The MSM bias on the coverage of the court wrangling over the California marriage amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, is shameful. I demonstrate that and analyze the latest over at The Opine Editorials.

They are even more batty than someone who would go into a government building's cafeteria that allows customers to refill their own soft-drinks and then complain at the counter that having different nozzles for Coke and unsweetened iced tea is hateful and an unconstitutional imposition of "separate but (un)equal".

Either this is good news for supporters of the California Marriage Amendment and/or state rights, or the California Supreme Court is going to perform judicial gymnastics to ignore its own recent precedent. Anything is possible, since marriage neutering advocates are willing to sacrifice just about anything in their quest.

See the latest at The Opine Editorials.

Some professing Christians do so much to give others one more excuse to mock God. Something I've known about for a while now is now making the rounds in MSM, giving Christendom a back eye. Tom Breen of the Associated Press reports on those who are setting dates for the "end of the world".

If there had been time, Marie Exley would have liked to start a family. Instead, the 32-year-old Army veteran has less than six months left, which she'll spend spreading a stark warning: Judgment Day is almost here.

Exley is part of a movement of Christians loosely organized by radio broadcasts and websites, independent of churches and convinced by their reading of the Bible that the end of the world will begin May 21, 2011.

How is Marie going to feel when she realizes she made major life decisions based on false prophecies?

In August, Exley left her home in Colorado Springs, Colo., to work with Oakland, Calif.-based Family Radio Worldwide, the independent Christian ministry whose leader, Harold Camping, has calculated the May 21 date based on his reading of the Bible.

Yes, and Harold Camping also wrote a book that claimed that 1994 was going to be the year. Look it up. If we were living in a certain time and place, Camping would have been stoned to death as a false prophet. Instead, dupes send him money.

Camping, 89, believes the Bible essentially functions as a cosmic calendar explaining exactly when various prophecies will be fulfilled.

The Bible documents God's love for us, and teaches us how to have fellowship with God. It isn't there so we will guess about the dates of future events.

The retired civil engineer said all his calculations come from close readings of the Bible, but that external events like the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 are signs confirming the date.

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment," he said.

Camping and everyone who believes this should be willing to sign a legal document right now that transfers ownership of all of their worldly possessions as of May 22, 2011 to those who don’t believe this.

The doctrine known as the Rapture teaches that believers will be taken up to heaven, while everyone else will remain on earth for a period of torment, concluding with the end of time. Camping believes that will happen in October.

The doctrine of pretribulational premillennialism (on which the Left Behind series is based) is just one of many models to explain what the future holds. The non-negotiable in orthodox Christian doctrine is that things will not continue as they are now – Jesus Christ will return in visible, bodily form, bringing judgment and an end to this age. Some people are going to have eternal life in fellowship with Him, and others will spend eternity without that fellowship. Other than that, some Christians believe nothing else has to happen before that moment arrives, others think there is going to a special future Tribulation period, and some of those people believe that also believe that Christians will be taken away at the beginning of that period, to return later with Christ.

One important thing is that the Bible teaches nobody knows the day or the hour. Camping tries to get around this, but there is no getting around it.

"If May 21 passes and I'm still here, that means I wasn't saved. Does that mean God's word is inaccurate or untrue? Not at all," Warden said.

Think of how many people are going to be disillusioned. It has happened may times before.

The Book of Revelation, which comes last in the New Testament, describes this conclusion in vivid language that has inspired Christians for centuries.

Some Christians believe that the book, except for the last couple of chapters, is more about what was going on in the first century Church and what the Church was facing in the coming years.

For me, the bottom line is to focus on God like today could be my last day of this life – because it could be, even if it is the end of my life but not the end of the world. But I also need to plan and work as though I’ll have to take care of myself and my family for the rest of the century. I have thrown myself on His mercy, because I have sinned against Him. I look to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, recognizing that He paid for my sins on the cross.

For intelligent Christian teaching and analysis that isn't alarmist nor based on false prophecies, I recommend these websites, among others. And not all of these websites agree on everything, by the way:

Stand to Reason
Christian Think Tank
Please Convince Me
J.P. Moreland
William Lane Craig
Walter Martin
Christian Research Institute
Reasons to Believe
R.C. Sproul
Norm Geisler
Answers in Action

If President Obama's publicly stated position that marriage is between a man and a woman is his sincere belief, then he holds a belief that lines up with...

1) The understanding of those who wrote and adopted the Constitution of the United States of America and every amendment.

2) Every previous POTUS.

3) Just about each person, if not every person, who has served on the Supreme Court of the United States.

4) A majority of voters in any state where voters have directly voted on the matter.

5) The law in 40 states and the practice in 5 more.

6) The law in most countries around the world.

7) The sacred texts and traditions of every major world religion.

