-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A CBS News/New York Times poll shows that two thirds of Americans believe that President Obama’s recent “evolution” on gay marriage was a political stunt while one quarter thinks his change was “mostly because he thinks it is right.”
Amusingly, an Obama campaign official claimed that the poll used a “biased sample.” Surely she recognizes that this poll was done by two of the most pro-Obama organizations in America.
Perhaps what we are witnessing, pace Andrew Sullivan, is America’s First Gay Ex-President.
Political bettors also don’t think Obama’s flip-flop-flip (he was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it) is a winner, with Obama’s betting odds (to be elected president) slightly lower than they were prior to his May 9th position change. Still, Obama leads Mitt Romney in current betting by about 20 points, roughly 59 percent to 39 percent. (I’ve been buying Romney and selling Obama just a few points from these levels.)
Despite the issue not working so far, Democrats are doubling down, with 17 Senate Democrats (actually 16 Democrats plus socialist Bernie Sanders) asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop refusing green cards to foreign gay “spouses” of Americans.
It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships, and even with gay marriage, but we’re not comfortable with radicals shoving their views down our throats, even to the point of the President refusing to defend the duly-passed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.
Voters recognize the tyranny of (so-called) good intentions when we see it, and that’s why the Democrats’ full-court pander on “gay rights” and gay marriage will not work except among college students and as a short-term fund-raising ploy — which is probably more than enough for an Obama campaign which has struggled to raise money outside of Hollywood and Manhattan. Of course, this only helps them raise money in Hollywood and Manhattan, but those are very fat arteries for the leeches that are Obama bundlers (of whom a reported one in six is gay) to bite into.
It is also worth noting that the “gay rights” activists are hearing what they want to hear, rather than what Obama is really saying: this president, who never found an issue that he didn’t want the federal government to dominate, says that individual states should decide on the permissibility of gay marriage. This following last Tuesday’s vote in North Carolina which by a stunning 61 percent to 39 percent margin became the 30th state to ban gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage has never passed a statewide vote of the people in any state in our republic. If “gay rights” are the moral equivalent of civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women, as Obama claims, how can he justify leaving the issue to the states — something few people (other than true racists) would have said about key 1960s civil rights legislation.
Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue of gay marriage until Joe Biden pushed him off the fence. He’s still trying to have it both ways, but it’s not working. Conservatives, and some independents, are being pushed toward Romney while Obama shores up part, but not the African-American part, of his voting base. If his gleeful gay bundlers were paying attention to Obama’s actual policy prescription, they would be a lot less happy than Ricky Martin seems to be. But when you have the “first gay president,” facts be damned! How can you not just write a check?
Again, despite all the media frenzy and Hollywood hosannas, in the real world Americans are not fooled by Barack Obama’s transparently political ploy.
View all comments (90) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/15/were-not-as-stupid-as-barack-o
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Maxwell| 5.15.12 @ 10:59AM
With all due respect, I do believe in same sex marriage, same wonderful wife, same sex. As for same sex mariage, not so much. I must be getting to old to change my views based on the laws in the Bible.
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.15.12 @ 11:23AM
"It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships (as we should be), and even with gay marriage, "
Uh, no.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 11:43AM
Kaminsky would like you to check your brain and faith in at the door and not bother with the Judeo-Christian morality of our founding, human history, or even Biology 101 when readying his articles on gay marriage. Kamiboy is an avowed non-conservative, Libertine Voluntaryist, and atheist...
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 11:53AM
It's got nothing to do with the Bible.
You didn't need the Bible to conclude that this is a instance of Western decadence, that many in our party don't believe can or should be resisted, and thus they're determined to make their peace therewith.
For peckers, function follows form. Man and woman are sexually compatible. One enters, the other receives. The vagina secretes so as to provide lubricant for ease of entry. Not so the anus. Nobody's anus secrets anything. Defecation to be sure, but not secretion of fluids to provide ease of entry.
Repeated insertions of objects into the anus causes pain, bruising, bleeding and hems.
Which demonstrates that one behavior is natural, consistent with form, and the other behavior against nature, inconsistent with form.
Now I know we're none of us supposed to see things in such a stark light, because conclusions are dictated uncomfortable with the current zeitgeist. But just because the present time chooses to glorify and laud such behavior, such couplings, doesn't mean that it's in any way healthy for those in the present time to do so.
This is surely a sign of the times......
jbm59| 5.15.12 @ 1:37PM
Good God, man. Stop it, I'm trying to eat lunch.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 2:38PM
Sorry...............
