Thursday, April 12, 2012

Michele And Marcus Bachmann's 'Ex-Gay' Clinic's Practices Described By Undercover Lesbian Filmmaker

Although Marcus Bachmann has continually denied that his Christian counseling clinic practices so-called "pray away the gay" therapy, yet another prominent LGBT activist is testifying to the contrary.

Documentary filmmaker Kristina Lapinski, who is currently at work on "GAY U.S.A. the Movie," went undercover at Bachmann & Associates, the Minnesota-based Christian counseling clinic co-owned by Marcus and Michele Bachmann, and once again captured a staff member conducting what she described as "reparative" therapy.

Lapinski says she played the part of "a confused 24 year old lesbian who had just moved from California to Minnesota to marry her long time male friend, Jake, all to please her Christian parents" while making an appointment. After speaking to counselor Sheila J. Marker about her situation, Lapinski says Marker then pulled out a Bible, informing her that God intended only men and women to come together, and captured the experience on a hidden pen camera.


Bachmann proves only that religion is a platform that fails to translate into politics easily. 

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Santorum Drops Out

There is a pretty interesting discussion thread going over at the Mises Institute on the subject of Rick Santorum dropping out and what that means for the other candidates vying for the GOP nomination. There is more cognitive debate going on there than at any political debate I have watched in years.

Monday, April 9, 2012

CIA stealth drones made hundreds of passes over Iran

More than three years ago, the CIA dispatched a stealth surveillance drone into the skies over Iran. The bat-winged aircraft penetrated more than 600 miles inside the country, captured images of Iran's secret nuclear facility at Qom and then flew home. All the while, analysts at the CIA and other agencies watched carefully for any sign that the craft, dubbed the RQ-170 Sentinel, had been detected by Tehran's air defenses on its maiden voyage. "There was never even a ripple," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official involved in the previously undisclosed mission. CIA stealth drones scoured dozens of sites throughout Iran, making hundreds of passes over suspicious facilities, before a version of the RQ-170 crashed inside Iran's borders in December. The surveillance has been part of what current and former U.S. officials describe as an intelligence surge that is aimed at Iran's nuclear program and that has been gaining momentum since the final years of George W. Bush's administration.

I find irony in that an anti-war democrat can surpass Bush in regards to war efforts against States that pose no threat to our nation. Sad irony. 

Original Page:

White House has diverted $500M to IRS to implement healthcare law

The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president's healthcare law. The money is only part of the IRS's total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several [...]

Legal or not, the Obama administration is only concerned with furthering it's political agenda, rather than debating the Constitutionality of that effort. You would think that a president with a Constitutional teaching position in his resume (okay, it was a short spell as a part time adjunct instructor) would have the sense to justify his efforts against the document our liberties are measured against. 

I'm darting to think that the fact that I have actually read the entire Constitution qualifies me as a Constitutional scholar, since Obama learned so little from it, if he read it and took away anything at all. Calling it a living document is justification to the statists to pervert its intent for their own benefit anyway. He's probably more interested in trying to get on the cover of GQ than law anymore...

Original Page:

Obamacare and DOMA

If Obama doesn't want the Supreme Court to overturn a "law passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," by which, strangely, he means ObamaCare, then what about the Defense of Marriage Act?

It's about political agenda at this point, just as with most politicians, rather than supporting the Constitution or the will of the People. This is the failure of the State to serve the populace through democracy, as only a minority of the population gets their position supported in the best of circumstances. 

Also the impact of political lies and government overreach, as well as another look at the Trayvon Martin case and readers' response to Mark Alexander's Essay.

Original Page:

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Obama flunks constitutional law

President attacks Supreme Court in advance of Obamacare ruling

For someone who once taught classes at a law school, President Obama doesn't seem to know much about the powers of the Supreme Court.

At a press conference Monday, Mr. Obama said he did not think the high court would rule that forcing Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional. "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," he said.

I am not sure if it is more surprising that he thinks forcing citizens to engage in commerce is either moral or Constitutional, or that the Supreme Court is taking this long to determine just that. 

There's plenty of precedent for voiding a law like Obamacare. The top justices have invalidated more than 150 federal laws in part or in whole. Nor would there be anything extraordinary about such a step, as courts frequently make these types of rulings. In fact, it would be unprecedented and extraordinary for it to let stand the unconstitutional aspects of Obamacare.

There's also no truth to the suggestion that Obamacare passed by a "strong majority." The vote was 219 to 212, a razor-thin margin in which 34 members of the president's own party voted no.

That speaks volumes in itself...

The margin of passage has never been a factor in the Supreme Court's review of any law. That's simply not a part of American jurisprudence. In fact, if Mr. Obama believes what he says, he ought to be very satisfied with the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 by a whopping 275 margin in the House and by 71 votes in the Senate.

Mr. Obama even attempted to invoke conservative rhetoric to defend his greatest legislative accomplishment. "For years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and – and passed law." Here Mr. Obama confuses judicial activism with judicial review. A former law professor – or in his case, a former part-time adjunct instructor – really should know better.

Not much experience to fall back on I guess?

Judicial review is the long-standing right of the courts to assess the constitutionality of state and federal laws and executive actions. It is at the heart of the system of checks and balances. Judicial activism is the exploitation of the powers of the bench to rewrite laws and regulate the executive and legislative branches in ways that the framers of the Constitution never intended. It is the favored approach of liberal justices such as Mr. Obama's two unelected Supreme Court appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

If Mr. Obama thinks the Supreme Court is out of line overturning laws passed by large majorities, he should tell us whether he supports the court's decision in the 1954 case Bolling v. Sharpe, which overturned the act of June 22, 1874, that segregated District of Columbia schools. He should be actively campaigning to reverse the Supreme Court's 1990 ruling against the Flag Protection Act, which passed the House 380-38.

Mr. Obama proves that you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to be president. But it would help.

Published originally on The Washington Times, April 3, 2012.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

“Vitriol” against Santorum to blame for expected D.C. loss


It's hard to pinpoint exactly when Rick Santorum suddenly ceased to be the viable challenger and began instead to be a candidate in denial. Wisconsin is, as Andrew Malcolm put it, Santorum's "next last chance" and it doesn't look good for the former Pennsylvania senator. Maryland and D.C., where Santorum didn't even make the ballot, [...]

Read this post »

I think that some people thought he was actually viable in the first place, so they are clinging tight to their lack or reality as he fades into the background.