The Other McCain

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

On Courtesy and ‘Gender Equality’

Posted on | June 5, 2018 | 2 Comments

Where I come from, to insult a man is to challenge him to a fight. Perhaps “progress” has eroded that old-fashioned sensibility down home since I was a boy growing up in Georgia, but surviving to adulthood was not necessarily guaranteed in the culture in which I was raised. My junior year of high school, a quarrel arose between two boys over some no-account, two-timing girl. Neither of those boys made it to graduation. One went to the graveyard, and one went to prison.

Avoid trouble, if possible, but be prepared to defend yourself. Don’t be a bully, don’t let some fool taunt you into throwing the first punch, and don’t go around insulting people just to start trouble.

We were raised by old-fashioned country people. Douglas County, Georgia, started growing fast in the 1970s, but it hadn’t yet become the overcrowded suburb it is now. A rural ethos still prevailed, and you couldn’t just call 911 if somebody started trouble. Fistfights were regarded as just part of life, and it wasn’t the kind of culture where people filed assault charges. People settled their own quarrels, and maybe a boy would get suspended a few days for fighting, but unless there was a knife or a gun involved, fighting wasn’t generally regarded as a crime.

“Never hit a girl” was a rule we were taught from childhood. Only a coward would ever raise his hand to a woman. Did “domestic violence” happen? I’m sure it did, but such people were considered trash.

Life was actually more civilized, in many ways, before we had so much “progress,” and I’m sure I’m not the only old guy who perceives this. The late, great Southern humorist Lewis Grizzard once published a book called I Haven’t Understood Anything Since 1962 which summarized his attitude toward “progress.” Fortunately, I was able to continue understanding things up until about 1993, at least, but I digress . . .

Many times when I remind readers that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, some commenters will object to my categorical statement: “Not all feminists.”

Sure. OK. Maybe there are women who call themselves “feminists” who aren’t fanatically devoted to the idea that stabbing babies in the head is among their constitutional rights. Maybe there are women who call themselves “feminists” who aren’t blue-haired “nonbinary queers” with facial piercings who enjoy beating up anyone who “misgenders” them. It’s possible, I suppose, that there are some women who call themselves “feminists” who are not constantly ranting about “misogyny” and “the male gaze” while demanding the destruction of “our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy.” However, where are these sane, normal “moderate feminists” whose existence is so often alleged, but are nowhere to be seen in the Year of Our Lord 2018?

 

When they aren’t sadistically gloating about male tears, feminists are busy collecting book royalties and fees for campus speaking appearances where they tell college girls that they are helpless victims of a “rape culture” in which all college boys are complicit. In 2018, no boy smart enough to get admitted to any reputable university in America would dare so much as speak to a female classmate for fear of being accused of “harassment.” And if a man complains about the hateful anti-male propaganda with which our universities are indoctrinating young women, feminists will cite his complaint as proof that he’s a misogynist.

You see that feminist rhetoric has become nothing but a series of insults. Feminists falsely impugn men as perpetrators of oppression. A man need not say or do anything to deserve these insulting accusations; his mere existence as a male places him in the category of “oppressor.”

If he is also (a) white and (b) heterosexual, he is literally Hitler.

Where I come from, as I have said, to insult a man is to challenge him to a fight, but it is never permissible for a man to hit a woman. The obligations of courtesy in traditional society would thus generally require women to avoid insulting men. But “progress,” you see?

Miss America is scrapping its
swimsuit competition, will no longer
judge based on physical appearance
Miss America is scrapping its swimsuit competition and will no longer judge contestants based on physical appearance, the organization announced Tuesday.
“We are no longer a pageant,” Gretchen Carlson, the first former Miss America to be named chair of the Board of Trustees of the Miss America Organization, said on “GMA.” “We are a competition.”
In place of the swimsuit portion of the competition, Miss America contestants will now take part in a live interactive session with the judges, according to the organization. . . .
The organization is also getting rid of the evening gown portion of the competition and instead asking contestants to wear attire that makes them feel confident and expresses their personal style. The contestants will also discuss how they will advance their chosen causes, called “social impact initiatives” by the Miss America Organization.
“We’ve heard from a lot of young women who say, ‘We’d love to be a part of your program but we don’t want to be out there in high heels and a swimsuit,’ so guess what, you don’t have to do that anymore,” Carlson said. “Who doesn’t want to be empowered, learn leadership skills and pay for college and be able to show the world who you are as a person from the inside of your soul.”