Mike 3/505| 5.15.12 @ 1:58PM
"We're Not as Stupid as Barack Obama Thinks"
According to the CNN poll, at least a quarter of us are.
SpiralArchitect| 5.15.12 @ 5:06PM
The gay leading the blind?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.15.12 @ 11:02AM
A wise man once said: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time”. Now, who was that? I'm sure it was a Democrat. Did President FDR say it on TV to calm people when the stock market crashed in 1929, or did JFK say it at the Berlin Wall? Maybe it was Grover Cleveland when asked about his rumored affair and any progeny, or Wilson on the League of Nations?
weaverofdreams_2000| 5.15.12 @ 1:06PM
There was no TV in FDR's time.
The most common attribution for this saying is Abe Lincoln.
So you seem to have gotten it all wrong.
Cheers!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.15.12 @ 9:56PM
Jackass, I know it was Lincoln. I was mocking Biden, who made the FDR quote.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.15.12 @ 10:09PM
In case you were caught up in dreams in 2008, and missed it:
"In a sit-down interview with CBS Evening News’ Katie Couric that aired Sept. 22, Sen. Joe Biden tried to make a historical comparison between political leadership during the trying economic times of today and yesterday. But he got some of his history wrong. Biden told Couric: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.”
Check out what even Fact Check.org had to say at the time: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....elevision/
For someone who tries to post sarcastic remarks, you fail miserably at recognizing them.
Chesterbelloc | 5.15.12 @ 11:04AM
No Kaminsky, the elites celebrate homosexual acts. The American people are resigned to the crowding out of morality from the public square.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 12:00PM
Morality is now seen as an oppressive device, intended to shame and vilify people pursuing their genetically dictated sexual hankerings.
Judeo Christianity, upon which this country was built, without which its institutions cannot prosper and thrive, is now seen as THE enemy, which must first be banished from the public square, then banished from the private home.
This is a disaster.
A flat out disaster, the consequences of which will surely be dire, for no society on the face of the Earth has ever embraced such behavior in the manner and the way that Western elites now demand that all of us, ALL OF US, every single one of us, now must do.
Kaminsky comment was bizarre, and profoundly anti-Conservative.
Conservatives value tradition, not by habit, but because tradition often represents the wisdom of the ages, distilled through the hard anvil and trial and error.
To jettison the wisdom of the ages, the considered judgement of generation upon generation, back through the Age of Antiquity, all so as to ingratiate yourself with a culture that is increasingly poisonous and clueless, and despises us anyway, is just brain dead.
Brain dead.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 12:07PM
Kaminsky admitted again this weekend that he is NOT a "conservative". He calls himself an "objectivist", or in Lib-speak, a secular humanist and Libertine...
DRed| 5.15.12 @ 1:02PM
As a liberal, I can assure you that secular humanism and objectivism are not the same thing. Objectivists reject altruism and social responsibility.
weaverofdreams_2000| 5.15.12 @ 1:07PM
Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 2:54PM
As was the case of Murray Rothbard and the Randians, many present day Libertarians are secular humanists/atheists - just like their Libertine cousins the Liberals...
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 3:39PM
Please, stop embarrassing yourself, and study some history.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 4:19PM
Rebutted like a true Alinksyite -- game over...
Indy| 5.15.12 @ 11:06AM
Most of the media thinks voters are stupid. O'Keefe was at it again, from one of Obama's favorite campaign spots, UNC and other places in NC
http://michellemalkin.com/2012.....much-more/
Kenny| 5.15.12 @ 11:08AM
"It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships (as we should be), "
As we should be!!!
Is this Kaminsky guy nuts?
The reasons why homosexuality is more tolerated today is only because of the ongoing brainwashing in the public schools on the matter and the incessant and odious propaganda from the media and Hollywood.
The acceptance of homosexuality is nothing to be proud of; it's more a sign of how sick and morally misguided America has become. Fact.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 11:45AM
Concur!
That was one weird, very weird editorial comment thrown into his post.
Open acceptance of homosexualism and homosexual public displays isn't a milestone on the road to decadence, it's an end terminus thereof.
This is sick stuff, and the misery this will invariably inflict on God only knows how many is nothing to view with equanimity.
David W| 5.15.12 @ 11:57AM
Should we ask why the word use is "gay and lesbian" and not homosexual? I read that gay and lesbian poll better and homosexual. Homosexual tells you exactly what is happening in the privacy of their homes.
Notice that when this issue is mentioned the word "gay rights" and "gay marriage" are almost exclusively used. Ross and others, how about using "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in referencing these topics. See how well that is received.
