Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

The Coming Great Rift Between Progressives And Democrats May Be Beginning In New York

Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Shots fired.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo once earned plaudits from liberals for his tough talk on gun control and success in legalizing gay marriage in the state. But, lately, he’s found no shortage of frenemies to his left.

In the past month, liberal protesters outside Cuomo’s office have dubbed him “Governor 1 Percent”; a prominent progressive activist has suggested that he run for reelection as a Republican; the head of a major labor union has called for someone to challenge the governor in the Democratic primary; and a series of behind-the-scenes feuds between Cuomo and other top Democratic officials have spilled out into public view.

The proximal cause for the infighting during an election year, when parties typically put aside their internal differences, is the state’s recently concluded, highly contentious budget process, which ended many Democrats’ hopes for sweeping ethics reforms this year. On fiscal policy, Cuomo aides insist the budget is “very progressive,” but the labor-backed Working Families Party, which endorsed the governor in 2010, is reconsidering its support this year, saying that Cuomo “chose inequality over progress.”

Progressives have been involved in a deliberate, decades-long takeover of the Democratic Party that has mostly been hallmarked by patience. The current occupier of the Oval Office has increased their expectations, however. Any Democrat who won’t smash the tax piggy bank and give them ALL THE THINGS will be found wanting and, dare I say, targeted.

One of Cuomo’s sins is that he doesn’t worship at the altar of Big Labor all of the time.

“This is not a minor shift, but it comes after a slow burn that started in 2010 … and finally just exploded in the past week and a half,” says Bill Samuels, a New York City Democratic fundraiser and activist. “There was probably no one who liked Andrew better than me.…. He lost most of us permanently. And I mean permanently. I don’t have one friend who is a Cuomo supporter.”

At its root, much of the animosity lies in some Democrats’ suspicion that Cuomo is not really one of them. Richard Brodsky, a former Democratic state senator who is now a senior fellow at the think tank Demos, has dubbed Cuomo’s worldview “progractionary”—a mix of “progressive” and “reactionary.” On social issues, the governor is a textbook liberal, but on economics, he’s embraced tax cuts and is skeptical of labor unions.

Perhaps Cuomo is skeptical because Big Labor gets rejected in every place it isn’t forced upon workers by mandate. Labor proponents will have us believe that every workplace in America will immediately morph into a sweatshop from 1894 if Big Labor has any of its power diminished or if people are allowed-wait for it-the right to choose whether they want to join a union.

The reality is that Big Labor’s fairy tale isn’t working anymore and people know that most labor unions (especially public sector unions) are all about political lobbying for things that will line the bosses’ pockets and have nothing to do with workers. And, as we have seen in Wisconsin, they can’t always win by throwing all of the money they have at an election.

It’s not that Cuomo is actually moving towards the center, his psychotic gun grab alone should prove his leftist bona fides. He is merely centrist compared to someone from the “leans commie” end of the spectrum, like Bill de Blasio:

Against this backdrop, there was bound to be conflict between Cuomo and New York City’s new mayor, who struck an emphatically populist tone in his campaign. Days after Bill de Blasio’s inauguration, an education-policy battle erupted that typifies the opposing wings of the party the two men represent. De Blasio wanted to fund a universal prekindergarten program with tax increases on the wealthy and to rein in some of the city’s charter schools; Cuomo vociferously opposes tax hikes and is a staunch defender of alternative public education.

You know who hates alternative public education?

Big Labor.

The ideological battle for the soul of the party that the MSM loves to say is happening in the GOP is actually happening on the other side of the aisle. Like all things MSM and Democrat, it’s merely projection for what is happening with them. Yes, Republican moderates and conservatives are in the midst of a very necessary fight for some direction, but we are used to such infighting and this squabble isn’t quite as new as many would believe. It does get heated but nobody is really going with a scorched earth approach…yet.

The hive mind on the other side brooks no dissent however. One or the other has to win because that like-mindedness is what the Democrats have been using to win elections lately and the whole thing hits one of their planet saving low-flush toilets in a hurry if there’s a family fight.

There is no level of government spending on phantom issues that satisfies progressives. They are economically challenged non-thinkers who are fueled by mutually exclusive beliefs. On the one hand, they think there is a finite amount of capital in the world and any financial success in the private sector comes at the expense of someone else. On the other, they believe that these same rich people who are stealing from the poor have an infinite amount of wealth which can be taxed to support government largesse. Once those are reconciled in someone’s head, the brain short-circuits and renders any future logical thought impossible.

One side has to win this battle outright. If Hillary Clinton does end up being the nominee for 2016 it will definitely escalate the fighting, as she is practically a Reagan Republican from the leftist perspective of the progressives. Elizabeth Warren is their Golden Girl and many progressives are murmuring about her seeking the presidency, even if Fauxcahontas herself denies that she wants to.

The academics who have been indoctrinating college youth for decades are all on the whacko left and sowing seeds that could very easily blossom into a mobilized electorate. We’ve already seen the first glimpse of that with the Occupy crowd. Those weren’t poor, oppressed American youth fighting to get to the middle class. They were college kids with iPhones who thought their education should be “free”.

There is no level of taxpayer gouging that satisfies progressives. They always want more. When one of their schemes predictably fails, the excuse is always that it was because there wasn’t enough money spent on it.

More, more more.

No, no, no.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

VIDEO — Along with Cheap Fares, This is Why Southest Airlines Rules

Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

I’ve been on several Southwest flights that had flight attendant stand-up comedy routines. But this is probably the best one in the fleet.

YouTube Preview Image

Read bullet | Comments »

Caption Contest Winner: Hillary’s New Book Needs A Title (and now it has one!)

Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 - by Myra Adams
Credit: Drudge Report

Credit: Drudge Report

The only word I can use to describe our latest contest is AMAHZING!

Thanks to all who made this contest one of the best in the glorious history of PJM Photo Caption Contests.  Our judges had a very difficult time selecting the winners and the criteria they used was, “Does it sound like a book title?” That is important to note because there were so many fabulous entries.

Our grand prize winner (of a future IRS investigation if SHE wins in 2016) goes to Booger2.0 for this gem:

I Slept With Bill Clinton and All I Got Was This Lousy Pantsuit

Booger2.0 also had an honorable mention for: It Takes an Intern

Our second grand prize winner is Fail Burton with:

The Beverly BillHillaries.  

FromNJ was our third grand prize winner with: 

Am I President Yet?

Here are all the honorable mentions:

David77:  Stand by Your Man – How Hillary Clinton Failed as a Feminist

WWM: Hillary: The Difference She Doesn’t Make

SoIncredulous:  It’s All President Obama’s Fault

Allan Crowson: It Fakes a Village (with apologies to Potemkin)

JRSWINE: How to Succeed in Politics without Doing Anything (Honest)

RockThisTown had four great entries: The Feminist’s Guide to Dodging Sniper Fire

How I Learned to Forgive Bill . . . & Monica, & Paula, & Gennifer, & Elizabeth, & the vast right-wing conspiracy. Wait . . . scratch those last 5.

