From The Victory Girls:
by Catherine on August 29, 2013
This post is not the usual type of thing I write for Victory Girls. Usually, I’m sputtering, snarking, cussing and railing against liberal/progressive/leftist/radical/anti-American subversive shenanigans. But I’m fortunate enough to have just celebrated a wedding anniversary with a man who is the best man – the best person – I will ever know. My Dad is a close second. And our sons? Growing into good men.
I know many of you reading this have similar relationships with conservative men be it your husband, your partner, your father, your son, your brother, your uncle, or maybe even a friend. To the mainstream media and the current administration, these men are boring, stupid fellows that thump Bibles, cling to guns, and are surely racist. Well, my husband IS very boring, according to their barometer of “exciting”. He doesn’t “twerk” or wear skinny jeans, seek or collect welfare. He doesn’t think gender is self-appointed, believe that “global warming” is anything but a huge scam, or “sext” (this is a man that refers to email as “internet letters”). He definitely isn’t a male feminist! Rather, he is a wonderful, steady, loving father to our four kids and new “Papa” to some tiny and lucky future BB gun owners.
Much more at the link.
It seems that all Catherine’s husband is is a man who does his job as he should, and takes care of his family the way a man used to be expected to do. He’s apparently not a metrosexual, and if he might not be cool or with it, one has to wonder how many women who will never have a man like that will read Catherine’s post and wish they did.
Of course, we’ve just moved beyond that, haven’t we?
Phineas Fahrquar, writing on Sister Toldjah, notes how President Obama, loyal Democrat and champion of the working man, will be celebrating Labor Day.
@Andria_xx brought herself to the attention of Robert Stacey Stacy McCain when she defended Miley Cyrus “twerking” show at the MTV Video music awards show, claiming that those appalled were, well, you can read it for yourself:
Mr McCain, who is not always easy on those he opposes — he has moved mockery to levels even Amanda Marcotte would envy — has noted that @Andria_xx has “Honors BA in Social Justice and Peace Studies” and is pursuing a Master’s degree in Gender Studies . . . and that now she can’t find a job. More specifically, she isn’t even applying for jobs that have anything to do with her ridiculous course of study, because there just are no jobs in Social Justice or Gender Studies, and she’s having to apply for jobs like a hotel front desk clerk. She has two degrees now in utterly useless fields, and who knows how much student debt she has incurred.
Of course, it’s not just Andria who has been the victiom of Mr McCain’s polemics; in Bitches Be Cray-Cray: A Heteropatriarchal Theory of Non-Transformative Justice he mocks the “Queer theory” panelists, but, in noting one Beth Richie, at least she does have a job in Andria’s field; she’s a professor of criminal justice and gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Apparently, the state of Illinois is shelling out good money for a professor of an utterly inane academic discipline, which produces graduates who are able to apply for jobs as hotel front desk clerks.
But, what do you expect? These are the kind of people who think that a person with male sexual organs, XY chromosomes and who has lived his entire life as a male is now a female, just because he thinks he is. They truly are the unreality-based community.
Donald Douglas noted that Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Speakess of the House and current House Minority Leader, has been extremely anti-war, opposing not only the younger President Bush’s seeking authorization to use force against Iraq, but also the elder President Bush when he sought authorization to reverse Iraq’s invasion and seizure of Kuwait. Today? She’s all gung-ho in support of President Obama’s (possible) missile strike against Syria. It’s almost as though the lovely Mrs Pelosi’s views on armed conflict depend not upon the situation, but upon the party identification of the President. What Dr Douglas didn’t note was that Mrs Pelosi has a voting record on other war measures, voting against an amendment to the “Kosovo and Southwest Asia Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act” which would prohibit the use of funds for any invasion of Yugoslavia with U.S. ground forces except in time of war. That was 1999, and the President was Bill Clinton.
