Google+ Followers

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Candidate ‘flees’ when asked of Obama’s birthplace

Candidate ‘flees’ when asked of Obama’s birthplace

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Jim Crow and the Party of Jackasses

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Jim Crow and The Donkey: A True History The Left Loves To Ignore

Ken Blackwell
by Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: You know you’ve hit a sore spot when the Left starts screeching.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s producer, Steve Benen, just took a whack at the American Civil Rights Union’s new booklet, “The Truth About Jim Crow,” (TTAJC) which National Review Online writer John Fund wrote about in a recent column.

Benen cites a critique from the Atlanta Journal Constitution blogger Jay Bookman: “Jay Bookman took a closer look at the pamphlet Fund’s piece was promoting, highlighting some of its more glaring errors of fact and judgment.”

And what errors of fact would those be, Steve? Bookman did not point out a single factual error. Instead, regarding TTAJC’s three main points, that Jim Crow was “dehumanizing, deadly and Democratic,” he painfully admitted the paper’s accuracy: “that is true as far as it goes.” Apparently, Benen believes if you can’t find a factual error yourself, it’s okay to claim falsely that somebody else did.

Benen also suggests Fund is a hypocrite because he dares to write about civil rights for NRO. In 1957, you see, William F. Buckley of National Review wrote an article supporting segregation. But Buckley wasn’t by himself in 1957. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson was busy gutting GOP President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act, and John F. Kennedy, then a senator from Massachusetts, was voting against it. If Fund is responsible for Buckley, aren’t Barack Obama and Harry Reid responsible for Kennedy and Johnson as well?

If Benen and Bookman can’t find any factual errors in TTAJC, then what are they complaining about? The goring of their sacred ox. Benen and Bookman devote their columns to reaffirming the Left’s standard dogma about Jim Crow, which TTAJC contradicts. Such heresy cannot be tolerated.

According to Bookman,I read the entire pamphlet, and there's a single word that is notable by its absence from a document put out by such a highly conservative organization. That word is "conservative", and there's a very good reason for its absence:

Conservatives -- conservatives in the Democratic Party, and conservatives in the Republican Party -- fought against civil rights. They fought hard, they fought bitterly, and in end they lost. The very magazine in which Fund's piece appears, National Review, is a conservative publication that stridently defended segregation.

Liberals and moderates -- again, liberals and moderates from both parties, Republicans and Democrats alike -- fought FOR civil rights.

That is the plain, unvarnished, uncontestable truth. It was never a fight between Democrats and Republicans, it was a fight between liberals and conservatives. Fund knows it. The authors of the ACRU pamphlet know it. And the whole purpose of the pamphlet and similar efforts to rewrite history is to make that truth go away.
Benen adds that the Democrats “dispatched the racists to the GOP,” and “segregationists made a new home in the Republican Party in the latter half of the 20th century.”

That’s the Left’s narrative on Jim Crow, and it’s dead wrong in both fact and analysis. Here is the heart of the issue, where the left has hijacked the true history of Jim Crow. The dividing line over Jim Crow was never liberals vs. conservatives; it’s far more accurate to describe it as Democrats versus Republicans. Not only in the 1800s, when the KKK served as the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, but right into the 1950s and 1960s. Bookman’s assertion that “conservatives in the Republican Party … fought against civil rights” is utterly false. As historian Dr. John Fonte noted on NRO in 2003, staunchly conservative Republicans led the fight for civil rights in the Senate, including Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, Ohio Senator Robert Taft, and California Senator Bill Knowland. In contrast, liberal Democrats remained divided, and liberal senators like William Fulbright and Al Gore, Sr. continued to fight for Jim Crow and white supremacy until the bitter end. One of those incontestably liberal Democrats who fought civil rights tooth and nail was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who switched sides only because he believed supporting civil rights for blacks would cement black support for the Democratic Party. And, how many of the people reading this column knew that the greatest icon of the Democratic Party, liberal John F. Kennedy, voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act?

Further contradicting the Left’s narrative, there was no sudden shift of segregationists from Democrat to Republican after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The truth is, white Southerners continued to vote in large numbers for the Democratic Party until the advent of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Democrats never “dispatched” segregationists from their party, as Benen claims. It’s more accurate to say Southern Democratic segregationists died off than that they switched parties. In any case, no Southerners shifted from the Democrats to the GOP because the GOP offered shelter to racism. Republicans never adopted racist policies, as Democrats had for more than a century; they did oppose dubious progressive notions like racial quotas as affirmative action. Democrats to this day accuse Republicans of racism for opposing racial preferences, even though, as Fonte notes, liberals including Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Edmund Muskie, and Adam Clayton Powell all spoke against racial preferences during the Congressional debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Now there’s true hypocrisy.

Certainly the most rabid segregationist politicians remained in the Democratic Party. Only one Southern Democratic senator who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act switched to the GOP, and that was ironic, considering that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Act than Democrats. The rest of the segregationists remained comfortably at home in the Democratic Party, which, in 1977, elected former Ku Klux Klan officer Robert Byrd to be its Senate Majority Leader.