Breaking the Glass Ceiling . . . One Bimbo Eruption at a time

Clinton Impeachment: The Sequel

Anna Beatriz: “Better than the Previous Occupant” 

loveamerica: Smoke and Mirrors- How to tell lies and make people believe it

ISOaPBR: I’ll Get You, My Pretty (and Your Little Dog, Too)

Physics Geek had two clever titles: What To Expect When You’re Ruling and

The Liar, the Witch and the War Room

Kuce: Vast Right Wing Conspiracies for Dummies

Gbone: If You Fly Around A Lot, People Will Think You Are Doing Something

Fail Burton: Please Leave An Alibi At the Sound of the Beep

cfbleachers (The Great and Powerful) had these hilarious titles: I Don’t Bake Cookies, But I Helped Cook The Books

and   It Takes A Villain To Raze A Country

Now speaking of the Clintons:

Below is “contest worthy” photo in need of a caption (but this is NOT an official contest.) The photo was from an article on a liberal-leaning website with the title and subtitle: “Send in General Bubba” and “Send In Bill Clinton to Save the Democrat Midterm Campaign.”  

Credit: The Daily Beast

Credit: The Daily Beast

One can only imagine from his grave the real General Patton is swinging his famous pistols in disgust.

General Patton and some other notables

General Patton and his revolver chatting with some other notables.

Finally, the above photo prompted me to tell you this worthless tibbit:  In 1977 I had the opportunity to shake the hand of one of the men in this photo. Can you figure out which one?  See you all next time a photo is worthy of a PJM photo caption contest and Happy Easter everyone!


Read bullet | 18 Comments »

Colorado ‘Patients’ May Soon Get Marijuana From Vending Machines

Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

This should end well.

People in Colorado may soon have an ultra-convenient option to buy their pot: a vending machine that dispenses medical marijuana and THC-laden snacks.

The machine, called the ZaZZZ, was unveiled at an event in Avon, Colo., over the weekend. Its creators told NPR that the machine uses biometrics to verify a customer’s age. It’s also climate-controlled to keep the products fresh.

These things are going to need more security than an ATM just to keep the delinquent teens at bay. And please, remember, don’t enjoy your “prescription” past its freshness date.

The upside here: the first person who can place a snack vending machine next to one of these will be able to buy an island with the revenue.

Read bullet | Comments »

Conor Friedersdorf Offers Some Clarity To Those Who Equate SSM Opponents To White Supremacists

Friday, April 11th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Nuance in a gay marriage debate?!? Is that even allowed?

Friedersdorf is one of those writers I agree with once in every twelfth blue moon or so, and I found myself nodding in agreement with much of this article.

He takes apart the fallacious comparison of religious opposition to same sex marriage to white supremacists’ opposition to interracial marriage (emphasis mine):

A narrow point we disagree on is the comparison of opposing interracial marriage to opposing gay marriage. Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. (In fact, it was inextricably tied to a singularly insidious ideology of white supremacy and black subjugation that has done more damage to America and its people than anything else, and that ranks among the most obscene crimes in history.)

Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it’s also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.

This is largely because most leftists don’t get outside of the hive mind much, something that is sort of alluded to in a footnote at the end of the piece.

It is important to keep countering the reflexive leftist “BIGOT!” tactic with nuance, facts and whatever other interjections of reality apply. Their stranglehold on social narratives won’t disappear overnight, but they can be undermined over time.

Read bullet | Comments »

Liberals Are Miserable Creatures, NY Times ‘Draft Day’ Review Edition

Friday, April 11th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Lately I have been collecting examples of the liberal love affair with misery (especially in the media) for a future project of mine. They are, as most things about modern American leftists are, generally absurd and laughable but worth sharing just to remind ourselves that we don’t want the world run by cranky grade school principals.

This morning, I happened upon this review of the new Kevin Costner movie Draft Day by the New York Times veteran reviewer A.O. Scott. Now, I don’t know for sure what Scott’s politics are, but given the fact that he has risen to the top of the heap at the Times, it is pretty easy to make a guess.

Scott has a lot of nice things to say about Costner, director Ivan Reitman and the movie, ultimately offering that “it sells itself beautifully.”

As if all of the casual enjoyment of what is obviously meant to be a fluff sports movie, Scott has to offer this in the middle of the review:

“Draft Day,” made with what appears to be the very enthusiastic — not to say domineering — cooperation of the N.F.L., is less a football movie than a promotional film. You will see sweeping aerial shots of skylines and stadiums in franchise cities. You will see the league’s commissioner, Roger Goodell, and a bunch of players and executives, past and present, gamely portraying themselves. You will not hear anything about concussions or sexual assault or the exploitation of college athletes, though you may notice that this is a story of (mostly) white men buying and selling the labor of (mostly) African-Americans.

I guess suspension of disbelief is only a thing for leftists when they listen to their political heroes speaking about policy.

This paragraph is so out of place with the rest of the review that it almost appears as if an editor scribbled it in at the last minute. A veteran movie critic knows the difference between mindless entertainment and gritty documentary movies. Why would he lament that the former isn’t the latter in a review?

Because it’s the New York Times, and it just wouldn’t be right to celebrate an easygoing flick about an American institution that is beloved in flyover country without getting in a dig about racism.

They have rules there, you know.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

CBS Reveals that Stephen Colbert Will Replace Letterman

Thursday, April 10th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

It’s an odd choice, but CBS has made it official: Stephen Colbert will replace David Letterman as host of The Late Show once Letterman retires.

I say it’s an odd choice because Colbert plays a character on his Comedy Central show. He’s parodying Bill O’Reilly. Does he bring that schtick to a full talk show at CBS, or does he leave it behind and re-invent himself?

The safe bet would be to stick with what brought him success so far, but the safe bet would not have been to bring Colbert to The Late Show in the first place. Craig Ferguson would have made a good replacement, as he already has a talk show on CBS. He just would have had to move forward an hour, and probably polish up a thing or two. His show carries forward with the wackiness that Letterman had, a long time ago.

Colbert…I don’t know.

Read bullet | 7 Comments »

I Guess I’m Supposed to Care About Another Stupid Rolling Stone Cover

Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Rolling Stone’s next issue — which hardly anyone will read — has Julia Louis-Dreyfus on the cover. She’s naked long past her Seinfeld days and has a big mistake tattooed on her photoshopped back. If that’s even her back.



The big mistake is the text. It’s neither the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. It begins as the Constitution, but ends with John Hancock’s flamboyant signature. But Hancock didn’t sign the Constitution. He signed the Declaration, and that’s where his famous sig became famous. In case you flunked history, as RS‘ editors and the “First Lady of Comedy” evidently did, lemme catch you up: The Constitution and the Declaration are not the same thing.

And Idiocracy wasn’t supposed to be a documentary. Way to go, Rolling Stone.

As for JLD, she’s now achieved the same status as the Boston bomber. She should be so proud…

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Caption Contest: Hillary’s New Book Needs A Title

Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 - by Myra Adams
Credit: Drudge Report

Credit: Drudge Report

Drudge has posted our contest image and is reporting:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new book on her time as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state will be released on June 10, her publisher says. Publisher Simon & Schuster said Wednesday that Clinton would share “candid reflections about key moments during her time as Secretary of State as well as her thoughts about how to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.” The book’s title and jacket design have not yet been released; the publishing date was released by the publisher on a website for the book:


As I have indicated in bold, the book’s title has not yet been released. That means PJM readers have a unique opportunity to name her book. BUT, because of the passionate feelings many of you have towards Mrs. Clinton, please remember that this is a “family” website.

To start things off here is my title:

I Am Not A Rhymes With Rich

Have fun and be clever but NOT too mean.




Read bullet | 125 Comments »

Brandeis University Rescinds Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Honorary Degree Because She Criticized Islam

Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The students, faculty and staff of Brandeis University have submitted themselves to dhimmitude.

Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.