Ain’t that going to be a Nielsen ratings bonanza?

Yeah, Miss Iowa, tell us all about your “social impact initiative,” so you can “be empowered, learn leadership skills and pay for college,” bitch.

What? Did I actually say that? I would have used stronger language, but I’m not Samantha Bee, so I don’t get a free pass on the C-word.

These miserable bitches have ruined an American institution, not because women will thereby gain, but rather purely for spite, to deny men the pleasure of admiring the beauty of young women. Feminism is about eliminating from human existence every source of male happiness — find something men like, condemn it as “oppressive,” and destroy it.

Feminism is about revenge. It is led by the kind of women that no intelligent man would ever marry, who have created a hate movement that allows them to obtain the sadistic joy that embittered wives derive from humiliating their ex-husbands in divorce proceedings.

This is where “progress” has led us, my friends.

Nevermore shall a man be permitted to gaze upon the shapely figure of Miss Mississippi as she strides down the pageant runway in her swimsuit, thus to objectify her with his beastly heteronormative eyes.

Gone forever! Never to return! Shame upon him who wishes it otherwise! This is the fundamental transformation of the United States of America!

And I’ll tolerate no more commenters telling me “not all feminists.”

Maybe you guys are planning to tune in and watch a bunch of miserable bitches discussing their “social impact initiatives.” Not me.

Next time you see the breaking news that a deranged “incel” has gone berserk with an AR-15, remember who told you: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.



 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

‘Doxxing’ and Secondary Boycotts

Posted on | June 5, 2018 | 2 Comments

One of the favorite harassment tactics of the Left is a variation on an illegal labor-union tactic known as a secondary boycott — “a boycott of an employer with which a union does not have a dispute that is intended to induce the employer to cease doing business with another employer with which the union does have a dispute.” This tactic is outlawed under the National Labor Relations Act, but the Left uses it habitually in its efforts to silence opposition. An obvious contemporary example is the so-called “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement against Israel, which promotes protests against any person or organization that is associated with support for Israel, however indirectly. Tales of BDS harassment against Jewish students on American university campuses are an alarming testimony to how the “secondary boycott” principle makes targets of innocent people. A protest movement against the policies of the Israeli government ends up promoting hatred of American Jews who bear no responsibility for those policies. Hate must have a focus, a demonized human face as a symbol of the scapegoated enemy, and the soi-disant “progressive” Left is always seeking such targets.

If you’ve ever seen an enraged anarchist mob at close range — as I did when the “Occupy” scum tried to storm the 2011 Tea Party Summit — you realize how dangerously destructive these people can be. “Occupy” organizers had targeted that event because the hated Koch brothers were believed to be in attendance. A handful of innocent people, including journalists who were just there to cover the event, found ourselves trapped in the middle of a chanting mob trying to break down the doors while police inside held them back. What had we done (or what had the cops done) to deserve being caught up in this madness? The safety of the Koch brothers was not seriously imperiled, but the relentless demonization of them by left-wing propagandists had incited these protesters to a frenzy of hatred that was frightful to witness.

Bethany Mandel reports:

There’s a disturbing new beat of journalism emerging: technology reporters using their time and resources to expose the identities of those who choose to use the Internet anonymously. . . .
Huffington Post published an article [May 31] naming a prolific Twitter user who goes by the handle @AmyMek. They couldn’t hide the glee they took in exposing her, which smells more like score-settling than journalism, with the subheadline reading: “@AmyMek anonymously spread hate online for years. She can’t hide anymore.” . . .
There is any number of reasons why someone may choose to write anonymously, and while one could argue @AmyMek chose to turn herself into a public figure, it’s a frightening precedent.
Where Huffington Post absolutely crossed the line, however, was publishing the names of her family members who had no involvement in her online life or activism. This doxxing of her family led to their being forced to repudiate her or risk their businesses to the online mob . . .
It’s not just Huffington Post doxxing the family members of those they don’t like. Before she failed up, er, moved on to The Atlantic, Taylor Lorenz decided to expose the identities of conservative Pamela Geller’s daughters, who had (past tense) a successful Instagram-based career.

