New York TImes publishes its 'Jew-Tracker'

Anti-Semitism is a powerful force on the Left and is taking hold in much of the Democrat party:

NY TIMES LAUNCHES ITS JEW-TRACKER [UPDATED]

The New York Times today offers up a table examining the Democratic (but not Republican) Senators and House members opposed to Obama’s Iran agreement, noting whether they are Jewish and the proportion of Jewish constituents in their state or district. Like this:

If they had to wear yellow stars, it'd be even easier to keep track of them. 

A voice in the gay wilderness

Marc Ambinder:

...[W]hat really made me angry was the assumption by Bunning that the government best enforces marriage laws at the point of its gun... 

I find the government's conduct more offensive to my sense of justice than I do Davis' refusal to comply with the law. And I say this as a dude who had to wait years to marry another dude. 

A lust for vengeance deprived Kim Davis of her freedom rapidly and comprehensively. And no, her refusal to recognize gay marriage rights is not nearly as offensive as what was done to her. Her clerk issued the marriage licenses she refused to issue. The context matters, as does the actual harm done by her to gay people, which, really, isn't that much.

What made me steaming mad was the delight expressed by many of my own fellow travelers at her imprisonment. We bathed in the glory of her personal life, too. That's offensive. Her personal life has no relevance at all to the issue at hand. And no, she did not invite such scrutiny by taking a public stand against gay marriage. All that matters is her conduct in office. 

Those on the side of what's right should never revel in the pain of others. Gays and our allies are in the right. Now, let us set an example for how to treat those who are not.

Ambinder certainly understands that what was done to Davis was a crime. He regrets it because it was an affront to law and justice, not (he says) because it was a strategic catastrophe for the gaystapo.

He is in the minority in the gay-marriage supporting community: most of the gaystapo reveled in Davis' imprisonment. What Ambinder (and the other few gays and allies who don't support imprisoning Christians for living in accordance with their faith) don't yet understand is that destroying the livelihood and jailing Christians is the purpose of gay marriage. Gay marriage is a tool for excising Christianity from the public square. What is happening to Davis and to many Christian businessmen and women across the country is central to the strategy of gay marriage activists.

Only a tiny fraction of gays will ever 'marry', and all of the legal and social benefits are offered with civil unions. But Christians are being persecuted, so the gaystapo can rightfully celebrate the growing success of their cause.

The strategic outcome of Davis' jailing is that the true nature of the gay marriage movement is being revealed with stunning clarity. 

David French on the Obergefell Coup

This is a must read.

Excerpt:

It’s not the first time the Supreme Court has stepped into the most consequential of legal questions, removed them from the Democratic process, and did so by essentially making it all up. The Court’s horrific Dred Scott opinion helped spark the Civil War. Roe v. Wade legalized mass murder. And the instant after each judicial coup, its defenders solemnly invoke the “rule of law” to force the masses to comply. Yet the rule of law requires both lawful enactment and lawful enforcement.

In fact, the rule of law has increasingly become a mere talking point, a weapon wielded by the Courts and the Obama administration when it likes a given legal outcome, but disregarded when pesky things like “democracy” and “procedure” interfere with the demands of social justice. For the Obama administration, even proper regulatory rulemaking can be too burdensome. Rule by executive order or even departmental letter replaces constitutional process, with the social-justice Left cheering every step of the way...

I have deep respect for the rule of law, for our Constitution, and for our federalist democratic traditions. And that’s exactly why I have no respect for Roe, for Obergefell, or for any assertion that enforcing those revolutionary acts represents American constitutional government in action. Kim Davis committed a lawless act. But so did Justice Kennedy. His superior power and influence does not change that salient fact. The American people are indeed “ruled,” but increasingly it is by men, not law.

I disagree by the way that Davis committed a "lawless act"-- she was fully within her Free Exercise rights, and both federal and state law required that her constitutional right to Free Exercise of Religion be accommodated in the least coercive manner (i.e. that the couples be referred to another clerk in another county), which the judge (criminally) failed to do. 

Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are the people who broke the law. In a just nation they would already be impeached, removed and on trial for violating the constitutional rights of 300 million people. 

Read the whole thing. It is the best analysis I've read of our nation's crisis of democracy and judicial lawlessness. 

Good news: epidemic of violence against blacks isn't a threat to Ed Brayton

Ed Brayton reassures us that everything is ok.

It seems to Ed that the Republican outcry against incitement to murder cops and the resulting crime wave in black communities is just a Republican political ploy:

All that is going on here is that the Republicans are pandering to their base. Psych studies show that those who identify as conservative tend to be highly focused on stability, authority and in-group vs out-group morality. That’s why conservative politics is so universally concerned with being anti-minority and anti-immigrant. It’s also why the focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being. In short, fear is the primary motivator for the Republican base and so that is what they sell.

