I can’t help being totally amused by the Democrats whining about alleged abuses of the filibuster by Republicans which has Harry Reid promising filibuster reform next year.

Leaders in the Senate indicated yesterday they will begin discussions within weeks about how to change filibuster rules — which have allowed Republicans in the Senate to block legislation that does not receive 60 votes.

 Liberal activists and bloggers hailed the news, after clamoring for Democrats to take action against GOP tactics, which has kept Democrats from advancing key items on their agenda like health care reform.

 In a discussion with liberal media outlets Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the Senate would look at new filibuster rules at the start of the next Congress, the Huffington Post reports.

What’s truly ironic is that the filibuster, a delay tactic for legislation, was abused by Democrats in the Bush years to block qualified nominees from the courts and other appointed positions.  The same liberal activists and bloggers who are drooling at the idea of killing the filibuster now were hailing the Democrats filibusters under Bush.

This just goes to show you that Democrats only believe in rules when those rules work for them. After the 2000 election they wanted to kill the Electoral College. In 2004, they wanted to challenge the results of Ohio, even though no finagling of the results would have created a national popular vote win for Kerry.  In Massachusetts, the Democrat controlled legislature changed the law on vacancies to prevent Republican governor Mitt Romney from having the power to appoint  a replacement for John Kerry had he won the presidential election, and Massachusetts Democrats changed the rule back so Democrat governor Deval Patrick could immediately appoint Paul Kirk, rather than hold a special election when Democrats hoped to ram through health care.

Back to this filibuster nonsense… Let’s consider what it actually happening… Republicans today are trying to prevent Democrats from ramming through unpopular legislation, Democrats prevented a sitting president from fufilling his constitutional obligation to fill vacancies on the courts… yet Republicans are the ones accused of abusing the filibuster? Is Harry Reid joking?

When a majority of the people oppose legislation, one would think that members of Congress would listen to the people. Well, Democrats are turning a blind eye to the will of the people and have been trying to shove there health care takeover through Congress with little debate. Their actions essential prove why the filibuster is an important part of the Senate’s rules.

Granted, I agree that in recent years that the filibuster has been abused, but that’s a result of the growing partisan divide in government, and a failure of the Senate to police itself with regards to its rules. Republicans let Democrats abuse the filibuster when they blocked George W. Bush’s nominees, and their lack of action to stop that abuse has paved the way for a “standard” 60 vote threshold on legislation. Something must be done about that, for sure. But, if Democrats think Republicans are abusing the filibuster, then clearly they do not understand what its purpose is, because they pioneered modern day abuse of the filibuster.

I was thinking the other about the problem this country faces with rabid partisanship. In my opinion, the way things are now is not how the Founding Fathers envisioned things to be.

Federalist Paper #10 warned of the problems of “factions” or political parties would have in our system of representative democracy. While it was believed our government could tame them, clearly it has not.

I’ve been wondering what could be done to usher in an era of bipartisanship — genuine bipartisanship – and thought maybe one way would be to go back to the original way the President and Vice-President were elected prior to the 12th Amendment. The Founders originally had electors vote for President, and the runner up would be Vice-President. It seems to me, that the 12th Amendment is responsible for the established two-party system, and for exacerbating partisanship over the years.

So, tell me your thoughts… Should the 12th Amendment be repealed? Would it make things better for the country?

If a certain group/organization commissions a study, you can likely expect the results to reflect the agenda of that organization. One way or another, that group is going to get the result it wants. If a group funded by George Soros funds a study, you can reasonably be suspicious of the results.

So, what about when a study is backed by the government, and the government (read White House) is pushing for government run health care?

Annual mammograms for most women in their 40s have more drawbacks than benefits, said a panel of U.S. doctors that recommended women wait until age 50 to start getting breast cancer screening tests every two years.

The change in guidelines released by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, a government-backed physician group, said women in their 40s are more likely to get false-positive tests that can lead to unnecessary biopsies and anxiety. The recommendations, which also said that self-examinations were unnecessary, don’t apply to women who carry a high risk for breast cancer. Those women should talk to their doctors about when to get screening, the panel said.

