July 9, 2015

Mass Resistance: DeWine Can and Should Demand Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Ruling Be Thrown Out Over Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s Failure to Recuse Themselves

Filed under: Activism,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:59 pm

The folks at Mass Resistance, who have been fighting the good fight for well over a decade, make great points which, in normal times, would win the day in a court of law.

But these aren’t normal times, and their strategy is at best a longshot. Even so, does Mike DeWine have the courage to at least try what they have suggested? His reaction in the wake of the June 26 same-sex “marriage” ruling provides no comfort.

What’s there to lose? Really nothing.

What’s there to be afraid of?

John Kasich’s anger, because the attempt might affect his presidential aspirations? Too bad, so sad.

The effect on DeWine’s possible gubernatorial aspirations? Seems like he’d finally be a hero instead of a near-pariah to the hundreds of thousands, if not couple of million, of Ohioans who are so sick of the political process — because nobody stands behind their beliefs — that they gone into apathy.

It certainly couldn’t hurt to give 5 minutes to telling Mike DeWine to find a pair and get aggressive if he really thinks legalizing same-sex “marriage” is a mistake:

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
Email: mary.mertz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov  (his assistant)

Tell him: “File the motion for a Supreme Court re-hearing!”
Let him know that if he capitulates on “gay marriage” he can expect your opposition in any political race he runs in again.

Please tweet this out on your Twitter account (copy and paste):
@OhioAG please file a Motion for Rehearing Obergefell v. Hodges immediately! #nullifySCOTUS http://hrefshare.com/8b3cd

Here is the Mass Resistance argument:

SCOTUS re-trial on marriage issue? It’s possible if GOP doesn’t cave in.
ACTION info below!

POSTED: July 9, 2015

It’s not completely over yet. But a group of treacherous and cowardly Republican politicians are standing in the way. A new fight is on, and everyone’s help is needed.

Prominent pro-family figures, some GOP presidential candidates, and hundreds across the country are pressing Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to formally file for an appeal hearing on the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 “gay marriage” ruling handed down on June 26.

According to the Court’s published rules, within 25 days of a ruling a party can ask the Court for a “rehearing” of a case on pertinent issues that would merit an appeal. The issue of “merit” here is that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg – both of whom ruled “for” same-sex marriage — were clearly required by Federal law to recuse themselves from this case.

Kagan and Ginsburg’s actions and statements mandate recusal

The right of impartial court proceedings is the very basis of the entire American system of justice – from the lowest court to the Supreme Court. Thus, federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

During the year prior to the Supreme Court case, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan publicly performed same-sex “weddings.” At one such event, Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflected “the genius of our Constitution.” Ginsburg also told Bloomberg Business News that she thought that Americans were ready for gay marriage.

Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.

Supreme Court Justices are usually scrupulous in avoiding the appearance of impropriety. They regularly recuse themselves from cases based on relatively mundane issues, such as comments they’ve previously made, involvement by relatives in peripheral issues, and past employment. Kagan has recused herself from several cases involving the government because she served as Solicitor General. But this case clearly is very emotionally connected to the worldview of Kagan and Ginsburg.

If you’re on the home page, the group’s argument continues af the jump.
(more…)

Cholesterol: The Dietary Analog to Globaloney

For six decades, dietiticians and doctors have insisted cholesterol is bad for you.

It’s not, and there have been consequences:

… why did carbohydrate consumption start to increase so rapidly in the 1960s? At least partly because of the advice to avoid meat and cheese. Obesity and diabetes are the price we have paid for getting fat and cholesterol so wrong.

How about a full, drains-up inquiry into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder and caused so much misery to people? Consider not just the damage that was done to people’s lives by faulty advice, but to the livelihoods of dairy and beef farmers and egg producers.

Over at Barrel Strength (HT American Digest via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit), there is an excellent comparison to “globaloney,” the ridiculous proposition that humans are primarily responsible for warming the planet (which hasn’t been warming for 18 years) and that only radical changes in how everyone lives directed and controlled by a centralized worldwide entity can save us:

RIP: The great cholesterol scam (1955 – 2015)

… The cholesterol scam bears a strong relationship to the anthropogenic global warming scam.

