaska, Washington, are furious that their children have been violated and traumatized by the highly inappropriate sex instruction, the superintendent defended the principal’s delivery of graphic instruction in aberrant sex to the elementary school students, telling local media, “I think the principal handled it appropriately at the time; she only gave factual information, no demonstrations.” In another interview, he indicated that she “stuck to the curriculum.”

Curtis Pannkuk says if that’s the case, the curriculum needs to change. In an interview with Fox Radio News, Pannkuk said, “One of the other parents said it well—they raped the minds of the ten-year-old, eleven-year-old kids.”

Planned Parenthood’s influence in state-approved and state-mandated sexuality education is taking a ghastly toll on children. Onalaska parent James Gilliland expressed anger and dismay after his daughter’s innocence was stripped from her by the oral sex instruction. His wife, Kadra, said, “I was just shocked because I trusted my little country school. I trusted my school—that’s the bottom line, and they crossed the line.”

And that is exactly what Planned Parenthood relies upon when pushing its agenda through coalitions on the national, state, and district levels. Planned Parenthood operatives know that parents are busy with their lives and often trust their schools to do the right thing for their children. That creates the perfect opportunity for Planned Parenthood to enter the schools while parents are not paying attention, with all the wrong things for children.

Everyone is focused on Planned Parenthood and the evil it does through abortion. That evil is the ultimate child abuse and certainly renders the abortion giant unworthy of one penny of government funding. But even if Planned Parenthood never committed another abortion, the impact of its sex indoctrination programs on children, teens, and young adults is reason enough to strip it of government funding and run it out of the nation.

Visit our Defund Planned Parenthood action center and watch our ALL video report “Hooking Kids on Sex.” Then visit www.stopp.org to find out how to run Planned Parenthood out of your schools and out of your community. To book one of our expert speakers, contact [email protected]

Read Planned Parenthood is behind King County schools’ sex education for more information on Planned Parenthood’s intricate, not-so-well-hidden puppet-mastery of the HIV and sexuality education program in place in the King County, Washington, school that led to the forcible invasion of these children’s right to sexual innocence.

The curriculum in use in the King County, Washington, school where children in fifth grade were recently taught how to have oral and anal sex, is the Family Life and Sexual Health (F.L.A.S.H.) state-approved curriculum. Planned Parenthood is particularly enamored with this curriculum, highly recommending it on its website, alongside lesson plans from the SIECUS Sex Ed Library. (Dr. Mary Calderone, a former medical director at Planned Parenthood, was the first director of SIECUS.)

The state of Washington OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction)—the agency that approves sex education programs for use in schools—recommends the Rutger’s-based Answer in its flyer as the resource for teacher training and staff development for state mandated HIV and state approved sexual health education. Answer is also recommended on the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood website, which goes on to say, “Teachers can earn professional credits from the ETR Associates Resource Center for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (ReCAPP).” (ETR Associates began its corporate life as the Education Department of the Santa Cruz Chapter of Planned Parenthood.)

Answer promotes a Teen-to-Teen Sexuality Education Initiative called Sex, Etc. It offers the usual Planned Parenthood fare, including links to Planned Parenthood websites, advice on how to skirt parents, immoral sexual advice, abortion rights information, gay rights information, and instructions on how to have gay sex. Its website features a video claiming that when it comes to sex, “parents obviously don’t have the answers, and teenagers still need them. That’s where honest sex ed comes in.”

And who do you think might be training the teachers who are teaching the F.L.A.S.H. curriculum? A visit to Answer’s TISHE 2.0 (In-Service Training) Core Staff 2012 page features Mark Huffman, who just happens to be a former vice president for education and training at Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee. Also on staff is another former PP employee, Kurt Conklin, who is now the director of programs at SIECUS.

Additionally on staff is Nora Gelperin, recognized for her experience in training teachers nationwide in 2010. She received the Mary Lee Tatum Award from, that’s right, the Association of Planned Parenthood Leaders in Education. You might say she wrote the Answer book, in that “she developed Answer’s three dynamic online workshops ‘Sexuality ABCs (Abstinence, Birth Control and Condoms),’ ‘STD Basics’ and most recently ‘LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) Issues in School.’”

Current Planned Parenthood employee Maureen Kelly rounds out the list of presenters. She is VP for programming and communications with Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes. She also served for nine years on the SIECUS board of directors. “Kelly is the proud founder of Planned Parenthood’s Out for Health: LGBT Health & Wellness program.” Only two out of the six TISHE presenters do not list a current or past association with Planned Parenthood.

