As we reported earlier this month, the busybodies at HRC, ever looking for a reason to cry, “Victim,” have been beside themselves because a corporation which has long since adopted gay-friendly corporation policies gave money to a pro-business think tank which backs a gubernatorial candidate who is horrible, no good and very bad opposes state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Now, AP has picked up on the story:

Protesters have been rallying outside Target Corp. or its stores almost daily since the retailer angered gay rights supporters and progressives by giving money to help a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Liberal groups are pushing to make an example of the company, hoping its woes will deter other businesses from putting their corporate funds into elections.

A national gay rights group is negotiating with Target officials, demanding that the firm balance the scale by making comparable donations to benefit candidates it favors.

Emphasis added.

That’s nothing more than politically correct blackmail, asking Target to pay something akin to “Hush Money” in order to prevent people from protesting.  Wonder how many people are actually protesting?  Three, four, a dozen?  The article doesn’t say, but at least its headline is almost accurate: “Liberal groups push to exploit Target backlash.”  Yup, nice to see HRC called what it is — a liberal group.

And that’s what this is — all about liberal politics, trying to public protest in an attempt to prevent corporations from giving to conservative candidates — and to give more to left-wing ones.  Emmer’s opposition to gay marriage is only the “hook.”  It’s really just the (R) after his name that has got HRC and its left-wing allies so upset.

And the AP is playing along.

Obamas announce fifth vacation since July.

Jim Geraghty offers a little more insight into this information.

Welcome Washington Examiner Readers!!

Interesting that in a week that Charles Rangel delivers his disjointed, but entertaining defense on the House floor (while being feted on his birthday by New York’s (mostly) Democratic political establishment), his almost immediate past Democratic predecessor as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committte Dan Rostenkowki should pass away.  Like Rangel, Rosty was forced to relinquish his chairmanship while under investigation in an election year (Rosty by then (in 1994)-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, Rangel by the House Ethics Committee).

They are the only two Democrats to serve a full term as chairman of the powerful committee in almost thirty years.

And this same week, the jury is deliberating in the trial of Rod Blagojevich who, two years after Republican Michael Patrick Flanagan ousted Rosty, won the Chicago pol’s seat back for the Democrats.

Rangel had Rosty’s chairmanship (after 12 years of Republican control) while Blago had his House seat (after 2 years of Republican control).  And all three in the news this week.

Reflecting on Rosty at Valley of the Shadow, blogger jsf offers “for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats, the ghost of Rostenkowski, who represented corruption in his own time, can be used again for all the corruption and heavily partisan, 111th Congress.”  Indeed.

This was just an oversight: In 300 stories on Bell, Calif. salary scandal, only one paper mentions party affiliation of city officials.

I mean, it just slipped 299 reporters’ minds that the city officials are Democrats.

I may have something to say about this later:

A federal judge put gay marriages on hold for at least another six days in California, disappointing dozens of gay couples who lined up outside City Hall hoping to tie the knot Thursday.

Judge Vaughn Walker gave opponents of same-sex weddings until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriage should resume. Gay marriages could happen at that point or be put off indefinitely depending on how the court rules.

A quick review of the article makes this seem like a just compromise, given the circumstances.

While most polls have shown 28-year Washington veteran Barbara Boxer leading Carly Fiorina, a SurveyUSA survey has the businesswoman ahead of the outgoing Senator:

California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has increased her lead over Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer to five percentage points according to a new CBS 5 KPIX-TV poll released Thursday, which also shows gubernatorial candidates Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman in a dead heat.

Hey, Ma’am, how do you like them numbers?  Strikingly, Fiorina has increased “her lead in the Central Valley, from seven points one month ago to 21 points in this latest poll.”  Given how the federal government and the state’s political establishment have neglected this once-booming agricultural in order to purse their supposedly “green” policies, expect turnout here to soar.

(Can someone tell me why it is that policies dubbed “green” have led to the “de-greening” of the Central Valley?  Call it the Brown* effect.)