Kenny| 5.15.12 @ 12:49PM
Exactly.
To use 'gay' to describe homosexuality is a perversion of the language just as homosexual behavior is a perversion of the sex act.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 1:17PM
Note too how the word sodomy and sodomite has been banished from our cultural lexicon. Far too perjorative I suppose for the relativists amongst us.
It's one thing of course for cultural elites to do this, but what of NR echoing their sentiments, what now of TAS echoing their sentiments, what now are we to conclude when supposedly conservative publications amplify the agenda of lefty elites?
Where is Tyrell on this?
We got a guy applauding homosexualism in the public square and where is the TAS editor on this?
This guy Kaminsky needs to get slapped down hard on this.
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 3:43PM
It is tolerated because it is none of your business, hurts no one, and is none of your business. I spend a lot of volunteer time in public schools and fail to seee any of the brainwashing you refer to. Can you document it from your personal experience?
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 4:50PM
Hurts no one does it?
Where have you been dude over the last thirty years? How many people did the "skinny disease" kill in Africa?
Or for that matter, while "the band played on" supposedly, how many did that disease wipe out just in San Fran?
Whatever dude.........
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.15.12 @ 11:09AM
Ross,
personally I'm not "comfortable" with any sex that hurts and smells sh*tty.
I guess I'm just a wimp.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 11:47AM
Perhaps we're all supposed to now join in with the nearest "gay pride" parade at the nearest locale of urban pathology........
Al Adab| 5.15.12 @ 11:24AM
Just another red herring issue to obfuscate and cover the real issue. It isn't even the economy which would do just fine thank you if the government got out of it. No, the issue is the validity of the administrative (mandarin class) social-welfare state. Are we citizens saddled with a republican party which proposes simply to manage it better or does the GOP in fact intend to reduce its size? If not the GOP then who and where might we find such a one?
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 3:47PM
Were you brain dead when Clinton was in office and reduced the size of government?
Al Adab| 5.15.12 @ 4:17PM
Gee, I must have missed it during the demagogury about the "government shutdown" when the GOP Congress tried to rein in the spending. Appropriate moniker BTW.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 4:51PM
His "reduction" consisted of and solely consisted of reductions in the size and strength of America's military.
Clinton discharged entire Army divisions.......
So much for his reduction...........
DRed| 5.15.12 @ 11:24AM
Why is spouses in quotes?
JP| 5.15.12 @ 11:27AM
Ross,
I'm not sure if the President's numbers are quite that good -betting aside. If one looks at the 2008 Campaign from a purely statistical point of view, the President enjoyed some trends that he will not be able to duplicate. The biggest factor being turn-out. I'm aware that much of what he's done since Jan of this year is to motivate the troops. But, as the Wisconsin recall and the Indiana primaries indicate, the expected Democratic turn-out for 2012 will be far below 2008. And without high turn-out, he will not carry Virginia, Florida, Colorado or Iowa, let alone keep Indiana and North Carolina. In my voting district last week 92,000 people came out to vote; only 25,000 voted in the Democratic primaries (both parties had open House and Gubernatorial seats).
The President not only will have a problem keeping Swing States; he may also lose a few dependable Blue States (Oregon, and/or Michigan may end up being in play). The assumption every is currently making is that voter turn-out on the Dems' side will be as high as 2008. I don't think this will happen.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 11:42AM
Remind me why I'm supposed to be "comfortable" with open displays of post-Judeo/Christian values, morality and a post-Judeo/Christian understanding of what is and what is not appropriate in public places?
There's no way around the fact that increased acceptance of homosexuality is a milestone along a path, ------- and is that path the path that we should be on, that we as a society should be heading down?
Are we going to be a country with a shared Judeo/Christian understanding? Or are we going to be a society that views man as a heap of nervous impulses driven by genetics over which he has no control, and he must submit and conform himself to?
So why again is this increased comfort level supposedly a good thing.....
BlitheBunny| 5.15.12 @ 11:44AM
Freedom means different things to different people, if we can't live our lives how we want to then we are not free. That's why the Founding Father's gave states their own ability to pass any law that would make their communities the way they want them, and it's why we all have the freedom to move from state to state based on what we all believe. If you don't like your state's legislation...move. Anyone who wants to destroy that dynamic by imposing their views and beliefs on a community without a group vote doesn't belong here.
Ross Kaminsky | 5.15.12 @ 11:47AM
Blithe,
Even with a "group vote" doesn't make imposing morality OK.