Finally, the Leftist narrative about civil rights overlooks the fact that race is not the only issue in America. There are many reasons Southern voters rejected the Democratic Party, which lurched sharply to the left in 1968 and has never come back. Here are a few examples: its blame-America-first foreign policy, its hostility toward business, its promotion of welfare dependency, its hostility to God and religion, its sexual radicalism, and, last but not least, its ongoing identity politics and fanning of the flames of racial division.

Bookman whines, “I'm not sure that ‘Jim Crow was Democratic’ is really one of the three most important things that we should know about that era.”

Actually, it is. There is a reason why Jim Crow, which ended fifty years ago, continues to elicit such strong emotions today, and it’s all about partisan politics.

In the 1950s and 1960s, political ideology cut across party lines far more so than it does nowadays. Liberals and conservatives were found in both parties. Today’s Democrats range from liberal to far left, while Republicans range from moderate to conservative. The Left benefits from rewriting the history of Jim Crow as a liberal vs. conservative struggle so that it can tar the contemporary, moderately conservative GOP as racist, at least in the eyes of black Democrats.

Jim Crow is also a useful tool for tarring conservative efforts to root out voter fraud as “racist.” Both Benen and Bookman take aim at photo ID measures, Benen describing them as “discriminatory.” What, exactly, is discriminatory about requiring every American to produce a photo ID before voting? As a longtime international election observer, I can report that virtually every country in the industrialized world requires photo ID for voting. Also, the argument that photo IDs deny people the right to vote is long since disproven. In fact, the UN and the State Department both recommend use of photo IDs to forestall vote fraud in both developed nations and the Third World. The Left’s claims that voter ID laws are racist are nothing more than efforts to cloud the real issue, vote fraud, while stirring up racial division and motivating their base.

It all comes down to identity politics, which the Democrats have been practicing since the end of the Civil War, especially when they created Jim Crow. All by themselves.
Ken Blackwell  is a member of the Policy Board of the American Civil Rights Union and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

Tags: voting rights,civil rights,blacks,democrats,socialists,progressives,liars,ignoring truth To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Growing bad legislation like the ethanol mandate which is ineffective and expensive