(Via Instapundit.)

*Yes, Ma’am, references to career Democratic politicians are intentional.

Dems searching for way to blame Bush without looking like whiners

Jonathan Rauch, perhaps the most articulate (and civil) advocate of state recognition of same-sex marriage, calls Judge Walker’s recent opinion a “radical one, but not, ironically, as it pertains to homosexuality or to marriage. No, Walker’s radicalism lies elsewhere: In his use of the Constitution to batter the principles of its two greatest exponents – Madison and Abraham Lincoln“:

Now, I agree with Walker that gay marriage is unlikely to cause any significant social harm and will do much good. But the judge insists that the testimony of a handful of expert witnesses in his courtroom rules out the possibility of harm so definitively as to make any attempt at caution or gradualism irrational. The evidence, he holds, is “beyond debate.” In an unpredictable world, that kind of sweeping certainty would leave any Burkean gulping.

Now, to be sure, I quibble with Jonathan’s points about how carefully Walker marshaled his evidence.  I think the judge did do a good job laying out the strongest arguments for state recognition of gay marriage, but in adopting a condescending, almost sneering tone toward the Proponents of Prop 8, he undercut his strong case for the social change by reducing defenders of the traditional defition of marriage to sniveling bigots.

Jonathan gets at the judge’s arrogance when he contends his conclusion is “beyond debate.”  So much so that he brushes aside the compromise that California voters have effected, rejecting state recognition of gay marriage, yet not opposing the state’s decade-old domestic partnership program:

But his decision treats civil unions as if they were trivial or worthless. By refusing to give them any weight and declaring them not just inadequate as a matter of policy but prohibited as a matter of law, Walker uses the Constitution to put compromise out of bounds.

It’s not so much that Walker used the Constitution, but instead contended that in the various emanations from the penumbrae of the Constitution there lurked a “fundamental right” to define marriage differently than it had been treated at the time the Framers drafted the Constitution (and several subsequent Congresses amended it (with three-fourths of the states ratifying)).

(H/t Peter Wehner at Commentary Contentions.)

Well, if the angry left and the zany right are attacking you all at once, you must be doing something right.

As I learned from our incoming traffic and from conservative bloggers, some gay lefties got their panties all in a bundle all about Ann Coulter’s coming appearance at Homocon 2010.  Well, turns out at least one of their counterparts on the right is up in arms.

According to GOProud, “Peter LaBarbera of Americans for the Truth about Homosexuality issued a press release urging Ann Coulter to reconsider headlining GOProud’s Homocon 2010 in New York City.”

Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s Board responded by encouraging “LaBarbera to head out to his local bookstore, buy an Ann Coulter book and actually read it.  For a guy who claims to be a ‘fan,” he seems completely clueless about what Ann has actually written and said about gay people and gay conservatives.”

This LaBarbera fellow has probably attended more gay confabs in a single year than I’ve attended in my life.  He does seem peculiarly obsessed with gay sex.  Look, if it really bothers him where Ann Coulter speaks, maybe he should just stop reading her columns.  And if it bothers him what gay people do and say, why does he spend so much time participating in gay gatherings and writing about us?

. . . that would be news.

And editorialists at all the major dailies as well as reporters on all three broadcast networks would go into high dudgeon about Republican intolerance.  CNN would run special reports, highlighting Christians who regularly voted Democatic and lamenting how their feelings had been hurt by the Republican Leader’s statement.

As you may know by know, Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid (D-Mt. Crumpit) was caught saying something similar, “telling an audience of mostly Hispanic voters: ‘I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?’”

As Michelle puts it, this “attack on Hispanic conservatives for straying off the liberal reservation” shows the “Left’s contempt for minority conservatives”.

Just don’t expect CNN to do any special reports exploring this contempt.  I mean, a search for “Sharron Angle extreme” on Google news got more than twice as many hits as “Reid Republican ‘hispanic heritage’”.

Guess the MSM would rather whack Republicans for their whacky statements.