TexasMom2012| 5.15.12 @ 12:13PM
It would be imposing a different morality than America has had since its inception. A small portion of our citizens should not be able to redefine the definition of marriage. Homosexuals are free to pursue contractual rights for their partners but they should not be able to change the definition of marriage to include anything other than one man, one woman. Period.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 3:33PM
They are redefining all manner of things.
Redefining patriotism.
Redefining sovereignty.
Redefining sexual norms.
Redefining gender.
Redefining marriage.
Redefining what it means to be a family, {recall "it takes a village," or rather a commune or a soviet}.
The list goes on and on.
It's all part of a widespread agenda of cutting down to size the United States and the sovereign abilities of the United States.
Serious stuff.
Open celebration of homosexualism is but one end terminus of the decay and decadence of our society, citizens, culture and law.
richard ryan| 5.15.12 @ 2:49PM
Our country imposes morality all the time, always has. This is a good thing. I suppose we draw the line when our imposed morality infringes on the constitutional rights of another person. I just don't see how DOMA is infringing on anyone's rights.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 3:28PM
No. The morality the government you say "imposed" would better be described as maintained.
Murder was still murder.
Adultery still adultery.
Bearing false witness still was penalized by laws backing up a moral code that barred it.
But now we're seeing a "morality" that enjoins upon us an enthusiastic embrace of behavior our reason AND our religion obliges us to reject. There's no way we can embrace homosexualism in the manner they desire of us and still remain Christian.
And they will not allow us to merely "tolerate." What we're seeing is way beyond any request for toleration.
This is, as Benedict the XVI ridiculed, a totalitarianism, a totalitarianism of relativism, a cultural dictatorship, and as with all things cultural, we're all going to see that regnant ethos reflected in our laws.
We're in trouble in this country.
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 3:51PM
Your right about not being able to call yourself Christian, so when will you join the civilized and renounce the false dogma of Christianity?
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 4:00PM
Grammar. Ain't it beautiful?
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 4:54PM
Trin,
he's all worked up in a frenzy..........
Obama and all things obama are going down in the polling, on the five key issues a majority now trusts Romney over obama, which parallels trend lines we saw in '08, when the electorate sided with obama over McCain even on the issue of national security.
I don't bother capitalizing obama's surname anymore, that jerk doesn't deserve it.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 11:56AM
You can keep your humanistic Voluntaryism or Articles of Confederation mentality, while Conservatives will stick with the Founder's Federalist vision and using the Amendment process as necessary to keep you Libertines at bay...
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 12:08PM
This isn't about what they're doing behind closed doors, this is about the public square, this is about entire regions of the country now dominated by them, such as Fire Island, Provincetown, Rehobeth Beach in Delaware, and of course who here is "comfortable" with what they did to that once great city, San Francisco?
I know a family, a family, a real family with young children, in the Houston area, who had to move because their neighbors, who were flamers, persisted in orgies in their backyard, which was in an area where the neighbors couldn't help but have a ring side for all of it.
SO when families have to move, when people in Hollywood have to deal with a lavender mafia, when some lose jobs because employers have to hire token flamers, ------- something is decidedly wrong in river city.
This isn't about cops breaking through front doors anymore.
This is a determined effort, with the full backing of our cultural elites driving it, not just to accept, but applaud, not just to tolerate, but to cheer on, to celebrate, to be enthusiastic about.
As such, it must invariably abrade against the prevailing Christian ethos, which demands that public sin still be acknowledged as public sin.
We're on a collision course.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 12:19PM
I also don't want to pay for the cost of their 44x higher rate of STDs/HIV/AIDS, their ram down of gay indoctrination in our public schools, and their HIV/AIDS scares in our VA healthcare system. A hodgepodge of gay marriage and adoption laws across the nation will bring about chaos when moving and even traveling. But, that is the Libertine intention in much of this...
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 3:23PM
Your problem is money now. But ultimately the country is on a collision course, which can only end in civil strife.
The agenda of the homosexuals is incompatible with the prevailing Christian ethos that still informs the public square.
And the agenda of the left, {moving beyond the narrow question of homosexual marriage, homosexual couplings, and all things concerning homos} MUST drive out Christianity.
It's no coincidence that obama targeted the Catholic Church over his mandate. The left was always going to have to take down and out the Church.
Obama's tenure is making clear for many of us that this thing won't end until it ends once and for all in the streets of our cities and playing out across the fields and hamlets of this nation.
This is deadly serious stuff that is getting rammed down our throats and the throat of Uncle Sam.
Can't be much longer before Uncle Sam starts to throw it all up in a violent upheaval.