8) Thousands of years of human history, including in places and times in which homosexual behavior was openly practiced and accepted by society.

9) The opinion of some homosexual people.

10) Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Jr., and every great moral thinker or civil rights leader in history.

More over at The Opine Editorials.

Since various people are already discussing possible candidates for the 2012 Presidential Election, I am listing qualifications for the job (in addition to the Constitutional requirements, of course).


Required Qualifications:

1. Believes in a higher power - an omniscient, judging authority and future state of rewards and punishments for actions in this life.

2. Has integrity, ethics, morality, and discipline as demonstrated in both professional and personal life.  Owns up to and has worked to correct mistakes.

3. Is a proven leader, manager, and appointer as demonstrated from previous experience.

4. Takes national security seriously, including control of borders/ports, and willing to use intelligence, covert operations, and military force to kill our enemies, break their things, and disrupt their threats to the U.S.

5. Recognizes that Islamofascism is incompatible with and a threat to Western civilization and the American way of life.

6. Recognizes that a democratic, friendly Israel is beneficial to American interests.

7. Accepts the Constitution as the highest law of the land, not foreign documents, courts, personalities, organizations, or opinion polls; believes that the Constitution limits government, including the judiciary.

8. Believes in the sanctity and worth of individual human life from conception until natural death.

9. Will not force states to issue counterfeit marriage licenses or the Federal government to recognize non-marriage arrangements as marriage.

Last, but certainly not least...

10. Can Defeat President Obama and will have coattails that help elect like-minded Senators, Representatives, and Governors, and state legislators.

Preferred Qualities:

11. Has executive and foreign policy experience.

12. Will promote and support tax reforms that will move us away from Federal income taxes towards a system primarily consisting of user fees, tariffs, and criminal fines, supplemented, if necessary, by “sales taxes”.

13. Will work to eliminate or reduce Federal government involvement in education, health care, business, and any activity not clearly stated as a Federal responsibility in the Constitution, instead encouraging voluntary, private action, and State and local involvement only where and when appropriate.

14. Will support easing the immigration process for those who demonstrate a desire to legally immigrate, become naturalized, and become law-abiding, productive, integrated members of American society who are loyal to our Constitution and our way of life.  In the event of an actual and detrimental labor shortage, will allow businesses to import temporary labor.

15. Promotes voluntary, proven conservation as opposed to using government force to force businesses and individuals to comply with the demands of alarmist activists.

16. Is effective at communicating and defending these principles.

17. Will not fall into the siren call of MSM praise for “bipartisanship”, “listening”, “international cooperation”, and “change” - which are all codewords for supporting Leftist causes - to the detriment of these principles.


Notice I do not mention race, ethnicity, age, appearance, education level, sex, religion, marital status, or even political party.  That’s because as long as the person is described above, I don’t care about those other things.

Is there anybody who meets these qualifications? Please list them!

My thoughts on Sir Elton John's announcement, along with his partner, that they have used a surrogate to condemn a child to a motherless life, are posted at The Opine Editorials.

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Stephen Levy had a commentary in the Los Angeles Times that claimed "California Isn't Broken".

Letter writer Donald Orr of Phoenix calls their commentary absurd:

As an employer operating in 12 Southwest states, I experience firsthand the cost of doing business in California. The employee and facility expenses are the highest of any state in which we have employees. As a result, my employee head count is half of what it was before 2008.

I have closed one facility in 2010 and will close a second by June 2011. Soon the Panama Canal will handle larger ships, and California's commerce will drop significantly.

Unless the state addresses the cost of doing business and employment, California will look a lot more like New York than the Golden State in the next decade.

California is driving away productive, independent, law-abiding, taxpaying Americans who are being replaced by unskilled, uneducated, code-violating, dependent, tax-taking Americans and illegal aliens and their children. The state simply can’t survive this way, especially with an increasingly large state government and a growing pool of tax-draining government retiree pensioners.

We have high tax rates, higher unemployment than the national average, a wildly disproportionate percentage of the welfare cases in the country, overcrowded prisons, and a higher cost per prisoner. We have more and more Nanny State regulations, and we have elected leaders who are unwilling and unable to make necessary changes. The state IS broken.

It will be easier to get your liberal friends than your Leftist friends to see why we oppose big government, but it will still be difficult either way.

This will have more chance of working if your friend has just complained about a large corporation.

Here is the mental exercise to give your friend:
 

Imagine the biggest, most powerful corporation you can think of.

Imagine that it has exclusive control over vast land holdings, and the power to grab more.

Imagine that it spends and buys, seemingly with no concern about being shut down.

Imagine that even employees who are very poor at customer service are rarely fired for being bad the job.

Imagine a history of dysfunction and botches.

Now, give that company a monopoly in several lines of business.