2007: A great year for growing bad legislation like the ethanol mandate

orphans_cornBy Marita Noon
President Obama, and his administration, has enacted so many foolish and cost-increasing energy policies, it is easy to think that they are his purview alone. But in 2007, Republicans were just as guilty. Seeds were planted and a garden of bad legislation took root in a totally different energy environment. At the time, the growth seemed like something worthy of cultivation. However, what sprouted up more closely resembles a weed that needs to be yanked out.
This blogger is an experienced mechanic, aviator, investigator, and has looked into the alcohol mandates carefully. I agree they are ineffective at best and destructive of vehicles, especially outboard engines, lawnmowers, older engines not especially adapted to use of alcohol, and the use of corn has got to be the most stupid use for making alcohol as it is a major food for people and animals worldwide. Alcohol has a chemical affinity for water and superheated water is an excellent metal eroder on the order of acid as well as rusting internals and destroying rubber and plastic parts of the engine fuel systems. 
Last week, I wrote about Australia’s carbon tax that was pulled on July 17. Its seeds were also planted in 2007, though not germinated until 2011. Prime Minister Abbott promised to eradicate the unpopular plant — and after nearly a year of struggle, he did.
2007 was also the year of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Around that time, more than half the states put in a mandate requiring increasing amounts of wind and solar power be incorporated into the energy mix the local utilities provided for their customers. It was expected that the RPS would become a much-admired garden with wind turbines blowing in the breeze and solar panels turning toward the sun like sunflowers.
Instead, the RPS has been an expensive folly. Angering the ratepayers, electricity prices have gone up. Groups, like the American Bird Conservancy, have filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because it allows bald and golden eagles to be chopped up by wind turbines without punishment to the operators. Industrial solar installations are in trouble due to the massive land use and literally frying birds that fly through the reflected sunlight. The mandates have created false markets and bred crony corruption that has the beneficiaries squawking when legislatures threaten to pull plans that have grown like kudzu. Yet, many states have now introduced legislation to trim, or uproot, the plans that sounded so good back in 2007. Though none has actually been yanked out, Ohio just put a pause on its RPS.
The RPS was state legislation; the RFS, federal.
Enacted, in 2005 and strengthened in 2007, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) — also known as the ethanol mandate — had true bipartisan support (something that is difficult to imagine in today’s political climate). Both Republicans and Democrats lauded the RFS as America’s solution to U.S. dependence on foreign oil. In signing the Energy Independence and Security Act that contained the RFS, President George W. Bush promised it would end our addiction to oil by growing our gas. Although it was passed by Congress with the best of intentions, it, too, has become a costly, wasteful, and politically-charged fiasco that has created an artificial market for corn-based ethanol and driven up both fuel and food prices while threatening to damage millions of families’ most prized and essential possessions: their cars and trucks.
Times have changed. People are no longer lining up to view the garden of renewables as they do to stroll through the spectacular floral displays at Las Vegas’ Bellagio — where teams of specialized staff maintain the stylized gardens. At the Bellagio, you can gaze gratis. America’s renewable garden is costly at a time when our citizens are forced to cut back on everything else.
Compared to 2007, several things are different today. The big one is the economy. We, as a country, were still living large in 2007. We were also still dependent on oil from overseas and our purchases were funding terrorism. Plus, it was, then, generally believed by many that our globe was warming — and it was our fault because of burning fossil fuels. When presented with the idea of growing our gasoline, even though it might cost more, it seemed worth it—after all, what was a few cents a gallon to thumb our nose at the Middle East and save the planet?
But this is a different day. A few cents a gallon matters now. Thanks to the combined technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, America is rich with oil-and-gas resources — and we could be truly energy secure if there were greater access to federal lands. Since 2007, the U.S. has trimmed our CO2 emissions — while they’ve grown globally. The predicted warming (and accompanying catastrophes) hasn’t happened. Instead, it appears that the increased CO2 has generated record harvests — despite predictions to the contrary.
But the seeds planted in 2007 have grown false markets that need the mandates — both for electricity generation and transportation fuels — to stake them up, as they can’t survive on their own. Talk of yanking the mandates is likened to cutting down the once-a-year blossom of the Queen of the Night. “How could you?”  “You’ll kill jobs!”  Elected officials, such as Congressman Steve King (R-IA), who are normally fiscally conservative, vote to continue the boondoggles that benefit his state.
When the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007, it was assumed that gasoline demand would continue to rise indefinitely so larger volumes of ethanol could be blended into gasoline every year to create E10, a motor fuel comprised of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol. Rather than requiring a percentage of ethanol, the law mandated a growing number of gallons of ethanol be used.
Instead, due to increased vehicle efficiencies and a bad economy, gasoline demand peaked in 2007 and began to decline, reducing the amount of gasoline consumed in the U.S. Still, the law requires refiners to blend ever-increasing volumes of ethanol into gasoline every year until 36 billion gallons of ethanol is blended into the nation’s fuel supplies by 2022.
It is the mandate that allowed the ethanol tax credit (a.k.a. subsidy) to expire at beginning of 2012. The growing mandates gave the corn farmers plenty of incentive.
In the modern era, with ethanol no longer needed due to America’s increasing oil production and the mandates’ unreasonable requirements, an unusual collection of opponents has risen up against ethanol: environmentalists and big oil, auto manufacturers and anti-hunger groups.
Much to everyone’s surprise, last November the EPA came out with a proposal to use its authority to make a practical decision to keep the mandate from increasing that resulted in a cut in the amount of biofuels that refiners would need to mix into their fuels — a decision that was required to be made by the end of November 2013. To date, in the seventh month of 2014, the EPA still has not released the 2014 mandates. Refiners are still waiting.
On Thursday, July 24, White House Advisor John Podesta met with select Democrat Senators including Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Al Franken (D-MN) to discuss the EPA’s November 2013 proposal to lower ethanol targets — which, according to reports, Franken called: “unacceptable.” The Hill quotes Franken as saying: “White House adviser John Podesta has indicated the administration plans to raise the amount of ethanol and other biofuels that must be blended into the nation’s fuel supply.” And, in another report, The Hill says: “That may mean Podesta’s signal — that the levels of ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels will be increased in the EPA’s final rule — is as good as gold.” A decision from the EPA is expected to “be imminent.”
All of this amid new reports that ethanol has little if any effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change. A Congressional Budget Office report, released on June 26, states: “available evidensce suggests that replacing gasoline with corn ethanol has only limited potential for reducing emissions (and some studies indicate that it could increase emissions).”
It may have been Bush who planted the ethanol mandate, but it is the Obama administration that is fertilizing it and keeping it alive, when it should be yanked out by its roots.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). 


Tags: corn,government mandates,environmentalists,socialism,energy,alcohol,clean air To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

NewsBusted 7/29/14

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Amber Nelon Thompson - What Do You Say?

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Monday, July 28, 2014

Summer 2014 coolest in recent history by WARNER TODD HUSTON

So far the Summer of 2014 is shaping up to be the coldest summer on record in the U.S.A., with temperatures rarely breaking the 90-degree mark.

The latest data averaged from all temperature stations of the Historical Climatology Network shows that this summer has thus far broken the record as the coldest.
Another cold summer with a low frequency of days with recorded temperatures above 90degrees came back in 1992, the year the atmosphere was coated with ash from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. However, going back to the 1880s, only one other summer in the early 1900s rivaled the 1992 and 2014 temperature readings.
According to the data, the average number of 90-degree days has been steadily decliningsince the 1880s, as well.
This HCN summer record comes on the heels of record cold temperatures in July that haven't been seen since record keeping began in the 1880s. A strong cold front beginning on July 14 swept across the country, bringing below-average temperatures for much of the central and eastern U.S.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at

Tags: global warming,rising seas,arctic melting,heat,declining averages,democrats,socaialists,environmental wackos To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Gruber Tape Exposes Shameful Liberal Lie Propping up Obamacare

Posted: 27 Jul 2014 10:10 PM PDT
by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: The language in the Obamacare statute has always been crystal clear. Eligibility for the “affordability tax credit,” or subsidy, under 36B specifically requires enrollment "through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Identical language appears in the definition of a "coverage month" later in 36B, and every, single place subsidy eligibility is mentioned in the law.

States would, drafters of the law assumed, just have to go along and create state exchanges to get the money. It never occurred to liberals that some states would consider stopping the massive flow of taxpayer-funded subsidies (and the employer taxes, 30-hour workweek, and associated penalties that come with them) a good thing. No, every state would jump at the chance to get all that federal money.