In losing her bid for the Republican nomination for Gary Hartpence’s U.S. Senate Senate, Jane Norton ran nearly 14,000 votes ahead of Michael Bennet who won the Democratic contest.  In fact, about 70,000 more people voted in the GOP primary than did in that of the president’s party — in a state he carried by a margin slightly higher than his margin nationwide.  And this in a contest where the two leading Democrats, current President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton, had endorsed the competing candidates.

One of our readers noted something interesting about the winner of the Republican primary, a man who ran 26,000 votes ahead of the candidate endorsed by Obama and 54,000 votes ahead of the candidate backed by Bill Clinton (not to mention 12,000 ahead of the candidate backed by John McCain):

I read online that Ken Buck was endorsed by the Tea Party, so I went to his campaign website. I do find myself curious about Republican (& Democrat) candidates and how they exactly they position themselves when it comes to gay marriage/ civil unions & other LGBT related issues.

On his website, he does describe himself as strongly pro-life, but he makes no mention at all about gay marriage.

I also did a quick search and found out, when he was District attorney in 2009, he prosecuted the murder case of Angie Zapata (a trangender woman murdered in 2008 in Colorado) as a “hate crime” under the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act, and he won the case.

Emphasis added.  No mention at all about gay marriage?  What?  Huh?  I thought all these anti-establishment Tea Party candidate were finding common cause with social conservatives eager to demonize gay people.

That’s right, Buck also successfully prosecuted of a man who murdered a transgender woman and wants to ensure that the cretin who committed the crime stays locked up for life:

Weld District Attorney Ken Buck said that adding up to 60 years to Andrade’s life sentence was meant to ensure Andrade never got out of jail in a political climate where the death penalty could soon be over turned, bringing life in prison next on the chopping block.

Through the comments to the article, we learn of one means to prevent such murders: (more…)

With the notable exception of such folk like Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn, most advocates and opponents of gay marriage would rather level accusations against their opponents on this issue than actually engage their arguments (see, e.g., Judge Walker’s opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger)

The advocates tell us that the opponents are meanies who just plain hate gay people while the opponents (like some bozos running for Senate in Arizona), in the highest of dudgeon, warn that state recognition of gay marriage will lead to parade of horribles, including interspecies marriage. And while the opponents of same-sex marriage warn that state recognition of same-sex marriage will damage the institution, they do little to undo long-enacted laws that has already harmed marriage far more than gay marriage ever could.

Last month, I wrote about the last state to hold out on passing one of those laws:

New York [is] set to become the “last state” to “adopt no-fault divorce”.  Now, I’m sure some social conservatives are opposing such legislation.  Those who don’t while continuing to oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, are just plain not sincere about their support for the institution and the ideals which undergird it.

Well, ya’ gotta give credit where it’s due.  One such social conservative, Mike McManus, President of Marriage Savers, penned a column “urging Gov. Paterson to veto” the bill.”  Kudos to Mr. McManus.

Now, let’s hope Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of “Freedom to Marry”, and other leading advocates of gay marriage show they’re serious about the institution they wish to open to gay people by joining McManus in pushing Governor Paterson to veto this anti-marriage legislation.

I cannot go any longer without posting on Greg Gutfeld’s inspired idea.  This has been a HOT topic on Twitter this week among the conservative set.  Liberals are cricketly-silent (*chirp, chirp*) about this idea of full tolerance.  Greg was on Glenn Beck last night to fully discuss his business proposal.

“If New York is to accept the mosque, the mosque has to accept the gay bar.” – Greg Gutfeld

For what it’s worth… here were some of my ideas on Twitter Monday night for names of the gay bar next to the 9/11 Mosque:

• Charlie Crist’s Chocolate Factory
• Ali’s Aqua Queer Bar (say it fast!)
• The Noose and Stone
• Af-MAN-istan’s
• Fatwa Follies (a piano bar)
• Shock & Raw
• Mecca-lecka Hi Mecca Heiney Hoes

NorthDallasThirty had one I enjoyed: Crotch Bomber. 

