With the U.S. Department of Labor set to release unemployment figures tomorrow that some economist believe will show an increase in the percentage of Americans out of work, it’s no wonder Hotline reports, “Christina Romer, chairwoman of Pres. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, has decided to resign, according to a source familiar with her plans.”

Reporter Kirk Victor’s source reports:

“She is ostensibly the chief economic adviser, but she doesn’t seem to be playing that role,” the source said. The WH has been pounded for its faulty forecast that unemployment would not top 8% after its economic stimulus proposal passed.

Instead, the jobless rate is 9.5%, after exceeding 10% last year. It was “a horribly inaccurate forecast,” said Bert Ely, a banking consultant. “You have to wonder why Summers isn’t the one that should be taking the fall. But Larry is a pretty good bureaucratic infighter.”

According to a July 15 Wall Street Journal article, in fact, “today there are 700,000 fewer jobs than Ms. Romer predicted we would have if we had done nothing at all.”

Wonder if Dr. Romer is being forced out so the president can bring on economists who can make a better assessment of the impact of his policies.

High on the Democrats’ campaign agenda for 2010, indeed, perhaps the dominant theme of their rhetorical battles of the past 18 months, has been that they inherited a whole passel of problems from George W. Bush.

So, they’re going to run this fall against Bush, given their belief that more people blame the immediate past president for the nation’s woes than fault the incumbent.  Guess these folks weren’t paying very much attention to polling trends, showing an increasingly number of Americans laying the blame at the feet of the current president — and his party.  And now, well, I’ll turn the floor over to Julie Mason:

Forty-eight percent of likely voters blame Obama’s policies for the nation’s economic condition, compared to 47 percent who fault former President George W. Bush, according to Rasmussen Reports.

Although the difference is small and within the margin of error, the poll marks the first time in Obama’s presidency that more people blame him than Bush for the economy.

If trends continue, come November, far more voters will be blaming Obama for the nation’s economic woes while even more people will be pining for the “good ol’ days” when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Speculating about the media’s (and Hollywood’s) double standard in responding to anti-Semitic tirades from Hollywood bigwigs, Jeff Jacoby concludes:

Gibson and Stone are both guilty of indulging in rank anti-Semitism (for which both promptly “apologized’’), but only Gibson was buried under a newsroom avalanche of outrage and disgust. What explains that glaring difference? Surely the media don’t think Jew-baiting is intolerable only when it comes from a right-wing Christian like Gibson. Surely they wouldn’t overlook Stone’s noxious rant just because he is a pluperfect left-wing activist.

(Via Instapundit.)  And as Glenn might say, read the whole thing.

Jacoby’s right, but there’s more to it than that Gibson represents a dying breed, the anti-Semitic “right-wing Christian,” Oliver Stone embodies a certain breed of self-styled intellectuals, always present, but now increasing in number, in our culture:  the left-winger who includes Jews in their list of people responsible for world problems.

There are, alas, all too many folks like Oliver Stone who see all the world’s problems as products of Western hegemony.   They cuddle up to tin pot tyrants, looking away from their failing economies and dismal human rights record and see only problems in the societies of which they themselves are products.

It’s almost as if they have so internalized our culture’s laudable tradition of self-criticism, that they believe only our culture merits criticism.

Barack Obama during the presidential campaign:

The Washington Examiner today:

With these two identical 58-42 votes, all Senate Democrats except Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., just voted to let rates rise for individuals and small businesses beginning next year. The vote, forced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., would have extended the current, lower rates for the two categories.

I’m sure the president will be taking Senate Democrats to task for voting against a proposal to block a tax increase.  Unless they change course, tax rates will rise — even for families earning less than $250,000 year.

While Judge Walker is right about one thing in his discussion of marriage, but dead-wrong about another:

Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. . . . Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

“Miscegenation” laws prohibiting marriages between individuals of different races were a statutory invention.  The historical (as well as literary, see, e.g., Othello) record is full of such marriages.

Sex difference, however, has always been at the core of the definition of marriage  – long before governments recognized such unions.  If you don’t believe me, I suggest you study the marriage rituals of any culture; you’ll find that each treats the bride and groom differently.