Well, almost every state. Eleven Texas Democrats were pretty sure their state would turn down the cash and warned: “In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority...millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote in April 2010, right after the law passed, that subsidy eligibility required “residing in a state that established an exchange,” but simply assumed: “Under PPACA, state-established ‘American Health Benefit Exchanges’ will have to be established in every state by January 1, 2014.”

There was a perfunctory federal fallback exchange written into the law, but without subsidies it would find few customers. Moreover, Congress hadn’t appropriated a penny for the federal exchange because they assumed it would actually be created.

But something funny happened on the way to those 50 state exchanges.

The American people rose up against Obamacare in one of the biggest landslide elections in history – President Obama’s historic 2010 shellacking. They wanted the law repealed, of course, but obstinate Senate Democrats refused to consider even modest changes. Most states, however, were in no mood to cooperate. Indeed 36 of them ultimately refused to establish exchanges.
But rather than accept the verdict of the American people, the Obama administration turned to the IRS to come to Obamacare’s unlawful rescue. I say unlawful advisedly, because the CRS had issued a legal opinion on the matter: “An IRS interpretation that extended tax credits to those enrolled in federally facilitated exchanges would be contrary to clear congressional intent, receive no Chevron deference, and likely be deemed invalid.”

Yet the IRS, in a May 23, 2012 regulation, did extend subsidies and had the nerve to say: “The statutory language of section 36B and other provisions of the Affordable Care Act support the interpretation that credits are available to taxpayers who obtain coverage through a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and the Federally-facilitated Exchange.”

That was it. Unexplained. Ignore what the law says because we say so. (The liberal democrat way.)

Some states still didn’t believe it. At least four – Oklahoma, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Indiana – cited the illegality of the IRS rule as a reason not to establish an exchange. They didn’t want the subsidies the law’s proponents thought all 50 states would be eager to have.

With lawsuits challenging the illegal rule moving through the courts, the Obamacare proponents who had broken their own law to override the lawful right of states to opt out had a problem. They were wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, so they pounded the table. Hard.

Foremost among them was Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was paid $400,000 of your tax money to write the Obamacare subsidy provisions and to promote the law – usually without disclosing his conflict of interest. “I know more about this law than any other economist,” Gruber told the New York Times.

He was relentless in attacking the personal integrity of the honest men and women who put together the legal challenges to the IRS rule. He told the ultraliberal Mother Jones magazinein January 2013 that limiting subsidies to state exchanges was a “screwy interpretation.” of the law. “It's nutty. It's stupid,” he said, pounding that table hard. “They're desperate.”

Well, somebody was.

Gruber filed an amicus brief arguing nobody could ever possibly have understood the law to mean what it says:
“In Appellants’ conception, the ‘stick’ of having to ‘explain to their voters that they had deprived them of billions of dollars by failing to establish an Exchange’ would so frighten state officials that eventually, every state would create an Exchange and, consequently, uninsured Americans nationwide would become eligible for premium subsidies. That account – for which Appellants provide no evidentiary support – is implausible and indeed irreconcilable with the ACA’s structure and purpose.”And this week, when one court had the temerity to say the law actually is what it plainly says, Gruber was apoplectic. “Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states,” he said on MSNBC.

And now we know it was all a lie. An elaborate ruse. Another fraud piled on top of all the other Obamacare lies and frauds. Gruber understood exactly what the law said and meant from the beginning. When he was writing it. And now there’s video proof.
“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits,” Gruber said in an accurate, straightforward explanation of what the law actually says. “I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges.” And then, perhaps hedging that politics might trump the law, he added: “But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”Shameful. Willful. Disgusting. And it’s likely that many of Gruber’s fellow travelers also knew they were lying when they launched hateful attacks on great Americans like Michael Cannon, Jonathan Adler, and Jacqueline Halbig who simply wanted the law – including the right of states to opt out of subsidies – upheld.

Of course, the lying Obamacare apologists of the left will keep lying, and somehow try to explain away Gruber’s pants-down tape. But no honest person should listen to them.

This blogger has said this many times. Socialism is built on lies; its proponents are liars, its tenets are lies, and the actual purpose of liberal socialism as practiced everywhere in the world today is the personal power of the people who run the socialist governments. The real purpose of Obamacare is the growth and extension og government power, not the welfare of the people as the liars insist. 

Tags: law,legal,constitutional,liars,democrats,socialists,progressives,bad law,illegal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Sunday, July 27, 2014

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identi...

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identi...

This woman sobered up and began to think for herself therefore could no longer support the socialist leftist agenda of the democrat party. At least she was vocal and up front about her reasoning.

Tags: communist,socialist,democrat,leftist,sane,sober,right To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Is there a Rational Legal Basis for Traditional Marriage?

Is there a Rational Legal Basis for Traditional Marriage?