Give it taxation power, policing powers, the power to detain people for years.

That is big government.

Now, your friend might cite the ability to vote out legislators and executives and even some judges. But is that really easier than 1) not buying any given company's products or services; 2) not investing in any given company? Your friend might say that government agencies are there to help us and the people in them really care about us, while the company is there to make a profit. But the government agency often runs on funds forcibly collected from other people, while a company must please customers enough that customers voluntarily buy its goods or services.

(This is a repost.)

Predictably, the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times proves me right – that their support for the repeal of DADT has less to do with concern for individuals in the military or any respect for the military and more about a political agenda by marriage neutering advocates.

But Saturday's vote was also the culmination of a decades-long campaign - one that was initially ridiculed — to persuade the military to treat homosexuals as equals.

This is a mis-framing of the dispute. This is about behaviors, not identity. I suspect this misframing is done on purpose.

That initiative was watered down to create "don't ask, don't tell," which put gays and lesbians in the humiliating position of having to conceal their sexual orientation if they wanted to serve their country.

Not talking about something in a workplace you have volunteered to join is the same thing as concealing? Are you implying that homosexual people, or anyone else for that matter, can't help but talk in the workplace about what arouses them?

Support for repeal among the public and in Congress also reflected changing attitudes that can be credited not only to gay rights campaigners but also to ordinary gay and lesbian Americans who, by embracing their identity, made it harder for their friends, families and co-workers to cling to anti-gay prejudices.

Again, in a lot of instances, this is a mis-framing. Disapproval of behavior and concerns about sexual tension and harassment is not prejudice or anti-people.

Important as the vote was, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" leaves unfinished business for advocates of equality. For example, Congress has yet to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the workplace.

And don't forget men who want to wear dresses! That should be part of it, right?

The most conspicuous unfulfilled aspiration is marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

No matter what court decisions are issued or laws are changed, the pairing of two men or two women will never be truly equal to the uniting of a bride and groom. That's reality, and you're going to have to deal with that.

"Mitchell Young" at 10:35 AM December 21, 2010:

What really interests me is the attitude of people like ldfrmc and in more moderate form, the LAT editorial board. Back 20 years ago it was 'don't come into my bedroom', 'two consenting adults in private' etc. But, having achieve political, and partial societal victory, the knives really come out.

As Michael Medved pointed out in the first hour of his radio show today, according to census data, Americans are voting with their feet and moving from "blue' states to "red" states. This is an indication that Leftist policies do not work. Leftists will never admit this, of course. They will blame anything and everything else. I’m sure we’ll be hearing that the migration is "rich white racists" wanting to avoid "diversity".

Michael Barone has this piece in the Washington Examiner.

Texas is the winner in the "vote with your feet" contest.

Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas' diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

California is a disaster.

There's a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation's total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

Are you paying attention, Sacramento Democrats and RINOs?

Thanks to unexpectedly large gains in state legislatures, Republicans stand to control the redistricting process in 18 states with 204 House districts, while Democrats will control it in only seven states with 49 districts. That doesn't guarantee continued Republican majorities, but it's probably worth 10 to 15 seats.

Good news.

California has great natural resources and still has some great human resources and culture, but the government employee union stranglehold, the reconquistador, envirofascist, and gender confusion attitudes among those in the legislature and various governing boards is driving productive contributors out of the state. Leftists, of course, want to nationalize (and internationalize) their dysfunctional polices so as to prevent people from escaping. That’s their solution, rather than limited government, property rights, free markets, and parental rights.

Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote about the estate tax, and it prompted some letters to the editor that were printed.

Michael Napoliello of Manhattan Beach:

Tim Rutten's arguments for keeping the estate tax on the wealthy assume that wealth somehow impoverishes another person or the country as a whole.

As wealth is acquired, it must be either put in a bank (which in turn invests in the community) or put to work (an investment in industry that creates growth for our nation).

Capitalism uses resources and labor to make more resources, creating wealth, and has raised millions of people out of poverty. Taxation simply redistributes wealth involuntarily, discouraging wealth creation and incentivizing dependence.

The only way wealth impoverishes anyone is when it is taxed.

The estate tax is a shameful form of double taxation. Repealing the estate tax for everyone is the fair and humane stance.

Couldn't have written it better myself.

Nate Tucker of Costa Mesa:

I hope the "conservatives" who have been voting against their self-interest look up the word "oligarchy," because that's where we're heading.

"Gutting" the estate tax is one more step toward dominance by the rich and one more step away from the fading American dream.

The evidence for this is simply not there. Oligarchy is aided when we centralize more power in the federal government. Want as many people as possible to be able to earn wealth? Support free markets and limited government.

All of the people who want higher estate tax rates are free to request that more of their own estate be handed over to the federal government upon their death.