You see the purpose here is like the “secondary boycott.” It is no longer enough for the biased media to smear conservatives by labeling them “racists,” “homophobes,” etc. Now the Left wants to identify their family members, to subject their relatives to terroristic intimidation, thus to socially isolate the targeted enemy. Remember that this is being done by professional journalists employed at publications like Huffington Post and The Atlantic, and keep this in mind the next time you see a liberal complain about “harassment” from their critics. Three years ago, Kurt Schlichter warned, “Liberals May Regret Their New Rules,” and those who don’t regret the new rules yet perhaps soon will.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)

 

Category: Media Bias

The Democrat Football League

Posted on | June 5, 2018 | 1 Comment

The Philadelphia Eagles hate America:

Less than 24 hours before the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles were set to visit the White House, President Donald Trump rescinded their invitation, citing national anthem protests and boycotts from some team members. . . .
“The Philadelphia Eagles Team was invited to the White House,” [Trump] wrote [on Twitter]. “Unfortunately, only a small number of players decided to come, and we canceled the event. Staying in the Locker Room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling. Sorry!”
After the Eagles victory in Super Bowl 52, several players said they would skip the visit. Safety Malcolm Jenkins, wide receiver Torrey Smith and defensive end Chris Long all said they did not plan to attend.

Let’s clarify one thing: What was the whole kneeling-for-the-anthem protest about? When did it begin? It didn’t begin during the #BlackLivesMatter protests over Ferguson. Nobody was kneeling in 2014. No, it began while the 2016 presidential campaign was under way:

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has willingly immersed himself into controversy by refusing to stand for the playing of the national anthem in protest of what he deems are wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the United States.
His latest refusal to stand for the anthem — he has done this in at least one other preseason game — came before the 49ers’ preseason loss to Green Bay at Levi’s Stadium [Aug. 26, 2016].
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

You know what “getting away with murder” is? Still being the starting quarterback after winning only two games during the 2015 season.

Kaepernick sucks as a quarterback, and he’s even worse as a social critic. Whether or not he was prompted to his insulting anti-American gesture by activists or operatives of the Hillary Clinton campaign, the viewpoint he expressed is endorsed and advocated by the Democrat Party.

Kaepernick was seeking to influence the election, to mobilize anti-police sentiment (and anti-white sentiment) for partisan political purposes. Furthermore, these protests are based on a lie. Heather Mac Donald points out in her book The War on Cops that a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black man than the other way around (see “Putting Homicide in Perspective vs. the Media’s ‘Atrocity Narrative’ Propaganda,” Oct. 3, 2017). So to promote a false and divisive racial propaganda narrative, in an effort to help Democrats in the fall 2016 campaign, Kaepernick began protesting the national anthem — disrespecting the U.S. flag and all it stands for — and expected the media to celebrate him as a hero for doing this, which they did.

 

The media’s enthusiasm for Kaepernick’s protest gesture, however, was not shared by the general football-loving public. As the player protests proliferated, TV ratings for NFL broadcasts declined nearly 10% in 2017, and games were being played in half-empty stadiums.

To say the players have a “right” to protest is to say that Americans are obliged to keep buying tickets and watching TV broadcasts to pay the salaries of players who proudly display their hatred for America. Is it surprising that the NFL’s popularity is at an all-time low?

If NFL players want to show their solidarity with “Antifa” anarchists and purple-haired Gender Studies majors, while flipping their middle fingers in the faces of actual football fans, they can do so. But if fans stop watching the games and the team goes bankrupt, what’s the point?