1) it is propagated by scientists on a non-scientific mission.

2) it is believed because it plausibly explains an observation (increasing global temperature [for a time], increasing heart attacks from smoking in the 1950s and 60s). It taps into large anxieties about too much wealth, too much happiness, in western societies. There must be sin somewhere, and the public is ready to flog itself in the cause of a secularized idea of God, uh, I mean Good.

3) the causal relationship is weaker than first supposed; the research is found to be sloppy, the facts have been fudged, subsequent studies do not fully support the original claims, nevertheless the orthodoxy is promulgated all the more harshly for being doubted.

4) by now, powerful economic and ideological interests have taken hold. They supply an ongoing source of funds and opinion to ensure the perpetuation of the alarm: in the case of cholesterol, the margarine industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical establishment, and in the case of AGW, the tribe of bureaucrats and leftists who seek to control markets, whose god of Marxism had failed, and who needed a new god (Gaia) to justify their rule.

5) The skeptics who have patiently argued on the basis of facts that the science of each phenomenon was weak, are ostracized by the opinion establishments of medicine and global warming. Cranks, but the cranks are right and the orthodox priests and Levites are wrong.

6) Eventually, after fifty or sixty years, the subject of discussion just changes. In the case of cholesterol, the evidence gets weaker and weaker, and the problems caused by too much sugar consumption (obesity, diabetes), caused in part by people not eating enough fats and meats, reaches a stage where it can no longer be ignored.

7) the retreat of the orthodoxy is covered by a smokescreen of fresh concerns for some other catastrophe. No admissions of error or apologies for wrecked careers and following bad science are ever issued. Time flows on, bringing neither knowledge nor greater understanding of the role of folly in human affairs.

8) stages 6 and 7 have been reached in the cholesterol cycle; they are beginning in the anthropogenic global warming scam. Fifty years from now, there will still be clanking windmills in the North Sea, but whether they will be still linked to a power grid is less likely, and whether anyone will pay attention is doubtful. The lobbies that keep them there, however, will still exist.

The unfortunate difference is that “globaloney” has a vast array of statists and complicit media apparatchiks behind it, meaning that their chances of prevailing in their draconian policy prescriptions are much higher. It will be tougher to discredit, and even tougher to get an admission of error from anyone who has been in on the scam.

Predictive Comic Genius — The Politically Correct ‘Dukes of Hazzard’

Filed under: Activism,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:36 am

This comedy skit appeared six years ago (HT CainTV):

June 28, 2015

Positivity: Thousands gather in Rome to support the family, oppose gender theory

Filed under: Activism,Positivity,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:00 am

From :

Jun 24, 2015 / 12:04 am

A pro-family demonstration drew hundreds of thousands of participants to Rome on Saturday, where the rally gathered those opposed to the introduction of gender ideology in Italian schools and to a bill which would expand the rights of those in civil unions.

“We want to bear witness to the beauty of the family,” said Vincenzo and Sara, addressing the June 20 rally. “All of our children have been born of a mother and a father.”

The couple have 11 children, and they emphasized that “parents are the ones called in the first place to educate our children, and the school cannot take away that sacred right from us.”

The demonstration took place in the piazza in front of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, and drew a crowd whose estimates range from 300,000 to 1 million. Participants came from across Italy, despite short notice – the event having been announced only June 2.

Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register also noted that the demonstration “had only tacit support from the Italian bishops’ conference.” Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, sent a message of support for the event.

It was organized by “Defend our Children” to call for the rejection of a bill in the Italian parliament which would grant same-sex couples in civil unions many of the rights afforded to married couples. More generally, the rally intended to reaffirm parents’ right to educate their children, and to oppose gender theory in Italy’s schools and parliament.

Speakers outlined the key elements of this proposed legislation, and explained how the attendant gender theory has already been introduced in many of the country’s schools. Gender theory or ideology is the notion that one’s ‘gender’ is chosen and need not correspond with one’s biological sex.