You can see from my previous postings on "Don’t Ask Don't Tell" that I don’t have strong feelings about the policy either way. It's a done deal now anyway. However, I think there was a level of dishonesty among most of those activist groups seeking to get rid of the policy in that most of them are no fans of the military and simply want to use homosexual members of the military to further their political agenda, primarily the neutering of marriage. Now that getting ting of DADT is assured, that truth is being talked about in the MSM. See this Associated Press article by Verena Dobnik.

Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military is a step toward equality, advocates say, but a fight for other social changes such as gay marriage still lies ahead.

The Senate voted Saturday to end the 17-year ban on openly gay troops, overturning the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Actually, the 17-year-policy was more friendly to homosexual people than before. The military's ban on private homosexual behavior goes back much further.

Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center - a think tank on the issue - said the vote "ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings."

Really now, because the policy was that they weren't going to ask about sexual orientation and they didn't want to hear about sexual orientation, they weren't treating homosexual people like human beings? Please. Who runs around shouting out their sexual orientation in the workplace anyway?

For thousands of years, he said, one of the key markers for first-class citizenship in any nation is the right to serve in the military, and Saturday's vote "is a historic step toward that."

There is no right to serve in the military. People are turned down for any number of reasons.

Some supporters of the repeal traveled to Washington to witness the vote, including Sue Fulton, a former Army captain and company commander who is spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of 92 gay and lesbian West Point graduates who are out and no longer serving.

Driving home to North Plainfield, N.J., the 51-year-old Fortune 500 executive said she thinks the repeal will have an effect on the civil rights of gays in America.

"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.

I acknowledge homosexual people as full citizens, but I don't think that a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage. This is not a contradiction. Any person who volunteers for military service is doing so knowing full well the laws on marriage, so no whining about "I'm serving my country but I can't get a marriage license with someone of the same sex." Neither can anybody else. Don't like it? Don't enlist.

The article by Robin Abcarian and Jessica Garrison in the Los Angeles Times is more direct, leading off with:

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?

No surprise there.

Indeed, the most important victories for gays have been won this year in the courts and Congress, rather than through the electorate.

Yes, that silly electorate that believes in "we the people".

The article recounts the "progress" this year, again calling the California Marriage Amendment a "ban".

"The momentum in America," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy organization Freedom to Marry, is "toward the freedom to marry and ending unfair treatment of gay people."

Again, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the same freedom to marry.

Wolfson noted that 40% of Americans now live in states where some form of marriage or civil union for gay couples is recognized.

Funny how they include civil unions here, but then will turn around and insist that civil unions are an insult.

The article then goes over Obama's support of homosexuality advocacy.

But those who oppose gay marriage also scored important victories.

I don’t "oppose gay marriage". I defend marriage, and I support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licenses.

Now that DADT is gone, you'll be seeing why groups that are normally hostile to the military were so concerned about making it easier for homosexual people to serve.

There's another paradox or two here. You have to believe that some people can't help but be sexually attracted to people of the same sex and must act on that attraction, and yet believe this won't be a problem when they are bunking and showering with people of the same sex. People on the Left were so concerned about sexual harassment (except by Democrat Presidents) that a man asking a female coworker for a date can be unforgivable, but it isn't a problem that a straight man will have to shower with an openly gay man as part of his job. That straight man can get in trouble for complimenting a woman on her skirt, but would a gay man be in trouble for staring at the straight man in the shower?

It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, will be made to policies and enforcement against adultery and other prohibitions on sexual activities. Will standards be applied equally?

In response to a judge making a correct decision noting that Obamacare is unconstitutional, the Los Angeles Times got a few letters that they printed.

Nayyer Ali, MD of Huntington Beach:

For those who think being required to buy health insurance infringes on personal freedom, what about the imposition on my freedom as a doctor by uninsured patients?

1. You had a choice in whether or not to become a doctor. You had to choose to do it and work hard to make it happen. None of us makes the choice to be born. Obamacare is the federal government forcing us to buy something simply because we were born.

2. I don't think you should be forced to treat anyone you don't want to treat. That is a requirement the government is placed on doctors, and without government sanction, it is a crime to practice medicine. I would allow people to practice medicine without government sanction, as long as they don't represent themselves as having government sanction. You should be allowed to decide whether or not to perform work, subject to whatever contracts to which you have agreed (with your employer, insurance companies, etc.).

Clay Duke of Ventura:

It seems odd that Virginia's attorney general thinks mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional when Virginia law requires that motor vehicles are covered by insurance or the owner must pay an uninsured motor vehicle fee of $500.

What's the difference?

The difference is that owning a motor vehicle is a choice, as is driving on public roads. Furthermore, this vehicle registration is a state function, not a federal one. It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to require car insurance.