Politics. It was all about the 2016 election, and when this backfired — when pissed-off patriotic football fans voted for Donald Trump — the SJWs of the NFL doubled down, turning the anti-American protests into a symbolic gesture of defiance against the newly-elected president.

Do you think the guy who’s standing up to North Korea’s nuclear missile threat can be bullied by a bunch of spoiled millionaire athletes? Of course not, so when it was learned that the majority of Philadelphia Eagles players were refusing to attend the White House event, Trump was like, “OK, if you’re going to insult me, you’re not invited at all.”

The NFL is no longer the National Football League. It is now a partisan organization, the Democrat Football League. The players are Democrats who don’t want Republicans watching them play. OK, we won’t.

Free-speech rights include the right of football players to insult people by offensive gestures, but you can’t expect people to pay you to insult them, and the NFL will learn this lesson the hard way.

“Get woke, go broke,” as Professor Reynolds says.

 

Category: Football

In The Mailbox: 06.04.18

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 06.04.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho


A few changes to the lineup this week.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: SCOTUS Rules – Have A Slice Of Freedom Cake!
Twitchy: Rose McGowan Drops Unapologetic Predator Bill Clinton
Louder With Crowder: CA Governor Jerry Brown Goes Full Nazi With Oppressive Water Restrictions


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: A Short Story For Matt Forney
American Power: New Populist, Anti-Establishment Party Takes Over In Italy, also, Ryan Anderson, Truth Overruled
American Thinker: Opening The White House To The Muslim Brotherhood, also, Life With Father – A Dying Breed
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
BattleSwarm: Daniel Ortega Is Still A Brutal Communist Scumbag, also, NY Gov Andrew Cuomo Brings His Magic Touch To Film
CDR Salamander: Another Uniform Failure, also, American Strategic Myths Through The Lens Of Star Wars, On Midrats
Da Tech Guy: Perhaps Chicago Public Schools Should Start Over Again, also, Voting Choice Pays Off
Don Surber: Left Comes To Grips With Obama’s Failure, also, Never Trumper Laments That Calling Us Racists Failed
Dustbury: Strange Search Engine Queries, also, Not One Helium Reference
First Street Journal: A Victory For Freedom Of Religion – Sort Of, also, Is the “C” Word The Equivalent Of The “N” Word?
The Geller Report: UK Home Office Says Over 23,000 A Terrorist Threat, also, Estate Of Muslim Who Plotted To Assassinate Pam Geller Sues Government Over Shooting
Hogewash: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign, also, Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day
JustOneMinute: Can Mueller Subpoena Trump? also, More On A Trump Subpoena
Legal Insurrection: SCOTUS Rules Colorado Baker Doesn’t Have To Bake The Cake, also, Bill Clinton Has Meltdown When Asked If He Ever Apologized To Monica Lewinsky
Power Line: The Spy Who Came In To Be Told, also, When The Arc Of History Refuses To Bend
Shark Tank: Chris King Proposes Bullet Tax
Shot In The Dark: Anniversary, also, My Weekend In Duluth, Watching The Weekend In Rochester
STUMP:  Mornings With Meep, also, Memory Monday
The Political Hat: California To Ration Healthcare (For The Plebeians)
This Ain’t Hell: Mack Miller – Deserter For NV Assembly, also, Confirmed Valor Thief Randy Voepel In Hiding As CA-71 Assembly Primary Looms
Victory Girls: Broward County Sheriff Denied Paramedics Entry Six Times During Parkland Shooting
Volokh Conspiracy: The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Leaves All The Big Questions Unanswered, also, GDPR And The Typhoid Marys Of The Internet
Weasel Zippers: $BUX Chair Howard Schultz Steps Down Amid Presidential Run Hints, also, TX Governor Abbott Unveils Plan For Armed Veterans In Schools
Mark Steyn: The Gripes Of Roth, also, As I Was Saying…


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Father’s Day Gifts

Category: Linkagery

‘Gender,’ Nature and Sexual Economics

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on ‘Gender,’ Nature and Sexual Economics