Gianfranco Amato, president of Jurists for Life and one of the organizers, called for an end to gender theory in the schools, calling it a “drift toward totalitarianism that tends to impose by law the dictatorship of a single way of thinking.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

June 20, 2015

Hugh Hewitt Giving Career Advice to Jason Hart? It Is to Laugh

Filed under: Activism,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:15 am

The man who did more than any single person in the center-right media to foist the worst Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime on the mostly unwilling conservative and Republican faithful, while whitewashing how that candidate “did more harm to conservatism and the constitution-based rule of law during his ten years in public life than any other individual in America who claims to be on our side,” deigned to dispense career advice to Jason Hart, who has been assiduously chronicling Ohio Governor John Kasich’s myriad betrayals of conservative principles during the past several years.

Michelle Malkin had the perfect response:

JasonHartvsHughHewitt

Michelle has done just fine staying true to conservative principles. Hugh Hewitt, while talking a good game, has been selling them out at crunch time for well over a decade.

Remember Arlen Specter vs. Pat Toomey in 2004? Guess whose side Hugh Hewitt was on? You don’t have to guess. It’s obvious; here’s Hewitt’s whiny copout five years later.

Remember the guy who said that Mitt Romney should ignore the Goodridge same-sex marriage opinion in Massachusetts in 2003 because it was the right and constitutional thing to do, and who then did and said nothing when Romney illegally forced same-sex marriage on the state, paving the way for its slow but sure triumph first in California, then in much of the rest of the nation? Yeah, that was Hugh.

You’re doing just fine, Jason. We could not be more grateful for all you’ve done and continue to do. Keep at it.

June 14, 2015

WashPost Hypes Study’s ‘Synthetic’ Claim That 1994 Connecticut Gun Law Saved Lives

On Friday, the Washington Post’s Jeff Guo hyped a study published in the American Journal of Public Health by four people with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The study (abstract here) contends that “Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law (passed in 1994) was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates” involving firearms.

Readers wondering if there is a connection to that Bloomberg, i.e., Michael, and his fierce anti-Second Amendment agenda need not wonder. There is. Two of the four authors are with the school’s Center for Gun Policy and Research — very weak research which left the Post’s Guo incomprehensively claiming that the state’s “permit to purchase” law regulating private firearms transactions seems to have saved “a lot” of lives.

(more…)

May 21, 2015

Paper on ‘Changing Minds’ on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Retracted, Media Outlet Retractions Abound

Examples of scientific fakery in matters relating to sexuality and especially homosexuality go back decades, all the way to Alfred Kinsey.

One of the more recent such underhanded episodes, involving a paper originally published in December 2014, was called “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality.” It claimed that “a single conversation (can) change minds on divisive social issues, such as same-sex marriage.” That assertion made by a “layman” wouldn’t pass the smell test with most people. But because the paper was published in Science Magazine (“The World’s Leading Journal of Scientific Research, Global News and Commentary”), it gained a now-obviously clearly undeserved veneer of credibility.

(more…)

May 14, 2015

The ‘Hate Speech’ Canard: Ticket to Tyranny

Pamela Geller exposes the totalitarian “human rights” enterprise.

__________________________________

This column went up at PJ Media Monday evening and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Tuesday.

__________________________________

It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the ugliness Pamela Geller has exposed, and how grateful we should be to her.

Geller’s “Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest” in Garland, Texas on May 3, sponsored by her American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Jihad Watch, featured “about 350 entries depicting Muhammad” — in drawings and cartoons.

For this — creating drawings and cartoons — radical Islamists have declared that she and others associated with the event must die.

After numerous online and other Islamist death threats during the preceding week, two ISIS-inspired jihadists drove 1,000 miles from Phoenix to Garland’s Curtis Culwell Center hoping to carry out the demanded executions. Fortunately, thanks to a heroic police officer’s aggressive action, they were killed before they could carry out their plan.

As will be seen shortly, it is no exaggeration to say that long-established organizations in the international “human rights” community opposed the exercise of free speech embodied in that event, and believe that its sponsors and attendees deserve to be punished.

Elite U.S. reactions to Geller’s and her attendees’ near-death experience demonstrate just how far their campaign against so-called “hate speech” has progressed. The answer is, “farther than almost anyone might have thought.”