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 3:57PM
There is a difference between driving out Christianity and rendering it irrelevant and harmful. I understand that you are frightened of change as are all conservatives by definition, but you must find the courage to accept that humanity will progress with or without you.
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 4:02PM
Profound. Except the part that contains words.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 4:58PM
Ah the claim of the inexorable movement and judgement of history, as if history had conscience and will.
Historians possess judgement, cultural commentators possess judgement and aspirations, but history has none.
The "progress" of the licentiousness of the Weimar Republic didn't prove to be permanent, nor very enduring.
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 2:16PM
Bunny,
With respect, it appears that you're confusing freedom with lisence. Freedom, properly understood, is inextricably linked to responsibility; one has the freedom to choose how to live, but to the extent that one's choices affect another individual (or society at large), such choices are not without consequences. One therefore has the moral responsibility to exercise one's freedom with due regard to the attendant consequences. States, which are in essence nothing more than a collection of individuals, are equally bound by the link between freedom and responsibility. Therefore, it is emphatically NOT true that states can pass any laws they want if those laws are immoral.
Dittohead| 5.15.12 @ 11:44AM
The fornicators and sodomites will roast on Beelzebub's spit. I can't wait to see it. El Rushbo and I will delight in their anguish and pain, if not in this world, than in the next.
Ross Kaminsky | 5.15.12 @ 11:47AM
OK, since you're all so distracted with four words in a multi-hundred word article, I have deleted those four words.
Amazing how many of you totally miss the point because you disagree with one small item. No wonder Republicans so frequently lose even when the environment suggests they should win.
Bob Grant| 5.15.12 @ 12:02PM
Gee Ross,
Most of us here can chew gum and walk at the same time. Can't we agree with your main point but completely disagree with your "small one"? Which is far from small. You mus have small faith in the intellectual capacity of the commenters.
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 12:16PM
Don't trivialize those four words, which were not thrown in without forethought on your part.
They revealed an attitude, a temper of mind, profoundly and jarringly anti-Conservative, anti-traditional values, anti-Judeo/Christian and anti the considered judgement of the ages.
It was an attempt to ingratiate yourself with a cognoscenti that despises you, and us, regardless of your best efforts to ingratiate yourself with them.
You lack the courage to confront on the issue, because you're probably fearful of the consequences to yourself. I don't blame you.
I don't fault you for that fear.
BUT at least acknowledge it. At the very least proclaim that we live in a society where truth is subordinated to narrative, where the understanding of man, of what he is, where he comes from, what his destiny is, is up for grabs in an era of widespread relativism.
J.C.Eaton| 5.15.12 @ 12:21PM
I must say: surprising petulance! As an aside, Republicans lose because they frequently act stupidly, and cowardly. They "compromise" re: the uncompromisable. Homosexuality is not non-aberational. Approval of homosexual practice should not be a right. Many homosexual organizations and practicioners think it should. Perhaps you agree with them; I do not.If my refusal means the Republican Party is likely to suffer electoral losses, and ultimately termination, that becomes its' problem; and so be it. Why is homosexual practice a laudable thing?
Kenny| 5.15.12 @ 12:53PM
Kaminsky has no business writing in TAS.
Whatever he writes needs to be reviewed for any libertine hidden agenda.
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 2:36PM
Yes, quite; I find censorship among the most important pillars of a free society.
Really, sport; think about the absurdity of your statement - rather than offer a compelling counter-argument to the point with which you disagree, you assert that the author of said point should not have the opportunity to express it. One is left with little choice but to conclude that your position either lacks sufficient merit to prevail in a debate or (more likely) you lack the requisite skills to articulate said merits. Either way, looks rather bad for you, chap.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 3:01PM
I agree with Kenny to the point that TAS bills itself as a conservative rag, but now has admitted non-conservatives like Kaminsky and Goldstein coming out of the closet as Libertines. At least the Editor should come clean about who he is hiring, or was this a case of "stealth libertinism?...
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 3:29PM
Two points:
1. You, like Kenny above, chose not to provide a compelling counterarguement to the point with which you disagree, but chose rather to go the ad hominem route and pass on the golden opportunity to articulate a cogent defense of your position.
2. In a several hundred word article that makes the overall point that Obama's thinly veiled political gamesmanship is both irrelevant from a policy perspective (he offered no support for national legislation supporting gay marriage) and transparent to most Americans, you chose to focus on a single, three-word statement, offered parenthetically, in which the author shared his personal view that Americans should be growing more comfortable with homosexual relationships. Regardless of your (or my) view on this particular comment, it has no bearing on the overall content of the article, which on balance is fully consistent with conservative principles.