Many people believe that the momentum to legalize same-sex marriage in all states is now unstoppable—not because all states would do it on their own but because the federal courts seem determined to impose it by judicial decision. A series of district-court judges, claiming to follow the Supreme Court’s decision striking down federal marriage law in Windsor (2013), has recently overturned state amendments or laws in Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and nine other states which defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
The average person is naturally intimidated by the judges and feels pressured to agree. If only the public knew how these judicial decisions were made. The district-court rulings involve the “equal protection” and “due process” clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution as they are applied to state marriage laws. In applying them, the judges have made a major point of discarding the established standard of review for discrimination cases arising from sexual orientation, namely, “the rational basis test” which is the most deferential to legislatures and amending procedures. This standard could have been applied, and it should have been sufficient to uphold traditional marriage laws in the states. Instead, the judges have pushed for stricter standards of review based on a fundamental right to marry without restrictions, while also arguing that traditional marriage laws are without any rational basis. Let me try to explain how the judges got here, and suggest why the rational basis test should be restored, along with the deference it brings to democratic laws and to marriage itself.
Over the past seventy-six years (since Carolene Products, 1938), the Supreme Court has developed an elaborate framework for decisions about “discrimination”—which, in legal terms, means classifying people into different groups for the purpose of treating them differently. The reason for the framework is that laws routinely classify people and give rights and advantages to some groups but not to others; and sometimes those classifications are just and reasonable, sometimes they are not. For example, racial segregation is unjust but racial preferences may not be; age discrimination is unjust when not relevant to a job, but it is justified in drinking laws and driving privileges. The Fourteenth Amendment does not spell out when classifying is right or wrong; it simply says that a state cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws.”
To apply the Fourteenth Amendment, the court developed a system of three tiers for reviewing discrimination cases: (1) “strict scrutiny” for cases involving race or the restriction of a “fundamental right”; (2) “intermediate scrutiny” for cases involving women or illegitimate children; and (3) a “rational basis” review for cases involving disability, age, illegal aliens, and—in most past cases—sexual orientation.  Each of the three tiers requires a different degree of scrutiny or burden of proof by the government to justify restricting rights or placing disadvantages on different groups. Since the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily intended to stop racial discrimination, race demands the highest standard—strict scrutiny—which requires the government to show a “compelling state interest” for any restrictions and they must be “necessary” and “narrowly tailored.” Intermediate scrutiny, for discrimination against women, must show an “important state interest” and the restriction must be “substantially related” to that end. The lowest standard of review is rational basis, which only requires the government to show that the challenged classification has some “rational relation” to a “legitimate state interest” and does not require the court to agree with the justification in order to deem it rational.
As one might guess, the three-tiered system is controversial because it is imprecise: What is the difference between a compelling state interest, an important state interest, and a legitimate state interest? And what is the difference between a necessary relation, a substantial relation, and rational relation? How are groups assigned to the tiers? Because of the ambiguities, judges and scholars have always wrangled over the categories and even over the value of the whole scheme.
Despite the ambiguities, the three tiered scheme is the reference point for discrimination cases; and most cases involving sexual orientation have been reviewed under some version of the ‘lowly” rational basis standard. This was true in Baker (1971), Bowers (1986), Romer (1996), and Lawrence (2003) with varying degrees of rigor and explicitness. When Windsor was decided in 2013 striking down part of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), it upset the pattern because the majority opinion by Kennedy seemed to bypass the three tiered scheme—using instead a “practical effect” argument that DOMA was unconstitutional because its motive and impact were to “demean” same-sex couples without serving any legitimate state interest. This was said to violate the Fifth Amendment’s “due process” clause because DOMA was a federal law not a state law (which meant the Fourteenth Amendment could not be applied). The court claimed that implicit protections for personal liberty and equal dignity in the Fifth Amendment meant the federal restriction of marriage is unconstitutional, while not invalidating state marriage laws and even recognizing the historic role of states in defining marriage.
In dissenting, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito said that the Constitution is “silent” on the question of marriage and that the court could not legitimately resolve the issue one way or the other. Insofar as the court might try, the minimal rationality test was most appropriate, which Kennedy never mentioned but seemed to acknowledge by looking for a “legitimate purpose” (as he said in his conclusion). The surprise is that Kennedy argued that no legitimate purposes were served because the motive for the law was nothing but “animus” against same-sex couples, even though there were plausible reasons for DOMA cited in the opinion—namely, the desire to promote the stability of marriage in an age of moral uncertainty. As an experienced judge, Kennedy was surely aware that upholding the law did not require him or the court to agree with the law makers’ rationale (stabilizing marriage)—it only needed to affirm that some reason exists, almost any reason, which serves some legitimate state purpose. By denying even minimal rationality, the court thought it was making a strong point; but, as the dissenters pointed out, the court unwittingly was exposing its own ideological “animus” against proponents of traditional marriage.
The decision in Windsor set the stage for lower courts to take additional ideological license with the established framework. In a series of rulings in 2013-14, a dozen or more panels of federal judges pushed things further, arguing under the Fourteenth Amendment because state laws were now being contested. In surveying the rulings in Idaho, Utah, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and others, one can see the judges ignoring Windsor’s recognition of state roles and developing two new legal maneuvers that are highly questionable.
The first is to declare outright that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment contains a “fundamental right to marry” for all persons without restrictions. This claim is the most shocking, since the Supreme Court has never suggested that such a fundamental right exists. In fact it has explicitly denied the claim, since “fundamental” is legally defined as “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” and these concepts have always included legal restrictions on the sex, age, blood relations, and numbers of spouses. The declaration of a new fundamental right looks like an attempt to settle the entire constitutional issue of same-sex marriage by the procedural rulings of district judges, while sometimes denying that it is a new right—an extreme form of judicial chutzpah
The second legal maneuver is to argue for a higher standard of scrutiny than rational basis by two methods that are largely circular. Some judges took the newly asserted fundamental right to marry for all persons as a new justification for raising the challenge to the highest tier of strict scrutiny; this move seeks to exploit a presumed right that has not been proven to exist. Other judges sought merely to bump up the challenge to intermediate scrutiny, using a four point criteria for gauging degrees of disadvantage. Some of the criteria have merit, but the most salient one is circular because it cites the absence of same-sex marriage as a proof of unjust disadvantage—assuming once again what needs to be proven. Yet, these maneuvers did not seem to matter, since none of the reasons for passing higher or lower scrutiny was found to be persuasive or minimally rational. Whatever reasons were cited by supporters of the law—the importance of biological parents for a child, the need of boys for fathers, the link to procreation, the respect for tradition and stable norms—were all rejected for lack of merit, either “substantial” or “rational.” Hence, the predictable conclusion: “no sensible ground for differential treatment” exists.² In reading the lower court decisions, one is hard-pressed to find judges who admit that some justifications for traditional marriage laws might be reasonable or that they do not have to agree with the justifications to find them rational. The judges write as if the whole world were insane until 2013.³
While these cases are moving rapidly through district courts, the future remains unclear, since the issues will return to the Supreme Court sooner or later. The new situation created after Windsor by the lower courts will force the Supreme Court to face the ultimate questions—whether there is a fundamental right to marry by all persons, including same-sex couples, and what level of scrutiny is justified. The court could go several ways. A bare majority in Windsor held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is “demeaning” and violated the due process claims of liberty and equal dignity implicit in the Fifth Amendment. But Justice Kennedy has shown reluctance to proclaim new fundamental rights, like the lower courts have done, or to use the three tiered system to raise the level of scrutiny, or to invalidate all state laws. This creates a dilemma for the Windsor majority, since the lower courts have gone further than the Supreme Court might have wished but clearly encouraged by denying any rational basis for traditional marriage.
The underlying cause of the dilemma is that most judges are in the grip of an ideological fever driven by the passion for absolute equality combined with post-modern relativism, leading them to think that marriage is merely a social construction, subject to redefinition based on personal desire. Hence, the judges feel threatened by any concession to the rational basis test because that would imply marriage has a basis in the reality of biological nature or natural law or the near-universal practice of cultures, undermining their ideological outlook. It is not likely they will abandon this outlook. But it is possible that they could act like judges and acknowledge that rational basis review means they do not have to agree with the proponents of traditional marriage to give them some deference. They simply have to admit that the proponents are not completely irrational or totally insane in their views. Is that asking too much from a judge?