The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

Ali knows well of what she speaks. She was raised Muslim in Somalia, survived female genital mutilation, escaped Somalia’s civil war and became a member of the Dutch parliament. But Islam followed her, and credibly threatened her life. She and Theo Van Gogh produced a short film critical of Islam’s treatment of women, called Submission. A Muslim murdered Van Goch on an Amsterdam street in 2004. His killer used a knife to pin a note to Van Gogh’s body, and in that note he threatened Ali.

The threats became too much, and Ali was once again forced to move, this time to the United States.

So she knows very well what she is criticizing and why she criticizes it. Shame on Brandeis. The university probably thinks it is making a statement for tolerance, but in rescinding Ali’s honor, it is making a very different statement.

Read bullet | 71 Comments »

Democrat Kathleen Kane Needs to Name Names — Or Fess Up to Lying

Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, Democrat, scuttled a major corruption investigation soon after she took office. That investigation had snared a handful of Democrat officeholders accepting bribes. Kane smeared the investigation, claiming it was racist. When the Philly Inquirer reported on her actions, Kane pulled a Wendy Davis move and threatened to sue the newspaper. That threat is still in play.

Kane has added to her racism smear, claiming that federal investigators had concluded that the investigation was too weak to prosecute. She and her staff even gamed the situation by prepping a case file for a Republican to review, a case file apparently stacked to make the case look impossible to prosecute.

Now Kane is being called out on claiming that prosecutors believed that the case was too weak, too. This is another Inquirer story; perhaps Kane will add it to the lawsuit she is threatening to bring against the paper.

Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia never deemed a sting operation that targeted public corruption as too weak to prosecute, according to District Attorney Seth Williams and law enforcement sources familiar with the brief federal review of the investigation.

The sources and Williams say the prosecutors never came to a judgment about the investigation one way or another before the state attorney general asked them to halt their review.

Their statements echo a declaration by the Philadelphia office of the FBI, which said it made no judgment about whether the case was suitable for prosecution.

Kane’s response: “Did too!” But she hasn’t named a single name.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane has said “federal authorities” endorsed her view that the sting was fatally damaged. She has declined to identity the federal officials involved, saying they had asked for anonymity.

Much more at the link. The Inquirer contacted many of the officials who would have made the judgement that Kane is claiming, and none of them agree with her at all.

Kane will have to name a name. But it’s likely that there is no name to name. All the available evidence strongly suggests that Kane killed the investigation for purely partisan reasons. The investigation targeted Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats were caught on tape accepting the bribes. The process of prosecuting them could damage the Democrat Party in Pennsylvania for years to come, turning a swing state at least a light shade of red. Kane could have mitigated that damage by standing up for the rule of law, and presiding over a fair prosecution of her fellow Democrats. But that isn’t the choice that Kane has made.

h/t First Street Journal

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

Blame Obama: Archie To Be Killed Off

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Nothing is sacred.

Not even Archie Andrews is immortal in the world of comics.

Archie Comics says the famous comic book character will heroically sacrifice himself while saving the life of a friend in a July installment of “Life with Archie.” The comic book series tells the story of grown-up renditions of Archie and his Riverdale gang.

Archie’s final moments will be detailed in “Life with Archie” No. 36, while issue No. 37 will jump forward a year and focus on his friends Jughead, Betty, Veronica and Reggie honoring the legacy of their red-headed pal, who first appeared in comics in 1941.

If they are so determined to bring realism to comic books they should have Archie die while waiting for surgery that he can’t get because it isn’t covered on his Obamacare “Bronze” plan.

For the record: I was always a Veronica guy.

Read bullet | Comments »

‘Milking’ Egypt’s Christian Copts Dry

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 - by Raymond Ibrahim

The Board of Inquiry in Cairo monitoring the “sectarian violence that continues to cross Egypt after the overthrow of President Morsi, has documented in a report released on Tuesday, March 25 the endemic forms of violence and abuse that continue to be perpetrated against Coptic Christians in many parts of the country, particularly in the governorates of Luxor, Sohag and Aswan.”  According to this report, “reference is made to abductions [almost always for ransom], expropriation of houses, shops looted where Egyptian Copts continue to be targeted victims.”

In other words, Egypt’s Christians are increasingly being seen and treated, in the words of some early caliphs, as “milk camels” to be milked dry of their money and possessions. (Crucified Again, p. 200)

Even the most remote, modest, and apolitical Copts are being targeted so.  Late last month, Coptic activists in Egypt called on the Interior Ministry and its organs in the Fayum district to move and rescue the monks, workers, and visitors of the ancient Monastery of Saint Makarius, which is located in the desert between Alexandria and Cairo.

Arab Bedouins have been raiding, plundering, and keeping the monastery in a constant state of duress.  Among other depredations, these raiders have especially taken up the practice of waylaying Christian travelers from and to the monastery, including those in vehicles, and robbing them under threat of gunfire.

In one incident, a monk was stopped, seized, and  had gun shots fired near his ear, before he was robbed of all the money in his possession, which was meant to be used to purchase much needed building materials for the monastery.  In another incident, the monastery’s car was stolen and returned in exchange for a large sum of money.

Considering that the Western media is silent about the most horrific abuses the Copts suffer in Egypt—such as the brutal slaughter of a young woman identified as a Christian by her cross—it is little wonder that the oppression of these remote monks is seen as beyond irrelevant.

Read bullet | Comments »

After Eich, What Is the ‘American Way?’

Monday, April 7th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The majorities in California and Texas don’t agree with each other on very much. The two states have radically different social policy perspectives, the party that dominates in one is nearly unelectable in the other, they have near polar opposite views on business, on taxation, on personal liberty versus the “collective good” or whatever you want to call it, on the Second Amendment, you name it. California and Texas just don’t agree on very much. They don’t even agree on what to do with each other, really. Californians apparently want Texans to be just like them, while Texans just mostly want to be left alone.

But as of a few years ago — 2008, to be exact — the majorities in both states did agree on something. The majority of voters in California and Texas both agreed that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Californians ratified that opinion in Proposition 8, which won 52-47. Not a gigantic majority, but a clear majority nonetheless. Texans had ratified that opinion three years earlier, in a state constitutional amendment called Proposition 2. Prop 2′s winning margin was 76% to 24%. 253 of Texas’ 254 counties voted in favor of Prop 2, and thus of maintaining the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage.

In both California and Texas, the pro-same-sex marriage side outspent the traditional side. Yet the traditional side won. The people of both states spoke clearly, as have the majority of voters in states wherever redefining marriage has been put to a vote, with only a couple of exceptions.

Texas’ and California’s votes aren’t going to stand up, though. Despite the clear wishes of the majority of its voters and its obligation to defend its laws, California’s government decided not to defend Prop 8 when gay marriage advocates took it to court. Texas’ government is defending Prop 2 in court, but again, it won’t hold up. If anything, those votes and the effort it took to bring them about will be used as weapons against the majorities who passed them for decades to come.

The definition of marriage as one-man-one-woman is by no means new. It goes back in Western culture several thousand years, all the way back to Genesis 2:24: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Simple, straightforward, and well understood for millennia.