Liberals cheer the jailing of a Christian clerk who asserts her First Amendment rights vis-a-vi gay marriage, and then they accuse conservatives of "obsession with authority and in-group vs out-group morality".

Try expressing a conservative opinion on a college campus today, and you'll learn a thing or two about liberal obsession with "authority and in-group vs out-group morality".

The culture of political correctness, which is totalitarianism with a velvet glove, is nothing more than an obsession with authority and in-group vs out-group morality.

And conservative politics is not "so universally concerned with being anti-minority and anti-immigrant". Segregation was a Progressive Democrat social program--social engineering writ large. The first Progressive Democrat president--Wilson-- re-segregated the federal government, after conservative Republicans had desegregated it for the half-century after the Civil War.

Segregationists were part-and-parcel of FDR's New Deal coalition, and even the (few) Democrats who weren't racists themselves prostituted themselves to segregationists to keep hold of power. FDR put Hugo Black on the Supreme Court--Black was a senior-level Klansman from the Alabama Klan who championed FDR's New Deal through the Senate. Black later applied the phrase from the Klan's initiation oath--"separation of church and state" (designed to defund Catholic schools) to the Establishment Clause in Everson.

Most of the major segregationists of the mid-20th century--George Wallace, William Fullbright, Al Gore senior, Orval Faubus--were Progressive Democrats, not conservatives and not Republicans.

Conservatives and Republicans were the most prominent opponents of segregation, and they remain the most prominent defenders of real civil rights--color-blind application of the law in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps the most disturbing line in Ed's witless post is this:

It’s also why the [conservative Republican] focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being.

The reality is that neither conservative Republicans nor pasty-white liberal Democrats like Ed Brayton face a significant threat to their well-being from violence.

The people who are threatened by the massive Democrat-caused crime wave of 2015 are blacks living in inner cities, who daily have to face the catastrophe of liberal Democrat policies that have decimated their neighborhoods and policies that have now made the police reluctant to pursue effective policies against crime.

Crime has sky-rocketed since the Black Lives Matter "movement", and it is black people who have been paying the price for liberal moral preening and the Democrat party get-out-the-vote drive.

Conservatives and Republicans--the same folks who fought Progressive Democrat segregation a couple of generations ago--are still fighting for black lives and for safety and prosperity in black neighborhoods.

Rudy Guiliani saved thousands of black lives with his remarkably successful policies on crime reduction. What has Al Sharpton saved, besides money?

Ben Carson and Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke are two black Americans who understand the importance of conservative principles and good police work in protecting black lives.

Ed Brayton has dismissed Sheriff Clark with the racial epithet "Uncle Tom".

Ed Brayton is content as long as he is not personally threatened by the massive wave of violence Democrats have caused in black neighborhoods across America. After all, from Ed's perspective, it's not white liberals who are being killed in the streets of Baltimore, and vilifying cops certainly serves Democrats' political ends.

I've worked in inner city hospitals, and I've spent many nights digging bullets out of the brains of young black men raised in a culture that is largely the product of liberal Democrat politics. I've had nights where we had to stack the bodies in a corner of the trauma room because we couldn't get the dead people to the morgue fast enough to make room for the new people who just got shot.

I've worked in abattoirs fed by Progressive Democrat politics--broken families, multi-generation welfare  dependency, liberal approaches to crime control and moronic police policies. I've seen what Democrats do to communities.

But as long as Ed Brayton is safe and able to morally preen, that's what counts.

Ed Brayton doesn't give a shit about black lives.

All that is going on here is that the Republicans are pandering to their base. Psych studies show that those who identify as conservative tend to be highly focused on stability, authority and in-group vs out-group morality. That’s why conservative politics is so universally concerned with being anti-minority and anti-immigrant. It’s also why the focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being. In short, fear is the primary motivator for the Republican base and so that is what they sell. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/09/09/so-much-for-the-war-on-cops-part-2/#sthash.oHkbEfBW.dpuf

All that is going on here is that the Republicans are pandering to their base. Psych studies show that those who identify as conservative tend to be highly focused on stability, authority and in-group vs out-group morality. That’s why conservative politics is so universally concerned with being anti-minority and anti-immigrant. It’s also why the focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being. In short, fear is the primary motivator for the Republican base and so that is what they sell. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/09/09/so-much-for-the-war-on-cops-part-2/#sthash.oHkbEfBW.dpuf