[1] See Whitewood v. Wolf, 1:13-CV-1861, May 2014, Hon. Judge E. Jones III ruling for PA, that “due process” includes the fundamental right to marry without restrictions. And, Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D. Utah), Dec. 2013, Hon. Lucero: “Plaintiffs here do not seek a new right to same-sex marriage, but [are] exercising their existing right to marry.”
[2] Whitehood v. Wolf, 36.
[3] A notable exception is Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, writing in dissent on the appeal of Kitchen v. Herbert (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS, June 2014) who warned against judges “becoming philosopher-kings” and argued forcefully that “Utah should prevail on a rational basis analysis” and that “Windsor did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage.”

Tags: Same sex,homosexuality,gay,lesbian,biblical,constitutional,legal,law,SCOTUS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Friday, July 25, 2014

Scientist Fired for Discovering Something and Publishing What He Discovered

Scientist Fired for Discovering Something and Publishing What He Discovered

Tags: IS it science? , reality, time, tissues, dinosaurs, evolutionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

NewsBusted 7/25/14

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Congresswoman sees ‘threat’ in Constitution

Congresswoman sees ‘threat’ in Constitution

Tags: dims,demasses,democrats,stupid representatives,idiocy,ignorance,illiterate,socialists To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Former Homosexual Reveals ‘Unmitigated Disaster of Gay Marriage’ by David Kyle Foster

“UNMITIGATED DISASTER”: Ex-Homosexual Reveals Truth About ‘Gay Marriage’