Cynthia Yockey has repeatedly urged me to write a book of advice to young men which, in the imaginary alternative universe where I’d actually write that book, I would call The Pleasure of Her Company. This title reflects my criticism of the self-defeating attitude one sometimes encounters in the so-called “Manosphere,” where scoring is given more value than winning. In my reckless youth, I confess that the quantitative assessment approach (euphemisms are sometimes necessary) prevailed in a tactical sense, but I never entirely forgot that the ultimate goal of the game was marriage, “Happily Ever After” and so forth. Having been married nearly 30 years, having seen our oldest three children already married with children of their own, while our youngest three (still teenagers) would seem also to have good future prospects, I yet hesitate to assert my expertise in this matter. Nevertheless . . .

The Pleasure of Her Company is a title that captures the nature of this goal, and the source of male pleasure in the pursuit. When I was still quite young, about 15 and a total loser with the ladies, I sought advice from a guy a couple years older who had his act together and had no shortage of notches on his belt. “You know,” he said, “after a while, it’s not really about the sex. It’s the thrill of the hunt.”

Mind-blowing. Desperate as any teenager loser who ever lived, I couldn’t believe this, and it took more than a decade for me to realize how right he was. No point going into details, but anticipation of the trophy inspires the hunter more than his appetite for venison. And this attitude is nearly as harmful to the hunter as to his prey. (Go ahead, feminists — denounce my youthful self, I won’t defend him.) Why was I so reckless and impatient, so driven to “score”? Why was no amount of success ever enough? One evening, after I’d been married a few years and had three kids, I heard some young bachelors in the office talking about their romantic exploits, and shared with them a bit of strategic thought on the subject, which they seemed not to find credible. My pride was somewhat wounded, as if my extraordinary success was being cast in doubt, and decided to sit down to add up The List. Oh, my goodness . . .

How could I have ever imagined I was losing all those years? A skinny homely guy like me had no reason to hope for so much success, as I calculated the total number divided by the years in the game, and realized I had been competing with an illusion of an ideal, The Playboy.

Every lonely teenage boy suffers from the thought that other guys are racking up the home runs, while he can’t even get to second base. So when he finally connects and watches the ball go sailing over the fence in center field (to extend the metaphor), he’s not satisfied to relax in the clubhouse after the victory. No, he starts planning to become the Major League champ, the slugger, the MVP, the all-time winner.

A bad attitude, which I condemn in hindsight, denouncing my youthful self. To quote an old Willie Nelson song, “The night life ain’t no good life, but it’s my life” — or it once was. No need for me to do an update of The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Although I’m pretty sure I never succumbed to the Manichean heresy (because I didn’t even know what that was), my sins were both numerous and various. At the final judgment, I can only hope for mercy, as I have deserved only wrath. But this is not a sermon or a theology lecture, it’s just a blog post.

My point in elaborating so extensively on my wicked past is to establish the authority of my experience in speaking of human nature.

Why is the loser losing? The rampage in Toronto by “The Unf–kable Canadian Menace” sparked a resurrection of feminist denunciations of “toxic masculinity,” “male entitlement,” etc., because the homicidal loser called himself an “incel” and referenced Elliot Rodger, the Creepy Little Weirdo who perpetrated the Isla Vista massacre. Is it true, as feminists insist, that so-called “Red Pill” discourse is an expression of misogyny that inspires violence against women? Or is it rather the case, as I suspect, that much of the advice shared in these discussions is just not helpful in solving the problems of losers? Waking up early Saturday morning, I spent about three hours doing a Twitter thread on this topic:

The sexual marketplace is governed by forces that mirror the economics of supply and demand. Humans respond to incentives, but not all responses are rational or advantageous. Many of those in the so-called “manosphere” speak the language of sociobiology, although it’s not clear that they actually understand the fundamental concepts pioneered by E.O. Wilson, Lionel Tiger, et al.
For example, any intelligent person reading the “manosphere” soon gets weary of the dumbed-down and stereotypical “Alpha”/“Beta” discourse. Much of this rhetoric is badly misguided or erroneous.
In nature, the “Alpha male” describes social dominance or leadership within a group. In human life, many non-natural factors influence social dynamics. We are not wolves or orangutangs.
Dumbed-down talk about “Alpha” and “Beta” males in the “manosphere,” particularly in PUA (pickup artist) forums, ignores or misrepresents much of what is useful and valid in the theory of sociobiology. First, the advantageous traits of the “Alpha” male are natural. Some men just naturally have traits associated with dominance — taller, more athletic, more extroverted, etc. — which can’t be taught or learned.
It is foolish to imagine that a short, awkward, introverted male can, by reading a bunch of vulgar pseudo-scientific discourse on Red Pill blogs, become a studly “Alpha male.” Not. Gonna. Happen. . . .

You can click here to read the whole thing in a single page.

Cynthia Yockey says I should write a book, a task I dread, but please remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!



 

 

Category: The Pleasure of Her Company

Not Exactly News: Democrats Are Lying

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on Not Exactly News: Democrats Are Lying

Honestly, I can’t be bothered to notice every time a Democrat tells a lie. Every single word they say is false. You’ll catch an Orthodox rabbi eating bacon before you’ll ever hear a Democrat telling the truth. Sometimes, however, I feel the need to remind you how dishonest they are:

A Democratic senator is accusing the Trump administration of being part of a “cruel” effort against unauthorized immigrant children after he was denied entry to a Texas immigration center for unaccompanied minors when he showed up asking for a tour of the facility.
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley — who acknowledged that he had been told in advance he wouldn’t be admitted to the facility — told CNN’s “New Day” Monday morning that he believes President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Homeland Security “do not want members of Congress or the public to know what’s going on” in the center.
“It’s damaging to children, putting them through a horrific experience in a land where they know no one and they don’t know where they’re being sent and don’t understand why they’re being sent just as a way to be, if you will, cruel as a strategy of deterrence, not deterrence from people crossing the border, deterrence from people seeking asylum,” Merkley said.

The White House just emailed me the following statement from Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley:

“Senator Merkley is irresponsibly spreading blatant lies about routine immigration enforcement while smearing hardworking, dedicated law enforcement officials at ICE and CBP. He voted against closing the ‘catch-and-release’ loopholes used by child smugglers, and his reckless open borders policies are responsible for the permanent separation of thousands of American families who have been forced to bury their loved ones. No one is taking a public safety lecture from Sen. Merkley, whose own policies endanger children, empower human smugglers and drug cartels, and allow violent criminal aliens to flood into American communities.”

In other words, Jeff Merkley is a liar. He is dishonestly complaining about a problem created by policies that Democrats support, and he opposes good-faith efforts by Republicans to solve this problem.



 

 

Category: Democrats, Immigration

A Narrow Victory for Liberty

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

First, the news:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. . . .
Two of the court’s four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also was the author of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

Before getting to the commentary, let me interrupt to say that (a) the “landmark 2015 decision” was wrong — see Justice Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell — and also (b) the description of the decision as “legalizing gay marriage” is misleading. What the court majority did was, in essence, to abolish the political existence, in contravention of the 10th Amendment, of the 31 states that had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage in those states. Under the doctrine of Obergefell, the states are reduced to mere administrative jurisdictions of a centralized national authority. But I digress . . .

Paula Bolyard at PJMedia:

While the decision is a victory for Phillips, it didn’t settle the question of whether others similarly situated would have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake or participate in other expressive arts in violation of their conscience. The court merely said that Phillips was treated unfairly by the Commission. . . .
In other words, not a lot has changed with this decision, except to get Jack Phillips out from under the thumb of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which received a sharp knuckle-rapping from the justices. Far from being a monumental religious liberty decision, the narrow scope of the case means that larger issues will perhaps be left for a future Supreme Court to decide.