The TISHE 2.0 in-service teacher-training program is co-sponsored by SIECUS and Answer.

Planned Parenthood goes to great lengths to hide from parents its dominant position in school sex ed programming, but a few hours on the Internet reveals an extremely intricately woven web of deceit composed of organizations that spring from or are otherwise closely connected to Planned Parenthood. Those organizations and individuals are actually working with Planned Parenthood to call the shots when it comes to school-based sex education.


Glenn Beck’s New Book “Cowards”: A Must Read

No matter what you think about Glenn Beck’s politics, you have to admit that he has a point. The premise of this book is simple: we’ve gotten to a point in our society where diverging from the status quo is uncouth, socially detrimental, and even dangerous. There is a standard in our culture today, built by politicians, academics, media, and business leaders, and anyone who steps out of line will be instantly questioned, denounced, and perhaps even censored. As a result, we are living in a strict ideological tyranny that allows only the status quo to proliferate, a condition that will end up bringing us to our self-destruction.

Beck would know–he has been defying the status quo for his entire career, and, from personal and tertiary experience, he has seen exactly how detrimental that can be. Just by challenging the standing beliefs of what is necessary in government, he is trashed, called insane, and belittled.

As Beck argues, this is in every way anti-American. Not only is dissent subdued, but the lie that stands as the standard is explicitly opposed to the American ideals of freedom, industry, diversity of thought, and moral duty.

In this scathing diatribe, Beck identifies thirteen major issues that have not been treated justly in the modern debate, and will probably be shunned in the coming election cycle as well. In order to help provide an alternative to this Orwellian dystopia, Beck surveys each of these issues and offers the contra to popular culture’s status quo.

Focusing on the issues as he does, Beck does not offer a grand examination of how we got into this mess or even how to get out. For that, I recommend the superb Juggernaut: Why the System Crushes the Only People Who Can Save It, which any reader of Glenn Beck will cherish.

Meanwhile, stock up, because something’s in the air!


Lawrence O’Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

Original Article - Lawrence O’Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

With each passing day, the Obama-loving media stoop to new lows in attacking the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his family.

On MSNBC’s The Last Word Monday, host Lawrence O’Donnell mocked Ann Romney for having the nerve to combat her multiple sclerosis by riding horses:

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: In tonight’s Rewrite, Mitt Romney rewrites the definition of an Olympic athlete.


BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST OF “FACE THE NATION”: I hear you’ve got an Olympic athlete in the family.

MITT ROMNEY: Isn’t that something? Yeah, it’s not me. It’s my wife, of course. She’s the athlete, but in this case, it’s not her personally, but she along with two other people purchased a horse and have trained it up.


O’DONNELL: She’s the athlete. That’s what Mitt Romney just said. She’s the athlete.

Actually, that’s NOT what Romney just said. He said, “But in this case, it’s not her personally, but she along with two other people purchased a horse and have trained it up.”

Exactly what about that clarification to Schieffer’s question wasn’t clear enough for O’Donnell to understand?

The host of Face the Nation said, “I hear you’ve got an Olympic athlete in the family,” and Romney replied, “But in this case, it’s not her personally.”

Is the intellectual capacity of MSNBC anchors and commentators dropping as Romney rises in the polls, or is it just their professional integrity?

Or both?

Let’s continue:

O’DONNELL: So what will the athlete in the family be doing in the Olympics?


ROMNEY: So she’s quite thrilled and I’m sure she’ll be watching. I have a campaign to attend to, so I won’t be able to see it perform. But I’m very pleased for her.


O’DONNELL: That’s right. The Romney family definition of an Olympic athlete is a person who participates in the purchase of an Olympic athlete, in this case, a horse that the Romneys own. Now, Mitt Romney has always told the story of the family’s entry into the breathtakingly expensive so-called sport of dressage as a therapeutic option for Ann Romney’s multiple sclerosis.


SCHIEFFER: Dressage?

ROMNEY: Yes, it’s the sport of dressage. Not many people are familiar with it, but something for which she has a passion, and frankly, her getting back on a horse after she was diagnosed with MS was able, she’s convinced, to help her regenerate her strength and renew that vigor.