Those who wanted to codify that definition of marriage in their state laws were not motivated by hatred or “intolerance.” They were motivated first and foremost by an innate conservatism against radical and rapid change to a fundamental institution that had not been adequately explained or limited by those who advocated for the change. Proponents of same-sex marriage have never been able to come up with a coherent case for why, once they win, marriage will not just be redefined by courts again, and again, until it loses all of its meaning. “Because we say so, hater!” is more or less the typical reply one gets when asking why, once courts have deemed the one-man-one-woman definition unconstitutional, they won’t go ahead and redefine marriage to include any arrangement that any number of adults can come up with for whatever reason, once lawsuits demanding such changes get to court. Where is the logical limit — the full end — of the current drive to legalize same-sex marriage by using the courts to create a redefinition that voting majorities clearly oppose? Same-sex marriage proponents have never truly engaged the debate with much good faith or fairness at all. If you stood opposed to what they want, you have typically been called names or told to just get with the times.

Those who wanted to defend that clear and simple and traditional definition of marriage did everything they were supposed to do in the American system of governance. They stuck to the American way. They got a federal law passed, the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, that spelled out the federal government’s definition of marriage as one-man-one-woman. They achieved bipartisan consensus; everyone from Franklin Graham to Bill Clinton agreed on DOMA. They organized, raised money, got laws and propositions drafted at the state level. And they won those votes, from Florida to North Carolina to Texas to Arizona to California and elsewhere, fair and square. The people spoke both at the federal level and at the state level, and they spoke up for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

But on the activist left, “The people have spoken” only has meaning when the people say what the activist left wants them to say.

Read bullet | 20 Comments »

Surprise! OkCupid’s Board Includes At Least Two Democrat Donors

Friday, April 4th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

OkCupid launched the campaign against Brendan Eich at Mozilla. Today, the White House declined to give an opinion on whether Mr. Eich ought to have become unemployable for holding a position that Barack Obama held at the same time.

Perhaps the question should be re-asked on Monday.

Here is the OkCupid board of founders. They are, from left to right, Chris Coyne, Sam Yagan, Max Krohn and Christian Rudder.

Given the nature of the current debate, Mr. Rudder would be well advised to just have people call him “Chris.”


A quick donor look-up on is revealing. Two of the four founders have donated money to political operations in recent years. Both donors gave money on a similar scale to Brendan Eich, the man they are responsible for getting ousted at a company they don’t even work for and is not a rival of their company. In fact, Eich developed a tool that OkCupid probably could not exist without.

According to OpenSecrets, Mr. Yagan donated to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign twice, once in 2007 and once in 2008. Humor Rainbow used to own OkCupid.



At the time Yagan made both donations, Barack Obama was publicly opposed to same-sex marriage.

OkCupid’s other political donor appears to be Max Krohn. According to OpenSecrets, Krohn donated to the Democratic National Committee twice in 2004.



Circumstantial evidence suggests that this Maxwell Krohn is the same one who co-founded OkCupid. Note that he lists MIT as his employer. OkCupid’s Max Krohn was a grad student at MIT from 2003, and co-founded OkCupid in 2004.

At that point, 2004, the Democratic Party as a whole opposed same-sex marriage. The majority of Democrats in Congress, and President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, had passed and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which supposedly enshrined the traditional definition of marriage into federal law.

Let’s throw this in just for irony’s sake.



Mr. Zhi did not come up in an OpenSecrets record search. I have no idea what his politics are, or if he even has any. But he works for a company that wanted strangers to quit using Firefox because Brendan Eich was Mozilla’s CEO. Well, Brendan Eich invented JavaScript.

For consistency’s sake, shouldn’t OkCupid demand that Morley Zhi and anyone else who works for their dating site stop using JavaScript immediately?

Or was this whole thing just a game to them?

Evidently, whatever the game is, it goes on even after OkCupid have kicked Eich’s head around.

Sam Yagan retweeted both of those tweets on his personal Twitter account. What “further steps” does he want Mozilla to take?

You know who is probably living in fear today? Anyone who works at OkCupid –a dating site — and supports traditional marriage.

I’m not a fan of boycotts, traditional marriage supporters should consider steering clear of OkCupid.

Read bullet | Comments »

A Future of Fear

Friday, April 4th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

I’m not singling John Nolte out here, but this is wishful thinking.

Did the mob engage in any soul-searching when they tried to crush Chick-Fil-A — and failed?

Did the mob engage in any soul-searching when they tried to crush Duck Dynasty — and failed?

Why, then, would they soul-search after they won one? They successfully carried out a public execution. It’s time for a party.

As we noted in Mozilla Burning, the real purpose of going after Eich was to harass and intimidate everyone who supports the traditional view of marriage. Its purpose was to drive such people out of polite society. Or make them shut up. The mob has no interest in winning hearts and minds anymore, not when crushing them swiftly will do.

Now, who is most likely to support traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage?

Catholics. Evangelical Christians. Wade your way through the average leftist blog, and who is on the receiving end of more hatred there than any other group of people?

So let’s look forward a few years from now.

The lesson of Mozilla is that you are never safe from the mob. A small donation made years ago can be used to hunt you down and destroy you, even if you have not engaged in any other political activity.

So a few years from now, a perfectly ordinary American decides to run for office. He owns his own business. His family is strong and together. He has no criminal record, no bankruptcies, none of the usual fodder for oppo research to pick out and exploit. He treats his employees well. He’s clean. You know, like Brendan Eich.

But he is a Republican and a well-known member of the local church. Maybe that membership is noted on his campaign website to connect him to the community’s values. He has humbly responded to his business success by giving back, donating some of his income to the church over the years. Maybe, if he was really successful, he helped it fund a new building. So not only is he clean, he has been doing the right thing by his faith.

Some years back, five or even ten, the pastor of that church delivered a sermon that someone recorded, in which he defended the traditional definition of marriage. He quoted Genesis. He quoted Matthew. He stated a position that is perfectly mainstream. This was no Jeremiah Wright type of sermon, I want to be clear about that. It wasn’t hateful. But it wasn’t equivocal either. It was energetic and it was clear.

That sermon appears on YouTube as Ordinary Citizen becomes the front-runner in his campaign. It’s edited to condense the remarks about marriage into a punchy minute or two, and it gets all over Twitter and the networks get ahold of it too.

What happens to our Ordinary Citizen?

My guess is, unless he is a strongly principled and prayerful man possessing more courage than most and is extremely savvy about public relations, he finds himself on defense and before long he’s toast. Not only does he drop out of the campaign, but the local church comes under assault, his family comes under personal attack, and he may lose his business.

For what, exactly? Well, what did Brendan Eich do?

Why do we now know who Brendan Eich is, but most still don’t know who the people at OKCupid are who launched the campaign to destroy him? Why did President Obama’s spokesman today dodge a question about what the president thinks about what has been done to Eich? It’s not like this White House is ever shy about expressing an opinion. It’s fighting a private company in court over religious beliefs right now. Why didn’t the president stand up for Eich’s right to believe what he wants? That silence sent a signal from the president to the mob: Do whatever you want. Punish your enemies. Make them fear you.

In succeeding in getting Brendan Eich ousted, the mob has created a future of fear for everyone who disagrees with them and has ever disagreed with them and has ever contemplated any public life. Publicly announce your full support for the mob, or (economically and culturally) die. Christians, you are their public enemy number one.

So, “Gaystapo” has a certain ring to it.

Read bullet | 9 Comments »

The Fascist Thugs Win One: Firefox CEO Steps Down (Update: IRS Role Exposed)

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Brendan Eich committed a thoughtcrime. He supports the traditional definition of marriage. For that, he has now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

Yeah. He’s “made this decision” after thugs forced him into it.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Obviously Mozilla does not believe in equality or freedom of speech. If it did, it would have defended its CEO and noted that many of its employees agree with him, not just the other side. It would have asserted that both sides deserve a hearing.