A former homosexual — wait! I thought none of them really existed! — exposes the truth about the homosexual lifestyle and “gay marriage”. He also addresses questions about the “cause” of homosexuality, “gay Christians” … and more.
Former Homosexual Reveals ‘Unmitigated Disaster of Gay Marriage’ 
by David Kyle Foster
For over 10 years I lived the homosexual lifestyle, and for 34 years I have not. And there are very good reasons for that difference. To those who suggest that I never was homosexual, my response is, “Does sleeping with over 1,000 men count?”
Oh yes. I was homosexual, though like most, I never wanted to have such attractions. I saw the narcissism and arrested emotional development all around me, and in me. Guys flitting around like Peter Pan were sometimes cute and funny, and certainly nonthreatening, but I wanted to be a grown up. I wanted to be a man. I wanted to be strong, solid, stable and reliable.
I recognized the obsession with youth and beauty that drove their fantasies and lusts and knew that once I entered my thirties, the thrill of being wanted would quickly come to an end. I cringed at the epidemic of perverse sexual behaviors commonly practiced and celebrated by gay culture and wanted nothing to do with them.
Such behaviors were so obviously perverse. Simple anatomical design declared it. A man was designed to interact sexually with a woman. That’s the design. And when sex is practiced outside of that design, physical damage and a legion of diseases are unleashed—not to mention the judgments of the Lord described in Romans 1:24-32: “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual immorality … God gave them over to shameful lusts … receiving into themselves the due penalty for their perversion … God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done,” and in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “the sexually immoral … those who practice homosexuality … will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
God created a man and a woman to become one flesh in a lifelong covenant of love (i.e., “marriage”), and to be fruitful and multiply when possible. God invented marriage. He designed it as a prefigurement of the marriage between Jesus and His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32), and laid out its parameters from the dawn of time. Even cultures that do not know Him have followed that design from the beginning. There is no ambiguity about His design nor His description of it in the Scriptures. Indeed, every departure from that model is universally condemned and forbidden by Him, for what it does to our bodies, our souls and to the image of God that is stamped into the one flesh, marital union of male and female.
Having same-sex desires is a great trial—there is no doubt about it. The feelings have as great an intensity as those found in the alcoholic for alcohol, the drug addict for drugs, the smoker for nicotine. And in all such cases, it seems unfair to the natural mind that God would allow us to have such intense desires yet not allow us to act on them.
The idea floated by so-called “gay theology” that God created people to be homosexual (i.e., that He is the cause for such desires) is as ridiculous for the homosexual as it is for the drug addict. The Scriptures are clear about what God designed and what He desires. They are also clear that because of the sinful actions of our forebears, we are born with a sin nature that pulls us strongly in various destructive directions. Homosexual desire, born from a complicated convergence of our fallen nature, idolatry, rebellion, temperament, environment, experiences and developmental factors is just one more way that happens.
It does no good to pretend that it is good and natural and holy. That’s called denial. Statistics overflow with evidence that homosexual sex causes damage to body, soul and spirit. It actually damages the body of the partner. It tears at the body in ways that result in homosexual sex being the number one risk factor for contracting AIDS in this country. In fact, an entire cottage industry of scientific study and medical care has arisen from the proliferation of gay sex in our modern culture.
Homosexual behavior also tears at the soul, causing much higher rates for substance abuse, suicide, depression, domestic violence, early death—even in the most gay-friendly regions of the globe. Why? Because active homosexuals are trying to find something through gay relationships that can never be found there. The happiness that they seek can only be found in submitting their sexuality to the Lordship of Christ and allowing Him to bring healing to the broken areas that have caused their homosexual desires. Yes, it’s a slow and sometimes arduous path to take, just as it is for the addict, but the only one that leads to joy, peace and eternal life with God.
All that to say—the term “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an invention of broken man in defiance against the expressed desire and design of God for mankind. It is the fallen creature trying to tell the omniscient Creator how things should be. Even the misnamed “gay Christian”—those who practice homosexuality without repentance and therefore are not Christian—are examples of man praising God with his lips while his heart is far from Him (Matt. 15:7-9)—calling Him Lord, Lord, while refusing to do what He says (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). To invent a form of marriage that defies the natural and spiritual order is insanity and can only lead to the destruction of those involved, and according to Scripture, even the society that allows it to happen (Gen. 19:1-29; Jude 5-7; Rom. 1:32).
We all know that marriage is in a bad state these days. Our population has laid the groundwork for faux marriages by practicing adultery and in other ways rebelling against the meaning and purpose of sex and marriage. But inventing and sanctioning homosexual marriages is a logarithmic jump in rebellion and consequent disaster.
In a high percentage of marriages these days, the children will spend a part of their childhood without their original mother or father, and that is very sad and can be very harmful for them. But in so-called “gay marriages” you are guaranteeing that the children will grow up without a mother or father in the home. You are guaranteeing it! You are state-sanctioning that deprivation and becoming a co-conspirator in the consequent damage to their well-being.
And yet the gay-supporting media presses on with its relentless drumbeat, promoting homosexual behavior, relationships and so-called marriage just as ferociously as it promotes the destruction of children in their mother’s wombs.
A newly released two-hour documentary called Such Were Some of YouSuch Were Some of You attempts to counter that agenda with truth. In it, 29 former homosexuals expose the facts about homosexuality, its causes and how Jesus has set them free from it.
The film opens with people … Keep Reading the Rest @: Former Homosexual Reveals ‘Unmitigated Disaster of Gay Marriage’


Tags: gay,queer,homo,same sex,marriage,morality,reality,sex,mother,father,children,choices To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