O’DONNELL: Now, this is not in any way to make light of Ann Romney’s difficulty with MS, it’s obviously a very difficult thing to bear. And there are a lot of things you can do to try to deal with MS. But, come on, dressage does not appear in any of the more traditional courses of treatment. And if it’s true that dressage is how wildly rich people deal with this very difficult personal health problem, then why, why does the horse appear on Mitt Romney’s tax return as a business expense, that in 2010 produced a $77,000 business deduction. Not a healthcare deduction, a business deduction for the Romney Limited Liability Corporation that owns the horse as a business.

Mitt Romney was afraid to identify a single tax deduction that he would eliminate or reduce, but I think we can be sure that the Olympic athlete in the Romney family, the horse that masquerades as Ann’s horse, but that is never actually ridden by Ann, would continue to be a fake deductible business expense if Mitt and Ann ever get to watch their Olympic athlete on a TV in the White House.

This is so disgusting it’s nauseating.

First off, what business is it of O’Donnell’s how Ann Romney chose to deal with her illness?

If going for walks, going to the museum, watching television, or, heaven forbid, riding horses helped “regenerate her strength and renew [her] vigor,” isn’t that a good thing?

Why should that be the subject of scorn and derision, especially from a representative of a so-called “news network?”

As for Romney’s taxes, it is safe to assume that their LLC purchases horses as an investment just as most people do. Income is derived from breeding and/or selling them. As such, expenses associated with their training and upkeep are deductible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But why should we expect an ignorant shill such as O’Donnell to understand that?

Furthermore, who is O’Donnell to ridicule anyone for his or her wealth? According to Celebrity Net Worth, his estate is valued at $8 million.

That makes him just another rich liberal castigating Romney for his wealth.

It never ends, does it?

(HT @PoliticalPAW)

*****Update: I received a very interesting email message from NB reader Jeffrey Peters who is a volunteer to Maryland Special Olympics and 4H (with permission):

Dressage is a very common technique to help many types of disabilities, and is one of the few that tends to work for many problems that lack effective treatment. Therapeutic Riding is a major event and is a fundamental component of the Special Olympics. In Maryland, over 100 riders participated in the Special Olympics Therapeutic Riding event earlier in June. Dressage is not for “rich people.” Most of the Special Olympians are from lower income families. Most participants are just honest people who enjoy a very popular sport. This is a part of the matter that is so often ignored. It is honestly upsetting to see such hate against an event that helps so many special needs adults and children.

One such facility is the Maryland Therapeutic Riding center:

Maryland Therapeutic Riding (MTR) is a non-profit organization located between Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland on a beautiful 25-acre farm. Utilizing certified instructors, licensed therapists, volunteers and specially-trained horses, we offer high-quality horseback riding programs to open new pathways of healing for children and adults with a wide range of physical, mental, and emotional challenges.

Therapeutic Riding is a treatment for rehabilitating a range of physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. PATH certified instructors use the horse as an instructional tool to teach riding skills and reach individualized goals and objectives. Conditions served include: cerebral palsy, spina bifida, neuromuscular disorders, post-traumatic brain injury, autism, ADHD, and cognitive disorders. Riders see an overall improvement in their quality of life. They experience improved self-confidence, strength, balance, coordination, attention span, and language and social skills.

I also discovered that therapeutic riding is used to help “wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan improve their balance, coordination and hone other valuable physical therapy skills.”

As fate has it, suburban Chicago’s Daily Herald just published a piece on this issue on – wait for it – Saturday (HT @CindyCoops):

Documents from Ancient Greece show horse therapy dates to 600 B.C., with the practice growing in popularity in recent years around the suburbs and across the country.

Earlier this month on a three-day campaign stop in Florida, Ann Romney, wife of the former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential hopeful, visited a therapeutic horse-riding facility telling patients she was unable to walk at one point because her multiple sclerosis symptoms were so severe. But, Ann Romney said, the “excitement of getting on a horse” helped her build her strength and caused her symptoms to ease.

Once again, this article was published only three days ago!

As such, shouldn’t an MSNBC anchor either know of the medical and psychological benefits of therapeutic riding or have someone on his staff investigate it before mocking a presidential candidate’s wife for claiming it helped her overcome her serious illness?

Or might uncovering the facts inconveniently interfere with his agenda?

*****Update II: NB reader Mark Neidl offered his thoughts via email (with permission):

My son has Cerebral Palsy and therapeutic riding benefitted him as well as many other children and adults who suffer from many different ailments. People like the Romneys support organizations such as these and without their gifts and donations, people like my son would not have had the opportunity to participate in a program such as this since we are not wealthy as are 90% of the people who have benefitted from therapeutic riding. I recall my son competing in “Dressage” once a year which allowed him to compete against other riders and showcased his abilities to everyone. We have ribbons to prove it and my wife and I are positive he improved because of this program.