Firefox surrendered to the OKCupid mob, which loves free speech so much that it has successfully deprived a man of his income because of his beliefs — beliefs which are not fringe, but are shared by roughly half the country or more. Beliefs which he once shared with the left’s own champion, Barack Obama.

I know many readers here and many writers here support gay marriage. Are y’all cool with depriving someone of their ability to work if they disagree? That’s where we are right now. They tried it with Chick-Fil-A and bombed. But they have succeeded in the tech field, which drives much of our culture forward. Into what?

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

Another lie.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.

“Freely.” That word no longer means what it once did. You’re free to agree with the mob. You’re not free to disagree with the mob.

Update: GLAAD responds with a lie of its own.

Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all.

“…welcoming to all.” Unless you disagree with us, in which case, you might as well be dead.

GLAAD also gives something away. Mozilla claims that Eich stepped down on his own. GLAAD says Mozilla has made a “strong statement.” That can only be true if Mozilla forced him to step down.

So either GLAAD are projecting, or Mozilla is lying.

Update: Check this out. The IRS abuse scandal started the process that got Eich ousted.

Why, then, the ruckus? Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any “incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”

To whom did the IRS leak NOM’s files? The Human Rights Campaign.

The HRC evidently engineered Eich’s ouster, in the name of equality and tolerance.

The IRS actions create a serious chilling effect. Your donations to any group can be leaked by a hostile operative within the government, to your enemies, for use against you — up to and now including costing you your job.

Read bullet | 98 Comments »

NPR Asks: Hey Isn’t It Time We Re-Think This Whole Girl Scout Cookie Thing?

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Look. Just go ahead and ban all the things. Except the things that we used to call evil and sins and that were obviously pretty harmful. Keep them. Ban the rest.

It’s a pretty bold move to blast Girl Scout cookies, those precious sugary treats whose limited run from late winter to early spring is just about over for the year.

But a few brave voices argue it’s no longer all that delightful to see little girls peddling packaged cookies, or to buy them in the name of supporting the community. (And no, this is not an April Fools’ joke.)

To some doctors and parents, the tradition increasingly feels out of step with the uncomfortable public health realities of our day.

“The problem is that selling high-fat sugar-laden cookies to an increasingly calorie-addicted populace is no longer congruent with [the Girl Scouts' aim to make the world a better place].” That’s what John Mandrola, a heart doctor in Louisville, Ky., on his blog in March. (He also blogs for Medscape/Cardiology.)

The sentiment was echoed by Diane Hartman, a writer and editor in Denver, who penned an indignant in the Denver Post, “Why are we letting Girl Scouts sell these fattening cookies?”

Exactly. Preach it, sister. Why are we allowing some people to do things that we personally disapprove, except those things that used to be taboo, which are a-ok now? Just ban all the things. Flip the script. Bring the hammer of gubmint down on them all.

Because, concern, and feelings, and all that crap.

See these two girls? They’re minions of evil, er, if we still believed in evil. Which hardly anyone does anymore.


Seems to me, one thing evil would do if it existed would be to divide people and distract them over stupid little stuff with no moral content, while really big issues carrying vast implications just slip past with no moral discussion whatsoever.

That would be a clever strategy.

h/t Althouse, who seems to be taking this nonsense seriously, and Ace, who is in in a proper full rant mode.

Read bullet | 18 Comments »

OKCupid Goes Full Fascist for the Gays

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

I’d like for people who support gay marriage to answer this question: Is it right to deny employment to someone who opposes gay marriage?

It’s not a trick question. It’s serious. Is it right to deny employment to someone because they oppose gay marriage, or ever opposed it at any point in the past?

The horribly named dating website OKCupid thinks that it is. They posted a message to Firefox users, in which they ripped Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he donated to California’s Prop 8 campaign in 2006 — eight years ago. Mozilla makes Firefox. I just verified that OKCupid is still broadcasting this message if you access the site via Firefox.

Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

A backgrounder highlight’s Eich’s $1000 donation in support of Prop 8 — which won in 2008. The same day Prop 8 passed, Florida and Arizona voters also approved bans on gay marriage. Does OKCupid have anything to say about that?

OKCupid’s message does not bring people together. It does not “create love.” It’s an attempt to cast some people out of polite society if they do not conform to what OKCupid wants. It’s a hateful, intolerant message.

It has also sparked stupidity within Mozilla itself. Several employees have posted tweets calling on Eich to step down. They are fools and should be fired summarily.

But getting back to the question at the top: Are we at the point now when it is ok, indeed mandatory, to deny employment to people because of their opposition to gay marriage?

If that’s where we are, then we are in far more trouble than any of us thought. Christians already face mild persecution over this issue. If the likes of OKCupid carry the day, then the persecution will get a whole lot less mild.

Plus, the gay marriage movement may not have ever been about marriage at its core at all. As some of us have pointed out from time to time.

Read bullet | Comments »

NFL to Allow ‘Seat Visits’ by Cheerleaders. What Can Go Wrong?

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

At first I thought this must be an April Fool’s joke, but the date is wrong for that — the story came out March 31. And it’s…interesting.

The National FootballLeagues has partnered with an app developer that will allow fans to get an in-seat visit from cheerleaders.

Sports Business Journal reports the NFL has teamed up with Experience in an effort to help improve the in-game experience for fans. On top of having cheerleaders visit fans in their seats, the app will allow fans the opportunity to upgrade their seats and also allowing them to be on the field before the game.

I don’t know about this. But I do know that I blame/credit Jerry Jones.

When Cowboys Stadium debuted in 2009, it edged the NFL cheerleader’s tasks just a bit farther from the family experience that the NFL says it wants. Cheerleaders dance up in little stages/cages on one of the field during Cowboys games.


That got one-uppped by the app, which is going across the whole league this coming season.

Now we’ll have “seat visits.” Plus flowing alcohol. And in some states, maybe, pot smoking.

I don’t know about this…

Read bullet | 10 Comments »

Margaret Sanger Was a Racist Monster. So Why Did Nancy Pelosi Accept an Award Named After Sanger?

Friday, March 28th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi just might be a racist monster who wants to murder live children for the sake of eliminating “undesirables.” Why would I say such an outrageous thing? Because Pelosi has accepted an award named for Margaret Sanger. And Margaret Sanger was definitely a racist monster who advocated murdering live children for the sake of eliminating “undesirables.”


The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

That’s advocating child murder. It’s not racist, but we’re not done.

Sanger considered racial minorities to be “human weeds.” In context, Sanger’s “weeds” quote carries a whiff of the Third Reich.

If plants, and live stock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts.

How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.

These “human weeds” were, in Sanger’s mind, working-class people, and racial minorities.

Sanger had a plan for weeding out the human race. First, forced sterilization and racial segregation. From Sanger’s Women and the New Race:

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Sanger also advocated instituting government control over who can and cannot be allowed to have children. From Sanger’s Plan for Peace:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

Hey, Sanger was “pro-choice,” in a way, as you’ll see on the next page.

Read bullet | 38 Comments »

Caption Contest Winners: The First Lady Went to China and Did Not Bring Home This T-shirt

Friday, March 28th, 2014 - by Myra Adams

2009 File Photo Daily Mail – REUTERS/David Gray

Thanks to everyone who entered our latest contest. We had enough great quotations to fill our own “little red book” and forever banish Chairman Mao from the book writing business.