Or, look at the cultures which have recognized same-sex unions.  They either called them something other than marriage or required that one spouse live in the guise of the opposite sex — at a time when sexual roles were far more stratified that they are today.  In Native American cultures (called either berdache or Two-Spirit), that meant that in male-male unions partner not only had to dress like a woman, but perform or social roles as well.

With his opinion, one federal judge both demonstrates a cluelessness about the history of marriage and a determination to remove one of its defining aspects from its legal meaning.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the folks at PajamasMedia asked me yesterday to pen a post on gay marriage.  Let me whet your appetite with the opening paragraphs:

If, in his opinion overturning California’s Proposition 8, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker were making an argument for gay marriage to a the elected members of a state legislature, the first 60-odd pages of his opinion would be a fine contribution to the debate.  In thoe pages, he summarizes the benefits of marriage, how the institution promotes social stability and personal happiness (among other things)– and how extending those benefits to same-sex couples would most assuredly benefit gay people.  Indeed, Dale Carpenter, Earl R. Larson Professor of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law at the University of Minnesota, called the opinion overall “a pretty good compendium of a policy brief for SSM.”

Walker’s ruling, however, is not a policy brief, but a judicial decision striking down a popular provision in the California constitution stipulating that the state only recognize unions between one man and one as “marriages.”   With his decision, the Judge prevented the people from settling the controversial issue of how states could recognize same-sex couples and personally assuming the responsibility for determining how the state may regulate the unions it recognizes as married.

To be sure, he makes a good case for gay marriage, but a lousy one for usurping the power from the people to decide this issue.  In this sense, his ruling becomes a political boon for the GOP–as it can tie his decision to the increasing sense that our governing bodies (e.g., Congress the various bureaucracies it has created) are disregarding the popular will as they make laws and set policy.

To read the rest, click here.

As I began reading Judge Walker’s opinion yesterday overturning Proposition 8, I had some indication I might like the opinion.  That thought cheered me for a moment as it would be a lot easier socially to support the decision than to oppose it.  But, the more I realized I could never support an opinion with sloppy jurisprudence and such a casual dismissal of sexual difference (even couching it in the trendy term of “gender”).

So casually did the judge address some very, serious issues that Dale Carpenter feels he practically invites repeal:

But he then concludes that because laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are not rational, “the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review.” If that’s true, why address the issue at all? He may be hoping, in maximalist fashion, to lay some foundation for future courts to apply strict scrutiny to sexual-orientation discrimination. But at the same time, leaving the intellectual structure unfinished, he invites a higher court to undermine it.

Walker then rejects as irrational each of the reasons offered for Prop 8, including tradition, procreation, and the need to proceed cautiously and incrementally on matters involving important social change. The biggest difficulty with his argument on these matters, as I see it, is that he thinks of gay marriage as a technical change in the law about which there is no need to proceed cautiously. California has enough printers and paper to issue the additional marriage licenses, so what’s the big deal?

I had the same sense as I read the Judge’s “Conclusions of Law”, that he was acting as if sexual difference were merely incidental to marriage rather than one of its defining aspects.

Plain and simple, gay marriage represents a major social change.  Now, I happen to think that if gay couples understand and accept the obligations of marriage, this social change will be a good one, but it remains a social change.   And we shouldn’t shy away from seeing it as such.  Nor should courts reduce that social change to a minor, technical adjustment. (more…)

They say that with blogging you get to blog about whatever you want.  And to a large extent, we do.  But, once you have found a certain “niche” (as it were) in the blogosphere, your readers (as well as other bloggers) expect you to blog about certain things.

This week, for example, I had a whole list of topics I wanted to address.  I wasn’t really in the mood to write about gay marriage, though that list did include a topic I have long wanted to address — that the best argument for state recognition of same-sex marriage is a socially conservative one.  Indeed, Judge Walker made some arguments along those lines in the early portion of his opinion.

But, I knew Tuesday night, when I read the the court was about to release the opinion that I’d be devoting my day to gay marriage.