Patterico described the (supposedly) impending attack on Syria as being just big enough so that President Obama doesn’t get mocked. I’m guessing that there is no size the attack could be, short of one intended to drive Bashar al-Assad out of power, which won’t get mocked. When the President has to set his policy based on whether people think his word actually means anything — and it really doesn’t — rather than real-world goals and realities, he’s going to get mocked, and absolutely deserves it. John Bolton said:
People say the president has put the American credibility on the line, therefore he has to strike. He has damaged our credibility — I acknowledge that. But mostly he’s shredded his own. And it’s about time for the rest of the world to understand that Barack Obama and the United States are not the same thing. We’ve got 1200 days of this left and it’s going to be very costly. But the United States should not be put in a worse position just to help out Barack Obama’s credibility.
Hat tip to Jay Are, writing on The Lonely Conservative.
From L D Jackson’s Political Realities:
By Charles Phipps
It’s appearing more likely every day that courts in the United States will eventually be telling churches that opposition to homosexuals and gay marriage is no longer allowed. Recent decisions by judges are hostile towards those who believe homosexuality is a sin and such occurrences are becoming all too common. The homosexual push for normalization will not cease until they have total acceptance and all who believe their behavior is wrong are forced to either be silent or to capitulate. This includes churches. Some churches have recognized what is coming and have changed their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman in an attempt to stave off lawsuits. Who would have thought the day would come when a church would feel the need to do this?
There have not yet been any lawsuits against churches that I’m aware of but there have been many, many lawsuits against wedding industry businesses. The lawsuits stem from business owners refusing to provide services in support of gay marriages or civil ceremonies. Just last week the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a ‘commitment ceremony’ due to her Christian convictions that homosexuality is a sin. The business owner, Elaine Huguenin, was ordered by the court to pay $6,637 in attorney’s fees to the homosexual couple.
Judge Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s decision that, “…the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.” Nothing was said about the homosexual plaintiffs channeling their conduct to leave space for the Huguenins’ beliefs.
I told you so, back in 2009:
I wrote, the better part of a year ago, that I really have one, and only one, concern when it comes to state recognition of same-sex unions as marriages:
I don’t at all like the idea that such is being imposed on a clearly reluctant society by judicial fiat, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize a fait accompli when I see one.
I have one, and really only one, concern. I want churches protected from criminal and civil liability if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage. Many of our friends on the left pooh-pooh the idea that churches could be compelled to perform such, under the First Amendment, but seem strangely reticent to be willing to enact more explicit protections for churches in the event that same-sex marriages become legal.
To me, it’s simple: it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what could happen if an interracial couple went to a church, and asked to be married, and the minister refused because his church does not believe in interracial marriages. That minister and his church would face being sued, because they had discriminated on race, and churches fit the definition of a public accommodation. Since we license ministers to perform marriages, they have a dual religious-state legal function.
Well sooner or later, a same-sex couple is going to present themselves to a Catholic priest, and ask for a nuptial Mass. The priest will have no choice but to refuse, and he, and his parish, and his diocese will all get sued. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which undid a discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy held that classifications based on sexual orientation would be examined under a higher level of scrutiny; Patterico explains it here. This could mean that discrimination based on sexual orientation might be held to the same standard as discrimination based on race.
In the event of legally recognized same-sex marriage, we need solid protection for churches.
My friends on the left all pooh-poohed my concern, saying that no, such could never happen, not here, not with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Yet I never received a satisfactory answer as to why, if they actually believed that churches would be immune from such suits, they were so reluctant to consider specified legal protections from such suits, if that specified legal protection wouldn’t actually harm their position. If such laws were superfluous, then so what; they’d be superfluous.
Yet, it wasn’t terribly long after that a civil rights complaint pointing in that direction was filed, and won, by a same-sex couple based on a church owning a public accommodation; I addressed that here.
Count on the lawsuit I have said is coming being in the news within the next few years.
What people did in their bedrooms, we were told, was nobody’s business but their own. Why, then, must so many homosexuals insist not only on telling us what they do in their bedrooms, but that normal people must somehow participate in it as well, must pay it homage, and must provide whatever they want in celebration of their activities?