Not surprising, our own “Chairman” Cfbleachers provided us with much old Chinese and new Democrat wisdom.  Here is a sample:

“Political work is the life-blood of all economic work.”
Obamacare shows that doing it this way causes clogged economic arteries.

“To read too many books is harmful.”
Ergo, reading a single security briefing could prove fatal.

“Let a hundred scandals bloom.”
As long as you own the media, it will be impossible to gain a whiff of their “fragrance.”

Kuce is awarded a Chairman Mao “workers cap” for these quotations:

 “A dog on the plate is worth two in the bush”
- recipes from Chairman Mao, with forward by B.H. Obama

“It is necessary to investigate both the facts and the history of a problem in order to study and understand it.” Mao
“… it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in fifty …. seven states? I think one left to go.” BHO

RockThisTown provided us with this wisdom:

 Mao: To read too many books is harmful.
Obama: To write too many books is harmful.

Gblumel gave us an idea for some commie-style economic stimulus: (Hey George, you should sell these at your country club.)

Get the whole series: Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Che, Stalin, et al.

Now for the grand prize winners — who win nothing but grey moth-eaten Mao jackets.

JRSWINE is runner up for suggesting two new book titles:

The Quotations of Chairman Mao, by Mousie Dung.
The Quotations of Chairman Me-O, by BHO.

First place goes to RockThisTown for this Mao/Nixonian wisdom:

Nixon and Mao

Mao: “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution.”

Obama: “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the IRS.”

Thanks again to everyone who submitted their version of wisdom and see you next time a photo is worthy of a Tatler photo caption contest.

Oh wait…. this photo from March 27  is almost worthy but not quite up to our high standards for its own contest.  However, I am confident that you will have some fun imagining what Pope Francis is thinking.

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Seriously, have you ever seen such a cast of characters in one PJ Tatler post?  Nixon, Mao, Obama, Kerry and the Pope — there has got to be a joke in there SOMEWHERE.



Read bullet | 6 Comments »

The Atlantic: Republicans ‘Driving’ Same-Sex Marriage Momentum

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Bit of a narrative buster here.

Michigan’s gay-marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional last Friday, struck down by Bernard Friedman, a judge who was originally appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan. A couple of days later, when Friedman’s decision was stayed pending an appeal, the state’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder, didn’t speak out against it. Rather, he said he would go along with the court either way.

A Republican-appointed judge and a Republican governor easing the path for gay marriage: The Michigan case was just the latest example of the role Republicans are playing in the rapidly changing landscape of gay marriage in America. From Republican officeholders to the GOP rank and file, the party that once wielded antagonism to gay marriage as a wedge now is a major reason behind its increasing acceptance.

Since last year’s Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act—authored by another Reagan appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy—federal judges have invalidated all or part of nine states’ gay-marriage bans. In addition to Friedman in Michigan, another Republican appointee, Judge John Heyburn, ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Heyburn had been recommended for the court by Senator Mitch McConnell and appointed by George H.W. Bush.

Nor is Snyder alone among swing-state GOP governors in declining to oppose the issue’s advance. In Nevada, Governor Brian Sandoval announced last month that he would no longer defend the state’s gay-marriage ban. In New Mexico, Governor Susana Martinez said in January she accepted gay marriage as “the law of the land.”

Opposition to same-sex marriage from Republicans has never been as virulent, or even widespread, as the Left has portrayed it. I’ve also encountered quite a few people opposed to it on religious grounds who didn’t think it needed to be a legislative priority. Progressives, however, have to keep vociferously asserting that we want to be in everyone’s bedrooms to distract from the fact that there isn’t a part of our lives they actually want the government out of.

Don’t expect any Republicans who see their positions on the matter “evolve” receive the kind of effusive praise the president did when he finally came around to having the same thoughts on same-sex marriage as Dick Cheney. The 11th Commandment of the MSM is “Never Say Anything Nice About A Republican”.

Read bullet | Comments »

Why There Will Never Be Peace in the Culture Wars

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Good piece (or “smart take” of you’re a Beltway denizen) by Tim Carney today in the Washington Examiner. He looks at how differently the Hobby Lobby case is viewed on the left versus the right.

Christian conservatives think marriage is a sacred bond, tied up with family formation. Christians also believe in the sanctity of life from conception. Secular liberals, Haidt has concluded, hold sacred the plight of the traditionally oppressed — including women and gays.

Feminist Marcotte was explicit about this: “Hobby Lobby is angling to deprive women of their religious liberty to use their own health care plans as they see fit,” she writes in the Daily Beast.

The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy. And they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament.

The culture war isn’t religious versus secular. It’s a clash of two faiths.

Interestingly, mandate champion Sandra Fluke provides us with a way out: “Your boss shouldn’t be involved in your health care decisions — that’s common sense,” she wrote this week.

The problem is, Fluke doesn’t mean that. Or, she doesn’t mean it in the same way that a conservative would mean it. A conservative would argue that keeping one’s boss out of personal decisions means just that — your life is your business, but you’re on the hook to pick up the tab outside the basic benefits that you and your employer have agreed to. A conservative would argue that because we don’t view corporations as extensions of the government and its social programs. Liberals argue that your boss should just cover the cost for every conceivable lifestyle choice that you might make, because freedom, and because corporations should behave like social welfare programs, not profit-seeking ventures. The conflict here is fundamental. On the left, business owners are not people with their own beliefs and moral values, once they establish a business. Businesses exist, to the left, just to provide “access” to stuff that the left wants them to provide access to.

Leftwing Democrat Sen. Patty Murray said as much on MSNBC today.

Murray casts the Hobby Lobby debate as one governing “access to birth control.” Americans don’t have any problem with “access” to birth control. The contraception mandate wasn’t even written into the text of the Obamacare law at all. The Department of Health and Human Services created it out of nothing, to advance a political wedge issue — the so-called “war on women” — to help out with President Obama’s re-election effort. It was done to create division and motivate the president’s leftwing base. And it worked. It’s still working.

Because of the politics of the mandate, and because of its effectiveness in creating a divisive issue that motivates the left, Carney’s hope for peace in the culture wars will not be reached.

Here’s one rule to make it even simpler: If there’s a serious debate over a religious exemption to a proposed law, the proposed law probably reaches too far into people’s private affairs, and should be scrapped.

By getting government out of people’s lives — how they run their business, whom they love, and what pills they take — we could accomplish peace in the Culture Wars. The question is: Does the Left want peace?

No, they don’t. Or at the very least, they don’t want peace if they believe they can punish their enemies. They will only seek peace when their social issues stances start to cost them elections. And in all likelihood, probably not even then. When they stand down on an issue, as many of them have on gun rights lately, it’s temporary. The tragedy trolls will return to flog that issue the next time they see some advantage.

If the left wanted peace in the culture wars, they would not keep going out of their way to start those wars.

They start those wars to gain advantages. They start those wars to hurt their opponents. Lately they start those wars to break challenges to government power — their own power — such as Christian churches and traditional values. They know what they’re doing and they have no interest in stopping. This gives their opponents some choices: fight back, or surrender.

Too many on the right are comfortable with the latter.