All that is going on here is that the Republicans are pandering to their base. Psych studies show that those who identify as conservative tend to be highly focused on stability, authority and in-group vs out-group morality. That’s why conservative politics is so universally concerned with being anti-minority and anti-immigrant. It’s also why the focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being. In short, fear is the primary motivator for the Republican base and so that is what they sell. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/09/09/so-much-for-the-war-on-cops-part-2/#sthash.oHkbEfBW.dpufAll that is going on here is that the Republicans are pandering to their base. Psych studies show that those who identify as conservative tend to be highly focused on stability, authority and in-group vs out-group morality. That’s why conservative politics is so universally concerned with being anti-minority and anti-immigrant. It’s also why the focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being. In short, fear is the primary motivator for the Republican base and so that is what they sell. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/09/09/so-much-for-the-war-on-cops-part-2/#sthash.oHkbEfBW.dpuf

It’s also why the focus is always on looming and vastly exaggerated threats to our well-being. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/09/09/so-much-for-the-war-on-cops-part-2/#sthash.oHkbEfBW.dpufv

Feminazis vrs Frat Boys: Act 1

This is funny (with my comments):

College Promises To Punish Students Who Heckled Mandatory Play 

A liberal arts college in North Carolina is pledging to identify and potentially punish students who heckled a play about sexual assault the college forced them to attend.“It Stops Here,” an original play produced by students at Greensboro College, was first performed last Wednesday before a crowd of students, but the performance didn’t go as planned. According to people at the play, members of the audience frequently heckled the cast and shouted sexually explicit remarks.

They no doubt learned the sexually explicit remarks in their Queer and Gender Studies classes .

“Many of the boys started calling out ‘She wanted it, it’s not rape,’ and making masturbation noises,” stage manager Claire Sellers told a local news station. Sellers said the remarks were so excessive that cast members “became physically ill and vomited after the show because they were so vulgar.” 

They should have people heckle the rehearsals, to get the cast used to it.

Sellers also criticized school faculty members, saying some were near the hecklers but did nothing to stop them.

The students were seated in Sanctuary Rows, so they were legally immune from the rules.

Notably, though, the hecklers do not appear to have been invading the performance to disrupt it. Rather, attendance at the play was mandatory for all incoming freshmen at Greensboro, as well as for some older student-athletes who were required to attend by coaches. 

One of the play’s performers, Emily Parker, told theater blogger and professor Howard Sherman that the attendees were apparently unhappy about being forced to see the play. 

It actually sounds rather entertaining.

“A particular group of boys was talking rudely,” said Parker. “They were talking loudly about how they didn’t want to be there and how they thought he [the male actor] was gay. Typical teenage boy stuff. ‘He’s so gay’.

What's wrong with being gay? It was a compliment.

”Greensboro has responded firmly, not only condemning the playgoers’ heckling but promising to punish it. Severely, if necessary... 

The worst punishment they could impose would to make the audience see it again.

The college says it has launched an investigation under Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in education.“Under our new Sexual Misconduct policy, the comments that have been reported qualify as sexual harassment,” said college president Lawrence Czarda in a campuswide email. “The college is pursuing a formal complaint of sexual misconduct against the students and is working to identify them. Upon results of the investigation, those found responsible will face disciplinary consequences.” What sort of consequences the students could face is unclear, but the school’s penalties for sexual harassment go all the way up to expulsion."

The students could defend themselves in a disciplinary hearing by saying that they thought the actors were conservative speakers invited to speak on campus. No one ever gets punished for disrupting them.

It seems that Ed Brayton doesn't give a damn about the slaughter of cops or of black Americans

My my. Ed Brayton really steps in it.

Ed:

So Much for that ‘War on Cops’ the Right is Imagining

A police officer is killed in the line of duty. Right wing pundits and talk show hosts immediately seize on the opportunity to blame it on their political enemies, claiming that President Obama and Black Lives Matter is fomenting a “war on cops” and that this is the deadly result of their attempts to make the police stop engaging in widespread abuse, particularly against dark-skinned people. The problem: The evidence clearly disproves their argument.

[quoting link] Despite urgent warnings from police and others about a “war on cops” allegedly linked to the Black Lives Matter protest movement, statistics show 2015 is in fact shaping up to be one of the safest years for law enforcement in a generation.
According to the Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP), which keeps data on officer deaths going back over 100 years, 24 officers have been shot and killed by suspects this year. This puts the US on pace for 36 non-accidental, firearm-related police fatalities in 2015. Each one of such deaths is a tragedy for the officers killed, their families and the communities they serve, but this would be the lowest total in 25 years, aside from 2013 which saw 31 such deaths.

Let's take a look at this. 

There certainly have been assaults on and killings of cops that can be linked to the anti-cop hate peddled by Black Lives Matter--the execution in December of the two NYC cops by Ismaaiyl Brinsley who put up a message on Instagram:“I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,” he wrote with hashtags #RIPErivGarner and #RIPMikeBrown. “They Take 1 Of Ours … Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.” And of course there was the very recent murder of police officer Don Allen, in which the killers wrote anti-police slogans in his blood. There have been several ambush attacks on police officers in the past couple of weeks. All of this is taking place in an environment of hatred vented against police officers, including public protests chanting "What do we want?-- Dead Cops!--When do we want them? Now!"and "Pigs in a blanket--fry 'em like bacon!"