A while ago, when just before bed, I learned some information showing Log Cabin doing something I strongly supported, I knew I’d have to stay up a little later to blog on the topic.  We had been critical of the organization and I wanted to given them credit where due.  Staying up late to work on the post, I coined the term, ‘blogligation” to deal with such matters, topics we’re “obliged” to cover based on posts we have penned in the past.

I had planned to attend the rally Wednesday evening in West Hollywood to celebrate Judge Walker’s decision, but because Pajamas media asked me to write a piece on the ruling (and because work on that piece took longer than anticipated), I chose to stay home and complete it. (Hey, they’re paying me.)

Fortunately, while writing the piece, I was corresponding with reader Chris H who attended the rally. His report:

I got to rally about 630 just as Villaraigosa was starting the Spanish version of his speech. Chad Griffin gave pretty much the same speech he did on TV this afternoon. They also trotted out some of the lawyers. The speeches were the usual rehash and thank yous to everyone. The most interesting was Ted Olson who talked about how foolish the defense was during the trial and lightly touched on the constutional issues. Rally wrapped up at quarter to seven with them blaring Born in the USA. Crowd wasn’t too big…stretched from the stage at Robertson back to the swings at the play area. I think maybe 600 or so on a rough count but I’m not an expert at crowd estimation.

Based on what I read about the trial, I pretty much agree with Olson.  I have heard many sound arguments in favor of retaining the traditional understanding of marriage, few were considered at the trial.

I do believe that the strongest argument against state recognition of same-sex marriage is that the institution is rooted in sex difference.  In dismissing that difference, Walker was at his weakest, relying on 1960s mumbo-jumbo rather than actual scientific research.

I was struck by how small the crowd was (particularly compared to last May’s rally against the state Supreme Court decision upholding Prop 8).  Here’s one of Chris’ pictures:

(more…)

More information as it becomes available.  While I’m happy for the couples who can now have the state recognize their unions as marriages, I fear that this decision will further divide the nation on gay marriage and embolden social conservatives.

More anon.

UPDATE (decided to put this, likely my final update to this post) ahead of the others.  I have now read or skimmed the entire opinion.  I find that the judge makes some good arguments for gay marriage, but doesn’t succeed in relating them to the constitution.  His legal analysis is sloppy at best and dismisses the sex-difference argument for traditional marriage by flippantly referring to what he calls “discredited notions of gender” as if the assumptions about a supposed social construction of gender had been proven true when, in fact, all serious psychological, sociological studies have shown the opposite.  Not to mention studies of the human brain.

He fails to cite a provision of the federal constitution which prevents states from making distinctions based on sex difference, primarily because there isn’t one.

I will now put the rest of my thoughts, “penned” while reading/skimming the decision below the jump. (more…)

In response to public outcry because of the inflated salaries of public officials in Bell, California, “one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County“, California’s Controller John Chiang has promised to “to start reporting the salaries of elected officials and public employees.”

He plans to post the information immediately on his website in November.

Wonder why he’s waiting until November?

(H/t Dan Riehl via Instapundit.)

The more I reflect on the recent attacks on corporations made by right-wing and left-wing groups because the corporation in question has not adopted the world-view of these organizations, the more I realize that each group, the American Family Association (AFA) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), is just looking for a company to attack in order to get some media attention and rally their base.

The AFA simply refuses to accept (and indeed actively seeks t0 undermine) the social changes of the past decade.  Americans, even on the right, now accept that gay people should live openly while an increasing number of institutions welcome them and seek to accommodate our relationships.  The group seems to have been casting about for a corporation to boycott where they thought they could be effective.

By a similar token, HRC was casting about for a company to attack.  Just look at how tenuous is the connection between Target (which has adopted a number of policies beneficial to its gay employees) and anti-gay attitudes.  The corporation gave money to a political organization which ran ads in favor of a candidate who has a similar stand on gay marriage to the president.

