Not until the end of the article reporting (something of which I had heretofore been aware) that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, “the federal judge who will decide . . . the landmark trial over same-sex marriage” is himself gay, does the reporter see fit to quote anyone critical of the judge. Instead, he first cites two left-wing gay activists praising the judge.
Now, I know very little about the judge, certainly not enough to call his overall impartiality into question–though the way he has conducted this trial certainly sets off some alarm bells. It strikes me as odd that he has allowed the plaintiffs to bring in certain witnesses whose commentary on gay marriage would certainly be relevant were the issue debated in the legislature or presented to the people, but is entirely irrelevant to a court considering whether a popular provision in the state constitution violates the federal constitution.
All reports (at least those I have read), for example, show that Jerry Sanders is a fine Mayor of San Diego, but he is no legal scholar. His remarks on gay marriage belong in a political campaign, not a court of law. That Judge Walker allowed his testimony as well as other personal stories suggests poor judging. But, many straight judges would also allow in such “witnesses.”
As a gay man who believes the Judge should have dismissed the case before it even came to trial, I know it’s not his sexuality that’s the issue, but his jurisprudence.* All that said, should this one man rule to overturn the will of seven million, you can bet the proponent of the Proposition will make an issue of his sexuality. Indeed, some already are. Ed Whelan, offering some sound criticism of the judge’s questionable judgments, point outs: (more…)
Over at the Huffington Post, Stefan Sirucek has his panties all in a bundle because, well:
Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words “Energy”, “Tax” and “Lift American Spirits” are clearly visible. There’s also what appears to read as “Budget cuts” with the word Budget crossed out.
Oh no! She wrote notes on her hand. My, my, my, my, my, my, my. He files this under “Hypocrisy.” Huh? Huh?
So, what’s wrong with that? She was just reminding herself of the issues she wanted to address. She doesn’t even have talking points. And lefties compare this to Obama using a Teleprompter. I mean, on said device, said Democrat gets the full text of his speeches. “The notes,” as the folks on Founding Bloggers put it, “appear to be very innocuous.” Very innocuous.
These aren’t the answers to questions. They’re not even questions. And such scribbling is much less newsworthy than. say, the Commander in Chief mispronouncing corpsman.
Memo to Sarah Palin: given the obsession of the left in using anything and everything against you, I suggest next time you write, “there’s no E in P-O-T-A-T-O,” on your hand.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse offers:
Isn’t it funny how she caught our attention with her scrawled-on hand? I picture her — hanging out with Todd today — laughing at how absurdly fascinated everyone is with her.
I bet this diva’s right. Just read the whole thing!
For some reason, when I caught sight of this headline, I heard our loyal reader and occasional blogger Sonicfrog saying, “I told you so.”
UPDATE: The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues
How fitting that the day after the Gipper’s birthday, I learn (via Byron York) that his ideas still resonate with the American people. This latest Gallup poll confirms what other surveys have been showing since shortly after President Obama and congressional Democrats began pushing their big government initiatives.
Guess Fred Barnes was right about Obama’s “misreading of the 2008 election“:
He and Democratic liberals interpreted it as a mandate for an era of liberal lawmaking and governance in a newly minted center-left America. And they set out to create that era with sweeping initiatives on health care, energy and the environment, and the economy.
Problem is is that these government initiatives don’t find much favor with the American people. While Gallup found that “about a quarter of Americans felt there was too little government regulation of business and industry“, the “majority of Americans believed that there was either too much regulation, or about the right amount.” Indeed, a full 50%, exactly half, thought government should “become less involved in regulating business.”
More Americans unemployed (15 million+ as of January, 2010) than any time since the Great Depression.
More Americans unemployed for longer (8 months vs. 8 weeks) since the Great Depression.
And now a new notch on his belt of Hope & Change: More Americans on food stamps since records began for the program.
A record 38.2 million Americans were enrolled in the food stamp program at latest count, up 246,000 from the previous month and the latest in record-high monthly tallies that began in December 2008.
Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy groceries. The Agriculture Department updated enrollment data on Friday with a preliminary figure for November.
USDA estimates up to $58 billion will be spent on food stamps this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, with average enrollment of 40.5 million people. Food stamps were renamed the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program in 2008.
Remember the $787B (now $860B) Obama Stimulus Package? That was SUPPOSED to help. It has made things worse by any measure. Except for the Democrat interest groups (Wall Street & union bosses) who got their taxpayer-funded payoffs in wheelbarrows.
Many of our loyal readers and commenters have emailed Dan asking why we put up with trolls like Tano, gillie, ian, raj (presuming it isn’t just the same person)? Why not moderate or ban altogether these vile, unproductive pieces of human filth that infect dialogue like a cancer destroys healthy cells?
The answer, which Dan repeatedly reminds me, is that in order to know there IS a cancer — you must see it first. Tano in her comments, for example, perfectly illustrates and reinforces our points here at GayPatriot. She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side, and she doesn’t express any of the elements of patriotism that were part of the founding of this great Republic.
She is a liberal lickspittle for re-spewing the talking points generated from the elitist copy machines at MoveOn.org and the DNC. The Powers-That-Be, one might say. She is just a goose-stepping foot soldier. One can only feel sympathy for such a creature. I’m sure there are many others like her in Michigan and across the USA. Our job is to combat these lies and historic revisionism at every opportunity.
So we will continue to show our cancer for all to see because in this great democracy, we need to know where the ignorance is in order to combat it with the truth.
I frequently refer to Ronald Reagan as the greatest president of the second half of the Twentieth Century in large measure because of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s masterful preparation for and leadership during World War II. Perhaps, because of his Angophilia, perhaps for other reasons, FDR forged a particularly strong bond with the greatest man of the last century, Winston Churchill. (For whatever reason that relationship served our nation–and Western Civilization–extraordinarily well.)
Their friendship and his commitment to that alliance–even before Pearl Harbor (recall that the Atlantic Charter was drafted nearly four full months before we entered the war)–helped keep the bond between our two nations strong, allowing us to win the war, after overcoming many obstacles and numerous setbacks early in the war
So, despite the failure of FDR’s economic policies to end the Great Depression, I consider him the greatest president of the last century for helping save civilization from Nazism.
Over at Big Government, Burt Folsom offers a different view. That History professor gives the laurels to the Gipper: “Reagan, by contrast [to FDR & Woodrow Wilson], won the Cold War and also revived the American economy from decades of abuse. He was successful both at home and abroad.”
Folsom contends there were three parts to the Gipper’s genius: his vision, his character and his teachabilty: “We have to believe in something and we have force of character, but we also have to be ready to modify.”
Read the whole thing and let me know: who is right, that historian on this blogger? Like the Gipper, I am willing to modify my views when circumstances call for a change.