There is obvious organized incitement to kill cops, and several cops have been murdered execution-style.

But Ed cites statistics that show that murder of police officers is down considerably over the past year--one of the lowest totals in many years.

How so?

The answer is obvious. Since police officers were vilified and attacked following the completely justified shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson in 2014, police officers across the nation have been reluctant to proactively engage criminals--not only for fear of being killed, but for fear of having to use deadly force and face the liberal lynch mob.

The consequence of this police withdrawal from confrontation is evident. The murder rate in American cities has risen sharply over the past year, and this is clearly the result of a change in police tactics--a movement away from stop and frisk and away from proactive policing.

The result has been the worst slaughter of young black men in 20 years:

As the The New York Times reported, murder is up 76 percent in Milwaukee, 60 percent in St. Louis, 56 percent in Baltimore, and 44 percent in D.C. Blue America is awash in red.

So in reply to Ed's moronic argument that diminished murders of police means that BLM is not killing cops: the reason cop murders are down is that cops are not doing their jobs as aggressively and as well as they have since the early 1990's. Cops are laying low, and avoiding confrontations, and the result is a massive wave of violence that is killing hundreds of young black men.

Black Live Matter has not only killed several police officers in execution-style ambushes, but it has killed hundreds of people--mostly blacks--because it has seriously hampered police from doing their job effectively.

The evidence Brayton cites to downplay the violence incited by BLM in fact points to massive violence caused by BLM against black people.

In fact, one can even do a calculus of police sacrifice to save black lives: when police were aggressively doing their jobs, more cops were dying but more black lives were being saved. The numbers show that police officers have been sacrificing their own lives to save the lives of the people in the communities they protect--mostly black communities.

The drop in murdered cops and the corresponding rise in inner city murders poignantly demonstrates the sacrifices police officers have made to protect their communities.

A lazy libtard blogger like Brayton pops his Cheetos and types away, uncaring that his idiot screeds are inciting the killing of cops execution-style and the slaughter of blacks in horrendous numbers.

All Brayton cares about is moral preening, which is all any liberal really gives a shit about.

Meanwhile, police officers--a million hard-working courageous men and women of all races--will go tonight into neighborhoods Brayton would never enter and risk their lives to save the lives of people who have been incited to hate them.

The 2015 Democrat murder wave--the slaughter of hundreds of people in inner cities, mostly young black men-- was caused by liberal scum like Brayton and Black Lives Matter.  

Schlafly: jailing of Kim Davis is unconstitutional and illegal

Phyllis Schlafly:

David Bunning... has wrongly sent Kim Davis to jail for her beliefs, without respecting or accommodating her sincere Christian beliefs.

Local officials are required to support the laws of the United States, but no federal law requires every county official to issue marriage licenses, which are available in many other offices throughout Kentucky. Even Judge Bunning admitted that “plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses” by traveling to another county, so the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling was not violated by the clerk’s decision to suspend all licenses while she seeks accommodation under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Judge David Bunning previously came to national attention when he required the students and staff of the public schools in neighboring Boyd County to attend mandatory diversity training, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.” Bunning, who also ruled against a law banning partial-birth abortion, was nominated for his lifetime job at the age of only 34, and was confirmed because his father was a Senator, despite having inadequate legal experience and an “unqualified” rating from the American Bar Association.

As an elected public official, Kim Davis should not have been sent to jail by an unelected federal judge who can cite no federal law that she ever violated. Her imprisonment is the result of a judicial supremacy unrestrained by the checks and balances that apply to all other branches of government...

A federal court has imprisoned a county official to force her to change the way she does her job, without any federal statute to justify such an order.

It is not “rule of law” to imprison someone based on judge-made law; it is “rule by judges.” Kim Davis is not committing civil disobedience, because she has not violated any law. She was arrested, humiliated with a mug shot and imprisoned, merely for abiding by state law and the Bible...

If San Francisco can be a sanctuary city, let's allow Rowan County, Kentucky to be a “sanctuary county” where the Biblical view of marriage continues to be honored and respected.

The government has a legal and constitutional obligation to accommodate Davis' religious beliefs. Davis is complying with the law--there is not a single law she has violated. Bunning's order to jail her is illegal--he has not cited a single federal law that Davis has violated.

Davis has complied with all laws. She, not Judge Bunning, is enforcing Kentucky law, which prohibits SSM. She is under no obligation to obey an illegal order by an unqualified federal judge who is fabricating law based on an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.