As I did a google search of likely Republican nominee for Governor of Minnesota’s alleged anti-gay attitudes, Lori Heine, one of our readers, did a google search to see what she could find out “about people in Minnesota wanting to kill gays” (in response to an e-mail she received).  And like me, all she found were references some obscure Christian rock band.  Now, given the number of liberal gays who read this blog, we have an active chorus of critics familiar with — and eager to criticize  – our posts.  Not one of them chimed in to defend HRC’s characterization of that Republican as “rapidly anti-equality” or otherwise bitterly anti-gay. (more…)

Last November, I reviewed the “tapes” and read the transcripts of CBS Anchor Katie Couric’s interviews with the major parties’ 2008 nominees for Vice President of the United States.

While she tossed softballs to the Democrat, then-Senator Joe Biden, never following up on his contention that FDR went on TV when the stock market crashed in 1929*, she saved her toughest questions for the Republican nominee, then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Even as Couric challenged the Republican, she failed to ask that accomplished woman about her record in office:

Not once did Couric manifest any knowledge of Palin’s record in Alaska, save the media scuttlebutt about her church and her views of social issue.  But, that does not go to her record as a public official.  Nothing about Palin’s work on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) where she took on a fellow Republican and ally of the Governor who had appointed her.  Nothing about her work with a Democrat to bring down the corrrupt Republican Attorney General of her state.  Nothing about the reforms she achieved as Governor by working across party lines.

Now, we may well have further evidence of Couric’s bias. Conservatives4Palin has video of the CBS Anchor mocking the then-Alaska Governor.  Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey reminds us “that this is an edited clip; there is at least one cut in this video, and quite obviously we don’t have everything Couric said off air for context.”   He asks a number of important questions and makes an important observation:

Did a CBS News employee shoot this while watching the satellite feed, or did a C-band satellite owner get a now-rare unencrypted feed from CBS at the time?  Why did it take two years for this to come out?  I assume these questions will eventually get answered, but for now, Couric’s snobbish reaction to Palin, the names of her children, and mooseburgers is pretty instructive

Instead of dismissing interest in this clip as the product of a slow news day (as the network has), CBS needs to come clean and search its archives for the entirety of this footage and release it to the public. (more…)

A few day ago on her Facebook page, a left-leaning lesbian friend of mine linked this article:

Talk about a paperwork nightmare: Tucked into the massive new health care law is a demand that nearly 40 million U.S. businesses file tax forms for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods.

Talk about a paperwork nightmare: Tucked into the massive new health care law is a demand that nearly 40 million U.S. businesses file tax forms for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods.

House Democrats now want to repeal it.

Sound familiar?  Once again, we see that Democrats either didn’t read the bill they overwhelmingly supported — or didn’t understand the real-world implications of the provisions they passed.

Gives new meaning to Speaker Pelosi’s statement on the imperative of passing the bill so people could “find out what is in it.”  As Democrats scramble to repeal this provision, they should recall this is not a mess they “inherited,” but one they created.  Each and every Democrat who voted “Yay” for Obamacare is responsible for this provision they now find so reprehensible.

Via various sources (including this one), I learn that a decision is expected sometime between 1 pm and 3 pm today (PST) in the federal case seeking to overturn Proposition 8.  ”It will be available electronically to the public not only through PACER but also directly from the court’s website, www.cand.uscourts.gov , free of charge soon after it is e-filed.”

I expect that Judge Vaughn Walker will overturn the popular initiative.  And while gay activists will be giddy, they are only setting themselves up for future disappointment.  Given the make-up of the Ninth Circuit, it may sustain his opponent, only to have their decision struck eventually down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Another ride on the California gay marriage roller coaster, jubilation following a judicial ruling, disappointment and bitterness when it’s overturned.

Should Walker uphold Prop 8, watch for gay activists to demonize him as some kind of Anti-Christ.

That said, his verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the gay couples seeking to overturn the constitutional provision, would be a huge boon to Republicans in the Golden State.

A Republican won’t gain any votes by supporting the ruling.  (So doctrinaire are those for whom the issue is their primary concern that they’d never support a Republican no matter how broad-mind he  or she was.)  But, opposition to the ruling could help Republicans make inroads into certain segments of the Democratic base when some Democrats who supported Prop 8 see a Republicans criticizing a court which overturned by fiat an issue they passed with their ballots, they might reconsider their partisan affiliation. (more…)

Welcome Washington Examiner Readers!!