 A much greater than expected swath of elite commentators and pundits on both the left and right clearly believes that Geller and event organizers — again, by exhibiting drawings and cartoons — provoked the attack. Many of them believe the event was an example of “hate speech,” and that it should not have taken place. Some have gone further, declaring that it should not have been allowed to take place. Those who truly believe in freedom should be thanking Pamela Geller for helping us identify genuine enemies who until now have cloaked themselves in respectability.

Sadly, the surface desirability of eliminating “hate,” especially in speech, is powerful.

After all, the great religions of the world – with the notable exception of certain far from minor strains of Islam — treat genuine hate as sinful. In Catholicism, hatred “(targeted) directly at the person … is always sinful.” Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, is credited with saying “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

This nation’s Founders were religious too — and uncommonly brilliant. As they declared this nation’s independence from Great Britain, they, uniquely in human history, also declared that human beings’ rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were God-given and not conferred by men or their governments. The Founders’ First Amendment-confirmed definition of “liberty” clearly includes the right to say, write, draw, or produce whatever one wishes. Given the intensity of political discourse at the time, it’s clear that they did not intend to carve out any kind of exception for “hate.”

The creation of the “hate speech” construct is irrefutably communist in origin, and goes back to the afternath of World War II:

… the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

[...]

The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.

[...]

The states where criticism of totalitarian ideology was prohibited were the ones that internationalized hate-speech laws.

The initial Soviet-led efforts were too ham-handed and obvious for most of the rest of the then-free world to stomach. So, the definition of hate speech evolved:

… hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Now, “hate speech” is a tool to be exploited by the perpetually aggrieved. Note the definition’s obvious implication that truly hateful speech directed at anyone who is not a “protected individual” or in a “protected group” cannot be considered “hate speech.” People not in protected groups are also apparently not worthy of federal protection when violently threatened.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, the “internationalization” to which the excerpt above refers has left this nation as one of a very few without oppressive “hate speech” laws favoring “protected individuals or groups” on the books. This intensely frustrates the so-called “human rights” community, many of whose members believe that the U.S. is a haven for “hate” and must be ostracized by the international community until it falls in line.

Most, but not all, of those who wish to impose their totalitarian regime on us have been circumspect about their ultimate goals. One such exception is Tanya Cohen, who claims to have worked with a number of “human rights” groups.

The headlines and content of Cohen’s recent columns will quickly disabuse those who still hold the quaint notion that banning “hate speech” is merely a project designed to ensure that everyone is civil to one another.

Her April 18 entry, “It’s Time To Put An End To Anti-Choice Speech” is a prime example. In Cohen’s version of a supposedly free society, lobbying for pro-life legislation, demonstrating at an abortion clinic, or even publishing a pro-life opinion on your Facebook page should be illegal. In Ms. Cohen’s ultra-scientific opinion, such people are “spreading lies,” and must be stopped.

Banning any discussion of abortion’s morality, which if logically extended would ban Catholicism and many of the world’s other major religions, is just a start. In that same column, Cohen clearly is on the side of a professor she quotes who wishes to similarly squelch speech “for climate denialists” and even “the tobacco industry.”

Separately, we find that Ms. Cohen has advocated an online command-and-control regime in Australia about which George Orwell’s Big Brother could only have dreamed:

What I propose is something called a Human Rights Online Act. This Act would not only make it a severe criminal offence on the federal level to publish, distribute, promote, or access hate speech online, but implement a federal Internet filtering system to protect Australians from being exposed to hate sites run out of the US. The Internet filter should block access to all hate sites, and anyone who tries to access any hate sites should be sent to gaol (i.e., prison — Ed.) … anyone accused of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating other people should be required to prove their innocence or be declared guilty automatically …

Cohen has also celebrated how “attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isn’t really marriage, or saying that trans women aren’t really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred” is “one of the most admirable things about Europe.”

Those with totalitarian impulses have created the idea of “hate speech” out of thin air and have turned the entire idea of “human rights” on its head, transforming it into the tyrant’s ultimate tool.

Now we know, and must react accordingly.

Thanks, Pamela.

May 10, 2015

WashPost Columnist: People Who Give Flowers ‘Are Terrible For Mother Earth’

Filed under: Activism,Economy,Environment,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:37 pm

On Thursday, Jennifer Grayson, who fancies herself as an “environmental journalist,” exposed herself as a truly annoying scold.