Mr. O’Donnell’s comments and mocking of Dressage were quite insulting.

Here is the website for this wonderful program: http://www.sheacenter.org/

Mr. Neidl informed me in a follow-up message, “Our son graduates this Wednesday, quite an accomplishment for him since his diagnosis at birth was pretty dire. Throughout his life he has been helped by a lot of people and, God forbid, many of them wealthy.”

*****Update III: Today Show Covered Benefits of MS Patients Riding Horses Same Day O’Donnell Mocked Ann Romney For It.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/19/lawrence-odonnell-attacks-ann-romney-riding-horses-combat-multiple-sc#ixzz1yIeiWTpU


NYC School Children Heckled By Adults While Singing “God Bless the USA” (Video)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - NYC School Children Heckled By Adults While Singing “God Bless the USA” (Video)

What an awful display.
A group of New York City school children were not allowed to sing “God Bless the USA” in school during their Kindergarten graduation ceremony. So, the children went to a playground to sing it where a group of adults heckled them.

So who are the adults again?
Conservablogger reported:

Hat Tip BG

Rush Limbaugh has more on this awful display by liberals.


Anti-Islam Protesters Taunt Muslims With Pig’s Head: ‘You’re Going to Melt in the Fires of Hell!’

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - Anti-Islam Protesters Taunt Muslims With Pig’s Head: ‘You’re Going to Melt in the Fires of Hell!’

Anti Islam Christian Protesters Show Up to Arab International Festival

If you‘re looking to spread God’s love, it’s probably not a good idea to show up to the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, with a pig‘s head on a stick and signs telling Muslims that they’re poised to burn in hell. Yet this is exactly what happened over the weekend when some Christians from an anti-Islam group showed up at the event and confronted Muslim adherents with some unwelcome messages.

One of the protesters yelled, “You’re going to burn in hell,” among other sentiments. The signs the individuals held were less-than-covert in their messaging as well. One read, “Islam is a religion of blood and murder” and another said “Muhammad is a…liar, false prophet, murder, child molesting pervert.” Clearly, those in attendance weren’t there to play nice (caution: language).

Among the most tense moments during the Friday showdown occurred when some of the Arab Americans present at the conference began throwing water bottles and pop cans. Some of the attendees chanted “Allah-U-Akbar,” which translates to “God is the greatest.” The Christians responded with, “Jesus Akbar.” Most of the protesters who engaged in this debate were from an anti-Islam group called “Bible Believers.”

In the video, below, a man — purportedly part of the group — can be heard yelling, “You’re going to go straight to hell you little dirtbag, wicked heathen.” Then, he continued screaming at the the Arab attendees, claiming that they have “a religion of hate” and that God is going to “melt” them “one day in hell” (at another point he says, “You’re going to melt in the fires of hell forever!”).

Watch and listen to the protester going berserk:

Authorities in Wayne County attempted to keep calm and order between the two parties, as they tried to separate them — a difficult task considering the religious nature of the fighting at hand. The Detroit-Free Press has more about the festival and past drama that has unfolded there between Christians and Muslims:

The three-day festival is the largest public gathering of Arab-Americans in the U.S.; it has drawn Christian missionaries for years, but in 2009, some become more aggressive, leading to arrests and legal feuds. Dearborn has the highest concentration of Arab-Americans in the U.S., many of them Muslim, making it a magnet for some Christian missionaries.

The Bible Believers [one of the groups present among the protesters] also protested at last year’s Arab Festival, holding up both anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic signs and causing one Arab-American Muslim girl to cry.

As the Free-Press notes, there were also peaceful Christian protesters at the event. These individuals spoke kindly to the Muslim attendees and handed out flyers. One Christian woman work a shirt that read, “I [heart symbol] Muslims,” while handing out gospel pamphlets.


Researchers Whose Work Was Cited to Justify Bloomberg’s Large Soda Ban Explain Why it Won’t Work

Original Article - Researchers Whose Work Was Cited to Justify Bloomberg’s Large Soda Ban Explain Why it Won’t Work

In trying to justify his proposed regulation banning large-size sodas, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg cited the work of economists Brian Wansink and David Just. In this recent Atlantic article, Wansink and Just explain that he got their work wrong:

New York City’s mayor proposed a restaurant ban for any soft drink over 16-ounces. The hope is that by banning big drinks people will drink less and weigh less. He and others cited our research as the science behind the policy. Indeed, a dozen of our studies show when you randomly give people large sizes of food like popcorn and French fries, they overeat….