From 1960 through 2004, the state of Missouri (along with Tennessee) was a bellwether, going with the winner in every presidential election.  Two years ago, it broke the trend when John McCain won the state by fewer than 4,000 votes (3,903 to be precise–slightly higher than Walter Mondale’s 1984 margin in Minnesota).  With 49.23% of the vote, Obama ran 3.64 points behind his national tally of 52.87%.

Well, yesterday, voters in the Show-Me State may well have been the first Americans to vote on Obamacare in a statewide initiative.  And they rejected it — decisively.

According to the  Missouri Secretary of State’s office, 71.1% of primary voters “approved Proposition C, a ballot initiative that says Missouri residents do not have to purchase health insurance or pay an annual fine to the federal government, as the new law states.”

It even won in counties that Obama carried, losing only in the City of St. Louis and Kansas City.  In Boone County, which Obama carried with 55.20% of the vote 60.3% of voters rejected the mandate.  Obama may have carried Buchanan County by 54 votes (0.13%), but Prop C passed by 5,965 (a margin of 43.2%).  Obama edged McCain in Iron and Washington County, but more than 70% of voters in each backed the Proposition.

Obama enjoyed a 14-point victory in St. Genevieve County, but Prop C won by more than 22 points.  In Jefferson County, just south of St. Louis, Obama won by 2,663 votes; Prop C passed by 13,490.  In St. Louis County, where Obama trounced McCain by margin of 3 to 2, Prop C passed with a similar margin.

Bellwether indeed.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey reads the returns and observes:

If anything, this shows that opposition to ObamaCare is growing, not receding, but that’s probably not what actually happened.   (more…)

From reader reports, we gain increasing evidence of a substantial homosexual presence at Tea Parties across the nation.  We have had evidence of openly gay and lesbian individuals participating in these anti-big government protests in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Charlottesville, Washington, D.C., Charlottesville and Philadelphia (as well as Pleasanton, CA).  And now comes even more evidence from the latest rally for freedom in that city of brotherly love.

Once again, the gay people participating found welcome from their freedom-loving (usually right-of-center) peers.

On this blog alone (not to mention the gay people who have yet to alert us to their participation — or remain unfamiliar with our website), we have more evidence of gay participation in the Tea Parties than the mainstream media has provided of racism expressed there.  And yet they continue to peddle the latter narrative and ignore the former.

From our reader Matthew comes these photos from the Uni Tea Party this past weekend (yup that’s Andrew Breitbart with ‘em):

He also included this report:

. . . the individuals who did come to the event were friendly, compassionate, and had deep sense of appreciation and loyalty to our country and its constitution.

As a gay, politically active conservative, I had some hesitation in promoting my sexuality at this event. The general stereotype in the United States is that republicans and conservatives hate homosexuals, in that we are a threat to the moral fiber of American society. Moments after my friend and I arrived at Independence Mall, grasping our gay pride signs, conservative tea partiers began shaking our hands and taking photographs of us. (more…)

When I had heard that the American Family Association had launched a boycott of Home Depot, instead of joining some left-wing busybodies in crying foul, I tried to think of any household items I could buy at the home improvement giant on Sunset at the 101.  Alas, I needed none.

Now, we’ve learned that the leaders of AFA’s left-wing counterpart, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), got their panties all in a bundle because “Target and Best Buy have donated over $250,000 to a political committee supporting a rabidly anti-equality candidate for Governor of Minnesota, where both are headquartered – a man with ties to a Christian rock band that advocates violence and death to gays.”

Rapidly “anti-equality” candidate?  I’m assuming they must mean Ted Emmer, the presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee in the North Star State; MN Forward (the political committee in question) ran ads in favor of that Republican.  Well, after a number of google searches (including links to a piece on the Huffington Post), the only thing I could find about Mr. Emmer’s views on gay issues was that he holds pretty much the same stand on gay marriage as does the president:  he opposes state recognition of same-sex marraige.  So, I guess by HRC’s logic, that would make Barack Obama “rapidly anti-equality” if not for that (D) after his name which automatically deems his gay record acceptable.