Finally, you may wish to note the American Spectator's direction to readers who wish to post a comment to articles in the Spectacle Blog:
"We encourage readers to share and discuss their THOUGHTFUL and RELEVANT comments about this Spectator article."
Regrettably, your comment fails to pass either criterion.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 4:46PM
Self-Appointed Moderator & Elitist? - Wow, I guess my comments really struck sensitive nerve. I have already made several points in regards to the homosexual marriage issue that this article deals with. That also includes comments this past weekend to more of Kaminsky's remarks on this topic. Words and labels have meaning, and the ones used in regards to Kaminsky stand. Beyond that, I really don't really care what you think of my posts. You probably know what you can do with your establishment elitism and intelligentsia mentality -- if not, use your imagination. Hope that was THOUGHTFUL and RELEVANT enough for you. Now, unless you speak as the official TAS thought police agent, go bother Clint and Jack...
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 8:00PM
Ah, yes; another articulate and compelling argument ("you know what you can do with your establishment elitism and intelligentsia mentality...").
My compliments, sport; I rather suspected you'd opt for the time tested "I know you are but what am I?". It is clear that I underrated you and, as a man of principle, I must confess that I failed to recognize the prodigious intellect with which I'd foolishly chosen to lock horns. Mea culpa and all that.
Now, about that nasty business of name calling - I should like to think that one blessed with such a demonstrably superior intellect as yours would appreciate the heavy burden that we elitists carry; after all, it isn't easy being superior (oh the times I've wished I had someone to look up to).
Oh well, must run; so many to look down upon, so little time...
9thID| 5.16.12 @ 1:00PM
Hypocrite much!? I read some your your off-topic and irrelevant name calling above. Your supposed intellectual hubris reminds me of your Establishment comrade Obama. Yeah, trot off to NYT, WaPo, and Coast To Coast...
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 4:00PM
Nicely done.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 11:52AM
Liber-als & Liber-tarians like Kaminsky are just two sides of the same ugly coin of Libertinism. They both want to see America fundamentally transformed into either a Liber-al collectivist utopia (1984), or a Liber-tarian anarchist utopia (Lord of the Flies). Both are steeped in an idealistic humanism that destroys societies...
Keith| 5.15.12 @ 12:02PM
Remember the words of the "gay" mob to the compromising Lot in Genesis 19:9..."this one came to stay here and is now acting as judge - we will do worse with you than... " (your visitors) - However be encouraged that Jesus said that at His second coming it would be as the days of Lot.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 12:11PM
Jude 7...
TOR| 5.15.12 @ 12:04PM
You were right. Have the courage of your convictions.
Clint| 5.15.12 @ 12:12PM
There Are At Least 10 Types Of Libertarians And Shades In Between.
That Said, The Gender Confusion Agenda Shouldn't Be Promoted By These Big Government Statists
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 12:24PM
"and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy" - yes, Reagan was speaking here to Rothbardian/Paulist Voluntaryism...
http://tinyurl.com/7bph329
Clint| 5.15.12 @ 12:28PM
That's A Lie.
You're An Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, 9th IDiot.
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 1:20PM
Reagan didn't care or know what/who Paul was/is, and would not today if he were still alive. Paul is not a Republican, and is just using the Republican Party for his own selfish purposes. He won't campaign for the eventual nominee and will not financially support him. Reagan was a Republican, while Paul is whatever he is. My guess is that Paul is a Texas version of Arlen Spector!!!!
Clint| 5.16.12 @ 5:11AM
Do Your Homework Before Ya Run Your World Class Lyin' Sack Of Shit Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Butt Boy, Mouth, Fart Pampers.
Ronald Reagan Endorsed Dr.Ron Paul & Dr.Ron Paul Endorsed Ronald Reagan When Only Dr.Ron Paul And Three Others Endorsed Ronald Reagan Against Gerald Ford In 1976.
Arlen Specter Is One Of Your Israel Firster RINO-CINO Poster Boys And We Tea Party Patriots Chased Specters RINO-CINO Ass Out Of The GOP Here In Pennsylvania.
Now, Call The Nurse To Change Your Crap Filled Adult Pampers, Fart Rump.
9thID| 5.15.12 @ 3:04PM
You blithering moron, how many times do we have to tell you that Reagan said that about Robespierre Ron back in the 70's before Pauly stabbed him in the back, quit the GOP, and ran as a Libertarian along the indicted cop-killer Russell Means? Now, deal with the video on your messiah's Voluntaryism as put out by your fellow cultists....