The abortion of JFK’s children was evil – but it’s also a tragic loss

The abortion of JFK’s children was evil – but it’s also a tragic loss

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Did you know that John F. Kennedy had more than four children? That writers Christopher and Peter Hitchens had two other siblings? That Marilyn Monroe actually had a large number of children?
I’m not particularly fond of the argument that I’ve heard many pro-lifers use: “Abortion is wrong because of all the amazing people we’ve aborted. One of them could have had the cure to cancer!” Abortion is fundamentally wrong because it ends the life of a developing human being, whether that human being would turn out to be a drug addict or the president of the United States. However, it is an interesting thought experiment—not least of all because so many people considered heroes by the Left have aborted their children or had their children aborted.
For example, I think of liberal icon President John F. Kennedy. The Kennedy Family is probably the closest thing America had to a royal family, although revelations over the last several decades have rather firmly repudiated the idea of an impossibly happy Camelot, as historians reveal anecdote after sordid anecdote of relentless philandering. Anecdotes of President Kennedy’s devastation at the 1963 death of his two-day old son, Patrick, are well-documented. The Kennedys also lost a daughter in 1956—Arabella, as her parents intended to name her, was stillborn.
Revolutions famously do not discriminate in their grim reaping of human life. The Sexual Revolution is no different.
But stories abound of JFK’s affairs ending in abortions. Mimi Alford, a White House intern that JFK had a relationship with for over a year, reported that when she told the president she believed she was pregnant, he “took the news in his stride.” Shortly afterward, she was contacted by a White House staffer named Dave Powers, often assigned to protect the president’s reputation.
“An hour later,” Alford recalls, “Dave called the dorm and told me to call a woman who could put me in touch with a doctor in New Jersey. The intermediary was a necessary precaution, because abortion was illegal. That was pure Dave Powers: he handled the problem immediately, and with brute practicality. There was no talk about what I wanted, or how I felt, or what the medical risks might be.”
Another of JFK’s famous mistresses, Judith Campbell Exner, reported having an abortion in 1963 after becoming pregnant by the president. Not all Kennedys, it seems, end up in Washington, D.C. Some of them end up in trash cans behind seedy clinics, victims of their parents’ sexual ideology.
Another icon of the Left that comes to mind when I think of the human cost of abortion is the late author and columnist Christopher Hitchens. Fans of the Hitch are fierce in their devotion, with his brother Peter, a well-known conservative author, noting that his brother’s fans often burn with fanatical hatred against him, furious that a conservative Christian (who wrote his brilliant book The Rage Against God partially in response to his brother’s philosophically feeble atheist tome God Is Not Great) could bear the same last name as their hero. Both brothers are extraordinary writers and journalists, having collectively written dozens of books and published essays and columns in the most prestigious publications.
What many people don’t realize is that there were originally four Hitchens siblings, not two. As Christopher relates in his Vanity Fair essay “Fetal Distraction”:
I was in my early teens when my mother told me that a predecessor fetus and a successor fetus had been surgically removed, thus making me an older brother rather than a forgotten whoosh.
Christopher noted further that at least two children of his own had their lives ended by abortion, recalling sombrely that, “at least once I found myself in a clinic while ‘products of conception’ were efficiently vacuumed away. I can distinctly remember thinking, on the last such occasion, that under no persuasion of any kind would I ever allow myself to be present at such a moment again.”
Perhaps this was because Christopher Hitchens allowed himself no illusion, writing that, “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.”
Although to my knowledge Peter Hitchens has never addressed the fact of his aborted siblings in print, on abortion he has much to say. “Those who wonder what they would have done had they lived at the time of some terrible injustice now know the answer,” he has said. “We do live in such a time. And we do nothing.”
When considering the lives and careers of the Hitchens brothers we know, we cannot help but wonder what the lives of the two that we do not would have been like.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
The list of politicians, writers, and cultural figures who have discarded their own children are myriad. Comedian Chelsea Handler has talked openly about having an abortion. Sharon Osbourne calls having an abortion at seventeen the mistake of her life. According to author Norman Mailer, the tragic Marilyn Monroe had twelve abortions by her late-twenties. Whoopi Goldberg of The View, Lucille Ball of I Love Lucy, Judy Garland of The Wizard of Oz all aborted children. Ava Gardner reportedly aborted two of Frank Sinatra’s children, while the smut-peddling rapper ‘Lil Kim aborted the Notorious B.I.G’s child, which they conceived during an affair. Famed singer Sinead O’Connor had an abortion while on tour in Minneapolis.
It’s especially bizarre, I think, when those on the Left turn out to enthusiastically celebrate any new revelation of a cultural figure having an abortion. The more they admire the person, it seems the happier they are at the “courage” of said person having had an abortion. A bit unintentionally insulting, don’t you think? I admire you so much! I’m so glad you terminated a child that might have had your talent or been a lot like you!
Revolutions, however, famously do not discriminate in their grim reaping of human life. The Sexual Revolution is no different, even though we’ve replaced guillotines with Planned Parenthood clinics. The crowds cheered both, and the similarity between a howling mob and a pro-choice rally is striking to say the least. Perhaps it is Peter Hitchens who has the best explanation: “I think that abortion is much beloved by revolutionaries,” he noted gravely, “because they always like the mob to get their hands in blood and commit some sort of crime of their own.”
Abortion is evil because it violently destroys a human being. But one of the reasons abortion is tragic is that it has robbed us of so many who might have given so much to humanity.

I would not want to give the impression that I do not think there are some people who would have improved the world were they aborted but they are so few and the good that could have been done by the many that were murdered so much greater that I must defer to the Christian moral side every time. I simly cannot agree that any abortion is moral, right, or is merely the choice of the mother. If you don't want'em, don't make 'em. Birth control is available in so many forms and is so cheap, there is no justification for abortion.

Tags: murder,democats,socialists,immorality,weak,children To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Anti-Obama film ‘Utopia’ going nationwide

Anti-Obama film ‘Utopia’ going nationwide

Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!