And my favorite that I cannot take credit for thinking of:  Sodom Hussein

My great Twitter comrade-in-arms, Kurt Schlichter, has some more great names!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

You may recall this ugly incident which showed the true colors of many of our Congressional elitists.  Here is US Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) on full display with one of his constituents.

Etheridge has a strong challenger in Republican Renee Ellmers.  She has discovered that Etheridge has learned more than arrogance from his fellow Democrats in Congress.   Like Charlie Rangel, Etheridge too seems to have a problem understanding what taxpayers’ money is all about.

As perceived in Taiwan… and Main Street America.  You don’t need to speak Chinese for this to translate.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Charges against Waters taint Pelosi’s House

If you buy the bullshit being shoveled out by the gay activists and their drones then this is the logical conclusion.

President Obama is a bigot because he opposes same-sex marriage.  So are Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And millions of Californians of different races, sexes, and religious views. 

Nelson Lund has more on the bigoted President, his cabinet, millions of Americans including me, and the Prop 8 ruling.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Here’s one comparison The White House can make to its predecessor:  President Barack Hussein Obama is now at George W. Bush job disapproval levels.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

Sixteen percent (16%) give Congress good or excellent marks for their performance while 56% say poor. Republicans have a seven-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Most voters (58%) oppose having the federal government forgive a portion of mortgage debt for homeowners whose home is worth less than they owe. Sixty-three percent (63%) say such a plan would be unfair to those who are currently able to pay their mortgage. Those the proposal would theoretically help reject the idea of a federal bailout by a two-to-one margin.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove. The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of President Obama has been 54% positive over the past week.

We are on the verge of taking America back from the Progressive/Socialists who hijacked America in 2008 with their bait-and-switch game.  No more Cloward.  No more Piven.  No more Alinsky. 

For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry,  March 23, 1775

Never fear, never surrender.  We ARE Americans.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

There are a great variety of reasons why I believe legislatures, not courts, should resolve the issue of state recognition of gay marriage.  In a must-read piece in Reason, Steve Chapman addresses a number of those reasons, including this one:

If I favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I would have considered Wednesday a very good day. When a judge in California found that same-sex couples have a right to wed, he cemented the widespread notion that the courts are out of control and that the Constitution means whatever judges want it to mean. The verdict will go far to energize and expand opposition to gay rights, at a time when they were on the rise.

He well articulates my fears.  In speculating further that the Supreme Court might “rule in favor of same-sex marriage”, Chapman contends “it would be the most polarizing decision since Roe v. Wade in 1973, which we are still fighting about”

It would spark a furious backlash from Americans who, whatever their views about homosexuality, think such decisions belong with them and their elected representatives. It could even lead to a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.

A Supreme Court attempt to resolve the issue will do anything but.  And could further polarize the nation on gay issues.

That said, in commenting on Chapman’s piece, Jeff Goldstein writes (emphasis in original):

I suspect that most of those who oppose same-sex marriage on some ground or other would be perfectly resigned to the expansion of “marriage” should proponents win the argument in the court of public opinion, and pass legislation that mirrors such a popular victory. Change can take time, but when it comes, it comes with the sanction of the people — or better, the consent of the governed. What opponents of same-sex marriage object to is the courts’ insisting that the will of the electorate is less important than the opinion of a single judge who finds the majority voters “irrational” and bigoted.

Exactly.  And such change will be achieved by building a consensus — and thus much harder to undo. (more…)

Folks, this is well worth watching.  I disagree with Ted Olson on this issue — but the man is one of the strongest conservative legal minds in our lifetime.  For example, if not for Ted Olson, no President George W. Bush — and Al Gore would have been in the White House on 9/11.

I still disagree with the pursuit of same-sex marriage via the courts.  But Olson is a great spokesman for the cause.  He has never lost a case he’s argued before the Supreme Court.

Ted Olson is showing more leadership on the issue than President Barack Hussein Obama.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)