Clint| 5.16.12 @ 5:00AM
Do Your Homework Before Ya Run Your Big Uninformed Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Towel Boy Yap, 9th IDiot.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four in Texas -- one of four members of Congress that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported his -- his -- all his issues and all his programs.
But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message."
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 12:12PM
I can't help but recall the words of Antoin Scalia, present Justice of our Supreme Court, speaking to a crowd in Miss years back. He told them we must have the courage to be considered dumb, to be considered out of it, to be deemed unsophisticated hicks.
We must have the courage to oppose the prevailing attitudes and mores of our time.
AND IT IS VERY MUCH A COURAGE that is needed, for the forces arrayed against us are powerful indeed, capable and eager of destroying lives, reputations and career prospects.
Which explains for all of us Kaminsky's weird throw in that all of us are to welcome an increased "comfort" with open and proclaimed pathology.
Dittohead| 5.15.12 @ 12:25PM
Da judge, he is right, smartz is over-rated!
Dittohead| 5.15.12 @ 12:24PM
I am proud to be considered dumb and a uneducated hick! I'll go a step further and say I am dumb and a uneducated hick and a proud Dittohead!
Questions| 5.15.12 @ 1:11PM
Obviously the point was lost on you, for Scalia's point only echoed one found in the New Testament. But somehow I'm sure you're clueless about that as well.
Besides, did you really think I didn't anticipate some troll commenting as you did...........
Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 1:11PM
Please don't sick the TAS PARAGRAPH SWAT TEAM on me for the following:
'......NewsmaxRev. Wright Was a Second Father to Obama Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:01 PMBy:Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was like a second father to Barack Obama and helped shape his political philosophy, author Ed Klein tells Newsmax based on his interview with Wright.For his book “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House,” which hits bookstores this week, Klein interviewed Wright for three and a half hours. Wright told him of Obama’s secret efforts to keep him quiet during the presidential campaign. But the more significant material spotlights how important Wright was to Obama’s thinking even before the future president began going to Wright’s church in 1988.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
“It’s one thing for Obama to sit in the church and listen to the Rev. Wright spew his hatred against whites, Jews, and America,” Klein says. “But in my view, having spoken to the Rev. Wright, that paled by comparison with the personal relationship that Obama had that went way beyond his simply being a member of the church listening to all this stuff.”Obama began his relationship with Wright, whom he has called a mentor and sounding board, three years before he began attending Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
“Obama went to the Rev. Wright at every stage of his career whenever things went wrong,” says Klein, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair and a former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine.“For instance, when he lost the 2000 congressional election for the seat that Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther, holds from the South Side of Chicago,” Klein says. “He was in a state of terrible depression, and he owed a great deal of money, and his marriage was on the rocks. Who did he go to? He went to the Rev. Wright for marriage counseling. He went to the Rev. Wright about what shall I do next, Rev? Every step of his career, every step of his development as a political figure was made in conjunction with conversations that he had with the Rev. Wright personally.”As revealed in my book “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,” just before Wright spoke at the National Press Club, Obama secretly met on April 4, 2008 with Wright at Trinity’s parsonage where Wright then lived.So that they would not be noticed, agents made a point of driving Obama in a mini-van instead of the usual Suburban. They parked their other vehicles a block away. Obama spent an hour with Wright and then left.“At this secret meeting with him, Obama practically begged him not to go on and speak any further,” Klein says. “This was after one of Obama’s best friends had sent an email to a member of the church saying that he was prepared to give the Rev. Wright $150,000 if he would shut up. The Rev. Wright told me that he has saved that email.” In the recorded interview, Wright says he basically could not afford to shut up for $150,000, Klein says.“Wright explained he had expenses that he had to pay,” Klein says. “He had a child and a couple of grandkids in college that he was paying for. And so he goes around the United States giving sermons and making speeches, and he gets paid for that.”Klein says Obama originally sought out Wright to discuss community activism.
“Quickly the conversations turned from picking up garbage on the street and getting streetlights put up on street corners to political matters and religious matters,” Klein says. “And the Rev. Wright turned into really a substitute father figure, who guided Obama in the two major areas of his life.”The first area was Obama’s identity — just who was he?“Obama was steeped in Islam but knew nothing about Christianity,” Klein says.
Klein asked Wright if he converted Obama from being a Muslim into a Christian.
“He said, I don’t know about that. but I can tell you that I made it easy for him to come to an understanding of who Jesus Christ is and not feel that he was turning his back on his Islamic friends and his Islamic traditions and his understanding of Islam,” Klein says.