Some people just can’t help being terrible, dishonest and offensive. Being jerks, lying and smearing people, taking stuff from other people, and telling others what to think and how to live — that’s what makes some people tick. Such people — Amanda Marcotte, Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama — will never want peace when war is profitable.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

SHOCKER! MTV’s 16 and Pregnant May Not Help Reduce Teen Pregnancy

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser


This show has always seemed to be one of the more horrifying offerings in the scripted reality genre, especially to this father of a teenage daughter. MTV has always rationalized the show by saying that publicizing the negative consequences will impact young girls and keep them from getting pregnant. Apparently, no one at MTV has ever met a teenager and seen the effects television can have on them.

The idea behind “16 and Pregnant” is that viewers will see the negative consequences that come from having a baby as a teenager. A content analysis of the show conducted by one of Aubrey’s graduate student collaborators at the University of Missouri does show more negative than positive consequences of pregnancy.

Aubrey claims, however, that the show is filled with mixed messages about pregnancy.

“There’s this semi-scripted moment in every show where the girls say things like, ‘If I had the opportunity, I would do things differently.’ But, then there’s also this adorable newborn, and the teen moms are getting all this attention from the people in their lives.”

Aubrey says that one of the “myths of teen pregnancy” that is measured in the study is that most teenage fathers stay involved with the young woman they have made pregnant. In reality, most teenage fathers do not stay involved, Aubrey said, citing National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy data. In the show, however, the teenage fathers typically do stay, she said.

“Romantic relationships are really important to many teenage girls,” said Aubrey. “And when you just look at those romantic relationships in the show, there are more positive consequences that the teen pregnancy brings than negative consequences.”

The researchers also note that the money and celebrity that the teenage moms receive may also be appealing to teenage girls.

The last part is one I have often discussed with people who like watching the show. The teenage mind isn’t known for its ability to weigh consequences or delay gratification. All the kids know when watching this is, “Hey-she got pregnant and got on TV!” Like it or not, they’re making it appealing to the adolescent mind.

If we could just get this show and 60 Minutes off the air, America would be a far better place.

Read bullet | 10 Comments »

New Caption Contest: The First Lady Went to China and Did Not Bring Home This T-shirt.

Monday, March 24th, 2014 - by Myra Adams

2009 File Photo Daily Mail – REUTERS/David Gray


I may be dating myself, but I remember a children’s T-shirt that used to be popular in tourist areas that read: “My (mom, dad, whomever) when to (wherever) and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.”

The phrase came to mind after seeing this headline today in BizPac Review:

Popular ”Obama as Mao” shirts pulled from shops for Michelle’s China visit.

As it turns out, the piece originated in the Weekly Standard:

According to the Weekly Standard, a pool reporter commented on a tip about merchants at t-shirt stalls being told to “temporarily suspend sales of t-shirts that show President Obama in a Mao hat.”  The pool reporter added:

That tip turned out to be true. Several merchants denied carrying such items, but one merchant quietly took this correspondent to the back of her tent and showed off a whole box of the popular, normally seen t-shirts. As we were negotiating prices – she wanted 360 Yuan, or roughly $60, an outrageous starting price – other merchants came by, and in Chinese, told her to be careful. The merchant became visibly rattled and put the t-shirts away.

One of the commenters in the BizPac Review piece wrote that the shirts are available on ebay, so click on the link if you need to complete your spring wardrobe.

Another commenter mentioned, “If they sold the shirts here they would not make any money because today’s youth don’t know who Mao was.”

Just in case you too are a victim of public schools, here is a brief Wikipedia summary of that lovable character known as Mao Zedong.

A controversial figure, Mao is regarded as one of the most important individuals in modern world history. Mao is officially held in high regard in the People’s Republic of China. Supporters regard him as a great leader and credit him with numerous accomplishments including modernizing China and building it into a world power, promoting the status of women, improving education and health care, providing universal housing, and increasing life expectancy as China’s population grew from around 550 to over 900 million during the period of his leadership.Maoists furthermore promote his role as theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary. In contrast, critics and historians have characterized him as a dictator who oversaw systematic human rights abuses and whose rule is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of 40–70 million people through starvation, forced labor and executions, ranking his tenure as the top incidence of genocide in human history.   (I added the bold.)

After being responsible for the deaths of 40 – 70 million people, perhaps comparing Obama to Mao is a stretch. However the t-shirt being pulled from the streets for Michelle’s visit is still a newsworthy story. However, I can not figure out if the Chinese are dishonoring Obama or honoring him since Mao is still very popular in China. Maybe someone can translate what is written on the shirt?  (Hey Mike P. in DC your services are needed.)

Since I was a victim of public schools, what I remember most about Mao was his “Little Red Book” called Quotations from Chairman Mao.

Over the years I have occasionally co-opted that title as “Quotations from Chairwoman My My” when bestowing wisdom (??) on friends or business associates.

So for this contest please keep “Quotations from” in mind when submitting your entries.

Here is the book cover to jog your memory and you may also submit a new title or caption as part of the contest.


Read bullet | 30 Comments »

Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat British Hospitals

Monday, March 24th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

This story speaks for itself.

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

h/t Hot Air

Read bullet | 25 Comments »

Why the Media Doesn’t Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians

Friday, March 21st, 2014 - by Raymond Ibrahim

“To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace”—Hebrews 6:6

The United Nations, Western governments, media, universities, and talking heads everywhere insist that Palestinians are suffering tremendous abuses from the state of Israel.  Conversely, the greatest human rights tragedy of our time—radical Muslim persecution of Christians, including in Palestinian controlled areas—is devotedly ignored.

The facts speak for themselves. Reliable estimates indicate that anywhere from 100-200 million Christians are persecuted every year; one Christian is martyred every five minutes. Approximately 85% of this persecution occurs in Muslim majority nations. In 1900, 20% of the Middle East was Christian. Today, less than 2% is.

In one week in Egypt alone, where my Christian family emigrated, the Muslim Brotherhood launched akristallnacht—attacking, destroying, and/or torching some82 Christian churches (some of which were built in the 5th century, when Egypt was still a Christian-majority nation before the Islamic conquests).  Al-Qaeda’s black flag has been raised atop churches.  Christians—including priests, women and children—have been attacked, beheaded, and killed.

Nor is such persecution of Christians limited to Egypt.   From Morocco in the west to Indonesia in the east and from Central Asia to the north to sub-Saharan Africa to the south; across thousands of miles of lands inhabited by peoples who do not share the same races, languages, cultures, and/or socio-economic conditions, millions of Christians are being persecuted and in the same exact patterns… Keep reading

Read bullet | 10 Comments »

Barack Obama Takes Up Ventriloquism. Oh, Wait, that’s Just Really Weird Staging on Ellen’s Show.

Thursday, March 20th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

What the…?

The staging makes Ellen DeGeneres look like a ventriloquist’s puppet, or a chirpy little kid.

“You know I’m a fan, Ellen, but your acting is a little wooden!”



During the segment, the president took a break from keeping his March Madness bracket updated to talk about tattoos, selfies, and his mom jeans. So, it was pretty much like his appearances on the regular network news shows.

Read bullet | Comments »

VIDEO — Obama Announces More Sanctions Against Russian Officials, Appears on Ellen

Thursday, March 20th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

President Obama announced today that the United States will levy additional sanctions against Russia for invading and annexing Crimea. Up to today, the president had levied sanctions against 11 Russians, who had laughed those sanctions off.

The president said that the new sanctions will hit more officials and others who provide “material support” for Russia’s government.

The entertainment president concluded his remarks and left. He touts Obamacare on the em>Ellen DeGeneres Show today. Justin Timberlake appears on the same episode as the President of the United States.