(Hat-tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)

My friend and podcasting partner John Hoge offers commentary on this “narrow” victory, which we may liken to the Battle of Antietam. The bloodiest single day in American military history was a stalemate. McClellan’s Union army lost more than 2,000 men killed and nearly 10,000 wounded, but failed to “destroy the Rebel army,” as Lincoln had urged in his telegram before the battle. The Confederates had more than 1,500 men killed and nearly 8,000 wounded, but still held their position when the battle was over, and remained in line the whole next day, welcoming McClellan to renew the assault, which he declined to do. General Lee’s army retreated south of the Potomac without further injury. While the Confederate invasion of the North was turned back, the South was still unbeaten and, if anything, the invincible reputation of Lee’s army was enhanced. The war went on another two-and-half years.

Of course, this analogy is relevant to the issue of state’s rights, which is central to the Colorado dispute and “gay rights” generally. If states do not have the right to self-governance, so that the people through their state legislatures cannot write laws about marriage, how is it that states can empower a Civil Rights Commission which could trample the religious liberty of a Christian bakery owner like Jack Phillips?

It is the centralization of authority in Washington, and especially the Supreme Court’s effort to arrogate to itself the power to dictate law to the states in clear contradiction of the Constitution, that produced this conflict, as it has produced so many others in our history. Our nation’s Founding Fathers never intended the federal government to have the kind of power it now claims, nor could they have imagined that anyone would ever interpret the Constitution this way. More than 150 years after that bloodbath at Antietam, we are still fighting over the same issues, and this “narrow victory” for liberty portends a long struggle ahead.

UPDATE: David French writes:

Since the rise of the gay-marriage movement, it has become fashionable to decry dissenters as haters and bigots, to attempt to write them out of polite society. . . . Politicians thunder against Christian bigots. Media organizations put the words “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the expression of deeply held religious beliefs is a mere pretext, used to conceal darker motivations. And ideologues in state agencies give full vent to their rage, mocking faithful Christians as if they stand in the shoes of slavers and murderers.
Today, the Supreme Court said, “enough.” Today the Court breathed a bit of life back into religous-liberty jurisprudence.

French says this ruling is less “narrow” than some have claimed. And I know that some of my readers despise French as a #NeverTrump type, but on the subject of First Amendment rights, he is perfectly sound.



 

Category: Gays, Marriage, Religion, Supreme Court

Florida Child Pornography Suspect Resists Arrest, Which Proves to Be a Bad Decision

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on Florida Child Pornography Suspect Resists Arrest, Which Proves to Be a Bad Decision

 

The sheriff’s department in Polk County, Florida, was investigating a child pornography case, which brought deputies Christine Smith and Trent Medley to a residence in Dundee, where Andres Estrada, 21, lived with his family, according to Sheriff Grady Judd:

During an undercover child porn investigation, the Sheriff’s Office received information that porn had been downloaded to a device at the Eighth Street address. The officers went to the home about 10:30 a.m. and found Estrada there with his brother, Claudio Estrada, 18.
Both brothers were cooperative with the deputies, voluntarily surrendering a laptop and cellphones. Andres Estrada voluntarily unlocked his phone.
When one deputy found a child porn image on Andres Estrada’s phone, he dropped his head as if to acknowledge it. Medley told Smith to “read him his rights” and walked outside.
“The investigation was going very well at this point,” Judd said.
But Estrada turned violent as Smith was making the arrest, yelling, “You’re not going to do this to me.” He lunged at the deputy, and they landed on the floor with Estrada on top, beating Smith about the head.
“He outweighed her by 100 pounds, and he was viciously beating her,” the sheriff said. “It was a violent, vicious fight.”
When Medley heard his partner screaming for help, he rushed back inside the home. He saw Claudio Estrada trying to break up the fight.
Medley fired at least three shots when he observed Andres Estrada reaching for Smith’s gun and ignoring his commands to get off her. Judd could not say where the bullets struck Estrada. . . .
Andres Estrada had no criminal record, but there were three incidents in which he was detained under Florida’s Baker Act, which allows for the involuntarily detention of persons for mental health problems, particularly if they appear to pose a danger to themselves or others.

The deceased suspect was crazy, and Crazy People Are Dangerous.

 

Category: Crime
« go back — keep looking »