(And Emmer may have “ties” to a crazy Christian rock band, but let’s not forget that Obama campaigned with anti-gay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin.  HRC chief Joe Solmonese expressed polite “disappointment” with McClurkin’s presence at campaign events, but didn’t ask its supporters to send angry letters to the then-Democratic presidential hopeful.)

All that said, I hope Target does not give in to HRC’s temper tantrum and that it does not donate to what HRC calls “groups that support candidates who will put all Minnesota families first and fulfill the promises of our highest ideals” which, in HRC-speak, means groups which support big government. (more…)

NEWS RELEASE FROM GOPROUD:

(Washington, D.C.) – This weekend, GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, held a reception featuring the Chair of the organization’s Board of Advisors, Fox News analyst and national radio talk show host Tammy Bruce, at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego, California.  The Manchester Grand Hyatt is the subject of a boycott by gay and lesbian groups, as well as union groups. 

The Manchester Grand Hyatt is not a unionized hotel, which has resulted in the boycott by organized labor – most notably the UNITE HERE union.

Doug Manchester, the owner of the hotel, was an early donor to the Proposition 8 campaign in California – the campaign that successfully ended marriage rights for same-sex couples.  This donation is what sparked the boycott of the Grand Hyatt by gay groups.  Since then, Mr. Manchester has apologized for his support for Proposition 8 and made a generous offer of financial support to the gay community. 

Indeed, there is an entire website set up by Mr. Manchester dealing with this issue.  On that site it says, in part:

“In recent months, Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego has been the subject of negative attention in the wake of my personal donation to California’s Yes on 8 Campaign in 2008. I am sorry for the pain and conflict I have caused and would like to take this time to apologize, clarify my views on the matter and share some background on Hyatt’s long-standing and commendable support of the GLBT community.

“The San Diego community, the GLBT community and those that support their civil rights efforts, deserve an explanation. I am not, nor was I ever, anti-gay.  I am and have been in favor of Domestic Partnership and Civil Unions for quite some time. I respect all members of the GLBT community and have several gay and lesbian employees in various departments and professional levels at Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego.  While I stand by my belief that as a private citizen I may make personal donations to causes and charitable organizations of my choosing, I have been reminded daily that not all such actions are correct or favorable to the company, its employees or the community.”

Despite these efforts, the boycott of the hotel by gay group continues. 

“The truth is that there is absolutely no reason, outside of their slavish loyalty to big labor, that any gay organization continues to honor this boycott,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud.  “Mr. Manchester apologized and has generously offered to make financial amends with the gay community.  What more does the gay left want at this point?  The bottom line is that we lost the battle over Prop 8, and if we want to win in the future we need to be in the business of making new friends not more enemies.”

According to officials with the Manchester Grand Hyatt, the hotel employs almost 350 gay and lesbian workers (roughly 1/3 of their entire workforce).  The hotel also has a non-discrimination policy that covers sexual orientation, as well as gender identity.  Additionally, the hotel offers domestic partner benefits to its gay and lesbian employees.

“The gay left chose to stand with the union bosses while GOProud chose to stand up for the gay employees of the Manchester Grand Hyatt,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the GOProud Board of Directors.  “We will not be bullied by the angry intolerant voices of the left and we will not sit idly by while gay workers pay the price for the strong arm tactics of the gay left – tactics that seek to stifle dissent and silence disagreements at any cost, even if the cost is the jobs of countless gays and lesbians.”

========

RELATED: Gay Hypocrisy and Union Thugs: My Weekend in San Diego - Right Pride

Mark Hemingway reports:

Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., is now upset to learn that that a provision in the ballyhooed financial reform bill exempts the Securities and Exchange Comission from Freedom of Information Act requests

Somehow, I don’t think this story would get as much coverage as it might if there were an R after Leahy’s name instead of a D.

Do hope Vermonters are paying attention.  (Not that it makes any difference.)