Grayson wrote in a Washington Post column that those of us who show our appreciation for others by giving them flowers as part of our overall enjoyment of life are really showing that we are either ignorant of or don’t “care about Mother Earth.” Grayson concocts her case by demonstrating that basic math must not be a prerequisite for becoming an “environmental journalist.”

(more…)

Oberlin Choir Ridicules School’s Feminist ‘Victims’ of ‘Microaggressions’

Filed under: Activism,Education,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:23 am

One of the more simultaneously annoying and alarming developments on college campuses these days is how the idea of “microagressions” has regained visibility after four decades of previously well-deserved obscurity, largely under the establishment press’s radar. Almost no one in “the real world” would know what microaggressions are if it weren’t for stories and critiques at center-right media outlets and campus watchdog groups.

Cut through the clutter, and it’s quite easy to see that “microaggression” is really a tool used by so-called “victim classes” to allege unconscious discrimination or “marginalization” in virtually anything people they don’t like might say. The idea has taken particular hold at Oberlin College, where iconoclastic feminist Christina Hoff Sommers appeared last month. Fortunately, there are still sane people with a sense of humor about all of this. That cadre includes the “Oberlin College choir.”

(more…)

May 6, 2015

More Blame the Target at WashPost: ‘Almost Gleeful’ Geller ‘Offers No Apology’

The headline at Sandhya Somashekhar’s Washington Post column on Pamela Geller, whose Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest was the target of a failed terrorist attack, acts as if that attack is her fault: “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

Somashekhar’s work reeks of contempt for Geller and her efforts, going beyond the media malfeasance cited in the Brent Bozell-Tim Graham column posted at NewsBusters Tuesday evening.

(more…)

April 29, 2015

Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Non-Complying Churches at Stake in Supremes’ Same-Sex ‘Marriage Case

Add the following to the “you will be made to care” stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.

Those who think that legalizing same-sex “marriage” won’t affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over whether inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn’t get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because it gave away the Obama administration’s, and the left’s, ultimate game plan.

(more…)

April 27, 2015

Inadvertent Truth? Short-Lived AP Headline: ‘Obama Pledges Help to Riot’

The headline is already gone from the Associated Press’s national site, but it’s still present elsewhere.

In the context of events in Ferguson and elsewhere since August of last year, one could argue that it contains more truth than the wire service and the headline’s accidental creators will ever admit.

(more…)

April 25, 2015

LA Times Reporter and ‘Ferguson’ Actors Won’t Concede That ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!’ Is a Myth

At a March 4 press conference, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder grudgingly bowed to the truth relating to the events surrounding the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August of last year: “Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer (Darren) Wilson.”

In doing so, Holder effectively acknowledged the falsity of the claim, repeated hundreds of times in broadcast, online, and print media reports, that Brown cried “hands up, don’t shoot!” before he was killed. The Attorney General also (cough, cough) wondered “how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired” and “how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily.” A current dispute between actors and a director in Los Angeles involved in producing a play about Brown’s death, disingenuously covered by Matt Pearce at the Los Angeles Times (HT to longtime NewsBusters commenter Gary Hall), indicates that many people will not accept the truth Holder was forced to acknowledge, even when they directly confront it.

(more…)

April 21, 2015

Press Ignores Gold Star Mom Demanding, and Getting, an Apology from Gen. Dempsey

A decade ago, a Gold Star Mom who had lost her son in Iraq gained national attention when she staged a protest against the Iraq War near George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. Leftist PR flaks took control of Cindy Sheehan’s every move, keeping her in the headlines for months on end as a symbol of supposedly strong opposition to the war which toppled Saddam Hussein. In August 2005, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

Yet Dowd and the rest of her fellow travelers in the establishment press have almost completely ignored, by their definition, the “absolute moral authority” of Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee, whose son Marc “was the first Navy SEAL who sacrificed his life in Ramadi, Iraq (on) Aug 2, 2006.” Lee wrote a scathing letter to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Martin Dempsey after the general’s insensitve contention that, in essence, the fact that Ramadi is in danger of falling to the Islamic State is not particularly important.

(more…)