There’s a critical difference between the lab and Lexington Avenue that the mayor’s office didn’t account for: when Joe the Plumber and Bob the Banker buy soft drinks, they buy the size they want. They aren’t randomly forced to take a 44-ouncer when they really wanted a 12-ouncer. Moreover, their Coke or Pepsi doesn’t magically refill itself. If that happened, they’d overdrink. Instead, most restaurants give us a choice of a small or large drink — just as nearly every fast food outlet gives us a choice of small, medium, or large fries, and every movie theatre gives us a choice of small, medium, or large popcorn. People who want a little buy a little, and people who want a lot figure a way to get it.

Yes, we have found that when people are given larger portions, they do drink or eat substantially more. But to claim that these results imply that the ban will be effective is to ignore our larger body of work. In our experiments, subjects were given larger or smaller portions of food in a dining or party setting, where they were unlikely to notice portion size. It is exactly because participants weren’t paying attention that we got the results we did.

The mayor’s approach, however, overtly denies people portions they are used to be able to get whenever they want them. In similar lab settings, this kind of approach has inspired various forms of rebellion among study participants. For example, openly serving someone lowfat or reduced-calorie meals tends to lead to increased fat or calorie consumption over the whole day. People reason that because they were forced to be good for one meal, they can splurge on snacks and desserts at later meals.

As I explained in my previous post on this subject, paternalistic policies are not going be able to prevent obesity merely by restricting sodas or some other specific food or drink. People who like sugary or fatty foods will simply gorge on something else. The only potentially effective paternalistic solution is comprehensive regulation of people’s diets and possibly exercise as well.

I would oppose the soda regulation and others like it even if they did improve health. Individuals should be able to decide for themselves to what extent they are willing to accept health risks in order to satisfy other preferences. I get less than the optimal amount of exercise in part because I spend a lot of time reading and writing. As a result, I am less healthy than I might be otherwise. But that is a tradeoff I should be able to make in a free society. The same goes for people who are willing to accept health risks for other reasons – including because they want to continue eating the types of food they enjoy.

That said, I can at least understand the case for paternalistic regulations that have genuine health benefits. Paternalistic regulations that don’t even work are just gratuitous infringements on freedom without any justification at all.

UPDATE: In my previous post, I explained why these kinds of paternalistic regulations can’t be justified by the existence of externalities caused by government subsidization of health care.

UPDATE #2: For a more extensive look at the relevant evidence showing that soda restrictions are unlikely to improve health outcomes, see this article by well-known law and economics scholars Jonathan Klick and Eric Helland.

UPDATE #3: In the initial version of this post, I accidentally got David Just’s first name wrong. Thanks to readers for pointing this out. The mistake has now been corrected.


Woody Allen’s Son Drops Father’s Day Bomb (Libtard Universe Alert!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 18, 2012

Original Article - Woody Allen’s Son Drops Father’s Day Bomb (Libtard Universe Alert!)

gty ronan farrow woody allen nt 120618 wblog Woody Allens Son Drops Fathers Day Bomb 

Father’s Day might always be a tricky holiday for Woody Allen but this year was particularly awkward. Ronan Farrow, the 24-year-old son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, let loose yesterday tweeting, “Happy father’s day — or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.”

Mia Farrow even got in on the act, re-tweeting his message and adding her own comment: “BOOM.”

Woody and Ronan have been estranged for years since his parents split and because Woody was dating (and later married) Soon-Yi Previn, Mia’s adopted daughter, Ronan’s step-sister. He has been quoted in the past as saying, “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.”

Soon-Yi has said that she never considered Allen her father or even a father figure, noting that Andrew Previn, Farrow’s former husband was her adoptive father.

Ronan, named Satchel Ronan O’Sullivan Farrow when he was born in 1987, is the sole biological child of Woody and actress Mia Farrow. He is currently serving as special adviser to the Secretary of State for Global Youth Issues and director of the State Department’s Global Youth Issues office.

Crush Marxism!
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott The Home Depot!

Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!

Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (20445 followers)
Welcome , today is Friday, June 22, 2012