The second area was Obama’s political philosophy. Wright introduced Obama to Black Liberation theology.“Black Liberation theology is based essentially on the Marxist belief that there is an oppressor class and an oppressed class,” Klein says. “And in the case of Black Liberation theology, the oppressor class are the whites, and the oppressed are the blacks. And there is a ‘maldistribution’ of wealth in this country, a quote from Black Liberation theology.”The point is that wealth should be redistributed.“This is quite close, if not identical, to Marxist beliefs,” Klein says.As noted in my story "Media Blackout on Rev. Wright Started in 2007," for three months during Obama’s primary campaign, the mainstream media ignored Newsmax stories reporting on Rev. Wright’s hate-filled sermons; his denunciations of America, whites, and Israel; and the fact that he gave an award for lifetime achievement to Louis Farrakhan.
By the time the media picked up the stories, Obama was ahead of Hillary Clinton in the primary elections.According to a Hillary Clinton aide quoted in David Remnick’s “The Ridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,” if the media had run the Wright story just two months earlier, Obama’s candidacy “would have been over.” “Everybody says Obama sat there for 20 years listening to the Rev. Wright spew his anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-American tirade in church,” Klein says. “The fact of the matter is that his relationship with the Rev. Wright goes back further than his membership in the church and sitting and listening to the Rev. Wright.”
Klein says it was clear from his interview with Wright that he felt abandoned and stabbed in the back by Obama.“For many, many years, Wright was Obama’s single most important intellectual and spiritual guide, and when things got rough, Obama threw him under the bus,” Klein says. “Wright was still stinging from that experience.”.........'
Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 1:27PM
As to Ross' editorial, homosexuals should not be discriminated against in any way, shape or form; but marriage is a sacrament of G-D, is defined by NATURAL LAW as between a man and a woman only and should not be immoralized falsely by the granting of legal status. Since homosexuals like everyone else have FREE WILL from birth, what they do is of their own choosing and therefore should not punished by the rest of society. Their immorality will be judged by G-d at death, and should not be falsely judged by humans!!!!!
Trinacria| 5.15.12 @ 2:22PM
OF,
With respect, surely you're not implying that free will precludes society from holding an individual accountable for his or her actions? If one exercises one's free will by choosing to steal your car or kill your neighbor, is society not obligated to hold that individual accountable?
Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 6:43PM
No, of course not. Natural Law [G-d's] is the basis for Man's Law [ie Thou Shalt Not Kill=laws against murder; Thou Shalt Not Steal=laws against theft]. Man's Laws do not always follow the Natural Law as required, as in these laws allowing homosexual marriage, which is contrary and against the Natural Law [in this situation, the homosexual is law abiding under Man's Law but acting against Natural Law and this individual will be punished by the Natural Law at death]. The concept of Free Will indicates that an individual can/does act according to choice even though he/she knows that a price will possibly be paid for same [ie the choice to kill another and pay the price of imprisonment for same if caught by authorities]. Of course society does hold one accountable for their actions by the Man's Laws inacted by same. A homosexual would in Massachusetts be following Man's Law and be law abiding, but upon death would be punished according to Natural Law. Of course [in your posed question] society is obligated to enact laws to protect society and does so [as in laws against murder theft etc], but again those laws of Man do not always coordinate with Natural Law [again as in the disconnect regarding homosexuality]; and again an individual with Free Will chooses to obey either or both Man's and Natural Law, and in some cases is acting lawfully under the former but unlawfully under the latter; and can possibly escape punishment under the former but will never under the latter!!!!!
The great Satan| 5.15.12 @ 3:32PM
It's true, but most rational people are reluctant to think about how really, really stupid you are. It is too depressing.
SpiralArchitect| 5.15.12 @ 5:10PM
He's still trying to have it both ways, but it's not working.
Both ways? His wife knows he is gay too...
BTW, the children, where did they come from??
Bob S| 5.16.12 @ 3:41AM
To the Progressives, there's their side, and the stupid side.
In reality, there's four types people: people like us who see through their lies, people who have been brainwashed by decades of progressive indoctrination and can't see through their lies, useful idiots who promote their lies and expect something in return, and the ones who think there's their side and the stupid side.
Rod| 5.16.12 @ 11:07AM
What I find most amusing is the Newsweek cover touting our president as the "First Gay President." I would guess that for every 1,000 or maybe even 10,000 views of that cover by citizens, only one will actually read the article and find that they're being metaphorical. After all, it is (or once was, at least) a news magazine.