From the Pirate’s Cove:
By William Teach August 31, 2013 – 8:57 am
Interesting. Polls range from 50% to 80% saying Americans do not want to military strikes on Syria. And 80% want Congressional approval. Yet, Mr. Obama has stated that he’s not going to bother with more than a few meetings and briefings, nothing heavy nor involved, nor is he going to seek a vote, like PM David Cameron attempted (and lost) in Britain.
Maybe that’s why President Obama doesn’t want a Congressional vote; he thinks that he’ll lose, and I think he’s probably right.
Nor is he really going to bother with the United Nations. Obviously, this means that the problem here is not Obama’s go it alone, unilateral, “I’m doing what I want to do” attitude, but Someone Else
Absent on Syria
As President Obama moves toward unilateral military action in response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people, he is doing so without legal justification and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing with this crisis.
Except hundreds of Congressional members have stated that Obama should seek Congressional approval. A bipartisan coalition. It’s Mr. Obama’s job to seek that approval, and he’s already stated he doesn’t want a vote. I wonder what the NY Times editorial board would write if the House came back and voted against any action in Syria? Obama’s the one who ran his mouth, and I doubt if he’d even get many Democrats to support strikes.
But, then the editorial goes off the rails. I wonder if there were two sets of people writing it. The editorial notes that the admin has only pushed a “moral rationale” for strikes (say, what about all those being killed in Darfur? Or the thousands of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt?)
A lot more at the link.
I’d argue that the Security Council has not “abdicated” it’s role. No one has brought this up for a vote in the Security Council, because they know that Russia will use its veto to stop any authorization for action. The Times might not like that, but that’s the system that was set up to get the USSR to join the United Nations in the first place, and that’s as close to democracy as the UN is going to get. It might not be the choice that the editors of the Times would like, but saying “no” is just as much of a choice, and an action, as saying yes.
Nor has the Congress abdicated its role, because President Obama has not asked for a vote; all he has done is to “consult’ some congressional leaders, during a recess.
Now, Speaker of the House John Boehner could, and should, schedule a vote when the Congress returns after Labor Day, on authorizing the President to use force. My guess is that if such a vote were scheduled, the measure would fail. The Times would call that an abdication of responsibility, too, but Congress has the right to decline to pass something just as certainly as it has the right to pass it. That’s part of democracy, you know!
Hube doesn’t seem terribly impressed with the Delaware Liberals:
Well, what else would you expect from the wisher of death upon Republicans? In this … predictable post, Delaware Dunce blames George W. Bush for the current administration’s inability to intervene in Syria, and notes that if Al Gore had been allowed to serve as president (since he “really” won the 2000 election), Bush/Iraq fatigue wouldn’t even be manifested now, and attacking Syria would be much more palatable. And DD would be for intervening now.
It’s more along the lines that she would like to see intervention, today, but by someone else. In another post, she wrote:
SYRIA–NBC News poll: 80% of Americans believe President Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria. 80% of Americans cannot agree on anything, Mr. President. They agree on this. This is a no-f(ornicating)-brainer, Mr. President. You want a way out of that f(ornicating) corner you painted yourself into, this is it. Seek Congressional Authorization. If you don’t get it, your hands have been tied by Congress just as David Cameron’s were.
50% believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad. But the public is more supportive of military action when it’s limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships – 50% favor that kind of intervention, while 44% oppose it.
Actually, the Delaware Dem has put forth the President’s policy in a nutshell: ask Congress, hope they say no, and then blame the Republicans.
The truth is that the Delaware liberals really don’t know what they want when it comes to Syria, and, in that, they aren’t much different from our friends on the left everywhere: they hate the notion, period, but are reluctant in opposition because our Nobel Peace Prize laureate Democratic President seems to be for it. In that, they’re almost indistinguishable from Nancy Pelosi.
Well, that’s it for this week! I might do something realy radical now like work around the house.