Read bullet | Comments »

Gym Tells Hot, Fit Woman to Cover Up Because She’s Intimidating Others

Thursday, March 20th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Just so we all understand the rules now, you can’t slut-shame, and you can’t fat-shame. But you can hot-shame.

In her first workout since being injured in a car accident, Tiffany Austin said she couldn’t wait to get back on the treadmill.

But barely 15 minutes into her walking exercise, she noticed people staring. Then a member of the Planet Fitness staff approached and told her to cover up because she was intimidating others in the facility.

Planet Fitness. They’re the gym chain built around the idea that people want to belong to gyms, but don’t actually want to use gyms to get in shape. They just want to go around saying “Yeah, I have a gym membership” to impress their friends. Planet Fitness is the “no lunkheads” gym that ships in pizza once a week. Because pizza is such a fitness food.

Austin, who said she’d just joined the Richmond, Calif., gym, agreed to put a shirt over her halter top. But she drew the line when a second worker called her out as she waited for the first employee to bring her shirt.

That staffer said “excuse me, we’ve had some complaints you’re intimidating people with your toned body,” Austin quoted the woman as saying KTVU-TV reported.

See Austin and her outfit on the next page. Most people would welcome her method of intimidation.

Read bullet | 72 Comments »

Open Thread: Step Away From Your Computer To Be More Productive…On Your Computer

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Suspicions confirmed.

Everyone makes mistakes when it comes to technology. Some are terrible at doing regular data back-ups because it’s not a high priority (you know who you are). Many have hundreds (thousands?) of emails sitting in an inbox right now. And, as I’ve mentioned before, there are those who skip using any form of virus protection — which means, you’re living on a razor’s edge.

Yet, there’s one mistake you’re probably making right now that is much more serious. It’s one that could be causing serious health problems like depression and anxiety. And, someday — in the not too distant future — it could play a role in workplace lawsuits, new employment laws and technical restrictions.

The problem: You’re not taking enough breaks from the computer.

This is something I have been actively working on recently. I have been on the road doing stand-up for almost all of my adult life and never had to worry about regular workplace things too much. In the past year, I began doing a lot of freelance writing which means I am staying home working at my computer.

A host of nagging orthopedic ills immediately presented themselves, so I began forcing myself to get up and move around more. That helped…a little.

I was still spending far too many hours staring at the computer. When you’re self employed it’s easy to make excuses for living at your desk. So I have been setting strict time limits for how long I should be there each day (while keeping up the breaks to move around). As if by magic, I am getting my work done in around half the time.

Full disclosure: giving up all non work related social media for Lent has helped a lot.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama, Putin Release their March Madness Brackets

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

In keeping with his annual tradition, President Barack Obama has gone on ESPN and released his 2014 NCAA men’s basketball tournament bracket. The president has released his bracket, which he has clearly spent a great deal of time personally formulating, every year since 2009. That year he predicted the North Carolina Tarheels to win it all, and that remains the only year in which he has called the winner correctly.

This year, Obama is predicting Michigan State to win the final.

“Tom Izzo is a great tournament coach,” Obama said. “I’ve got Michigan State going all the way. … He know how to motivate folks and he knows how to coach. My pick: Michigan State. Bring it home for me. It’s been a while since I’ve won my pool.”

Besides the fourth-seeded Spartans and Cardinals, President Obama also selected No. 1 overall seed Florida and top seed Arizona to reach the Final Four in Arlington, Texas.

“I know these are not imaginative picks, but I think they’re the right ones,” Obama said of his Final Four picks.

In a first, Russian President Vladimir Putin has also released his take on March Madness. Putin stuck to the friendlier confines of state-run Russian media rather than ESPN for his announcement. Putin says that as a man who wrestles bears shirtless, his pick is similar to Tom Izzo in that he also knows how to motivate folks, but that’s where the similarities end. He is expecting this motivated team to win it all. Take a look at Vladimir Putin’s bracket on the next page.

Read bullet | Comments »

Look Out: Jesse Jackson Eyes a New Industry to Shakedown in the Name of ‘Diversity’

Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 - by Stephen Kruiser

Toyota 2.0?

Rev. Jesse Jackson plans to lead a delegation to the Hewlett Packard annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday to bring attention to Silicon Valley’s poor record of including blacks and Latinos in hiring, board appointments and startup funding.

Jackson’s strategy borrows from the traditional civil rights era playbook of shaming companies to prod them into transformation. Now he is bringing it to the age of social media and a booming tech industry known for its disruptive innovation.

Let’s be honest, Jackson is never really in it for anybody else these days. His endgame here is sure to have a “Jesse Jackson’s bank account” component to it.

What this article fails to explore is that Silicon Valley and its driving industry are reeking with leftists who are supposed to be great lovers of diversity (as well as being (as well as being part of the Bay Area Progressive mother ship). Why on Earth would there be a lack of it, what with all of the latter day code hippies milling about the enviro-friendly tech campuses?

Read bullet | 13 Comments »

Did Russian Intelligence Promote Obama from Lieutenant to Colonel?

Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 - by Oleg Atbashian

“I wonder, after the successful campaign of handing over the Crimea, will Barack be promoted to a colonel?” That was the question Tweeted yesterday by the newly elected prime minister of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, shortly after the Russian-speaking residents of the disputed peninsula voted to leave Ukraine with the prospects of joining the Motherland. The Russian-language Tweet was accompanied by a Photoshopped picture of Barack Obama wearing a Russian uniform.


The Huffington Post, which first reported on this Tweet, quickly replaced it with a different article about Aksyonov — possibly after a scathing call from the White House — but not before the Washington Times and a few conservative blogs picked it up and ran with it, reposting the picture along with the awkward English translation made by the HuffPost using Google translator or a similar electronic service.

None of them, however, provided any background, or asked a relevant question: why would a previously obscure pro-Russian politician, whom the Obama administration’s incompetence helped to become a prime minister, sarcastically imply that Obama is working for the Kremlin? This doesn’t seem to make any sense.

Such a jab could have easily come from conservative jokesters in the U.S., as a way to vent their bitterness over Obama’s inept handling of international affairs and squandering America’s standing in the world. It could have also come from those Russians and Ukrainians who are opposed to Putin’s imperial policies. But why would a pro-Russian separatist with a shady past, who is himself very likely working on orders from Moscow, out his alleged “colleague”?

As someone who frequents the Russian-language side of the blogosphere, let me explain.

The Crimean PM’s question wasn’t a standalone joke, but rather a punch line to an earlier anonymous joke with a Photoshopped picture of Barack Obama, seen on various Russian websites and forums since he first became president.

The picture was a mock-up of a KGB personnel file with a photo of Obama wearing the uniform of a KGB lieutenant with three stars on blue epaulettes. The name on the card is listed as Boris Huseinovich Obamov, a spy and saboteur, born in Uzbekistan and of Uzbek ethnicity, a member of United Russia Party, recruited by Vladimir Putin in 1981, currently without a permanent address and working undercover as the U.S. president. The agent’s listed code name, The White One, is likely funnier in Russia than it is in America, where it comes off as overtly racist.


The “updated” picture Tweeted by the Crimean PM clearly shows two stripes and two stars across the blue epaulettes, corresponding to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the same organization — one step away from colonel. The KGB has been since renamed into FSB, and those are also the letters on his shoulder patch with the Russian flag.

In summary, Aksyonov’s joke is hardly political satire or commentary on Obama’s specific actions, but rather blatant mockery in the general direction of the American president.

Read bullet | 53 Comments »