The new guidelines, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, pit the task force against the American Cancer Society, which insisted doctors should still advise women to undergo routine annual screening starting at age 40. About 64 percent of women ages 40 to 49 had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said.

Isn’t that convenient? While Obamacare has yet to be passed, a government-backed group publishes a study with results that run contrary to other organizations long held standard… and it just so happens that the government-back group says that less testing is necessary. Could this be a preemptive justification for reduced medical care under a government-run health care system? Sure sounds like it to me.

Since this study came out, I’ve heard a number of stories that included women diagnosed with breast cancer in their forties, who feel lucky to be alive because the cancer was caught early. So, is it really unneccesary, as this study says, for women to wait until the age of fifty to start having mammagrams every two years, not one, or is it just a reason to deny insurance coverage for mammograms for women under fifty?

Let’s consider the statistics.

According to the National Cancer Institute,

From 2002-2006, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the breast was 61 years of age. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 1.9% between 20 and 34; 10.5% between 35 and 44; 22.5% between 45 and 54; 23.7% between 55 and 64; 19.6% between 65 and 74; 16.2% between 75 and 84; and 5.5% 85+ years of age.

Obviously, younger women aren’t at risk, but 13% were diagnosed between the ages of 20-44. I can only guess how many of the 22.5 percent of the 45-54 age range were under fifty, but let’s say that it is less than half, or 10 percent of all diagnosed. So, we are looking at nearly a quarter of all diagnoses of breast cancer are of women under fifty.

Yet, this government-backed study says mammograms for women under fifty are not neccessary?

Tell that to nearly one of every four women with breast cancer who were diagnosed under the age of fifty.

Krauthammer gets it very right:

…November ‘08 was one-shot, one-time, never to be replicated. Nor was November ‘09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm — and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.

The irony of 2009 is that the anti-Democratic tide overshot the norm — deeply blue New Jersey, for example, elected a Republican governor for the first time in 12 years — because Democrats so thoroughly misread 2008 and the mandate they assumed it bestowed. Obama saw himself as anointed by a watershed victory to remake American life. Not letting the cup pass from his lips, he declared to Congress only five weeks after his swearing-in his “New Foundation” for America — from remaking the one-sixth of the American economy that is health care to massive government regulation of the economic lifeblood that is energy.

Moreover, the same conventional wisdom that proclaimed the dawning of a new age last November dismissed the inevitable popular reaction to Obama’s hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt — the tea party demonstrators, the town hall protesters — as a raging rabble of resentful reactionaries, AstroTurf-phony and Fox News-deranged.

Some rump…

The stars aligned perfectly for the Democrats in 2008 – there was not one additional thing which could have been added to give them a better advantage. And yet their vote total, while a solid win, was fairly modest. The sort of result you’d expect from two evenly matched parties who slugged it out with enthusiasm. Actually, the GOP was in terrible shape in 2008 – short on money, lacking enthusiasm, with an unexciting standard-bearer; and yet, had just a couple things gone right, McCain would be President right now.

But Obama and his Democrats choose to treat their victory as a mandate for change – and not just a mandate for any, old change, but for very ardently leftist change. This in spite of the fact that one of the prime reasons they won was because they hid their leftist agenda behind a fog of centrist rhetoric and the MSM played cover for them. They didn’t win on a leftist platform, but immediately proceeded to govern on one. The reaction we’ve seen is completely natural – the people are not leftist; never have been, never will be. We’re Americans.

Added to this and intensifying the effect has been the stunning incompetence of President Obama. I was discussing this with a friend yesterday and our hope is that Obama is a puppet…because if he’s not, then he’s just a plain and simple idiot. If Obama is lucky, hardly anyone saw that presser in the wake of the Ft Hood attack – my wife saw it live and was just disgusted by it; listening to it on the radio later I was stunned at the complete obtuseness of the man. To talk up Indians while America is in shock over mass murder is, well, just the most amazingly dumb thing imaginable. But this isn’t the first time such things have happened. I’m actually a bit worried that Obama simply will not get the hang of being President and that we’ll be stuck with a moving disaster until January of 2013.

Be that as it may, the playing field has tilted back towards the center/right. But it has not tilted back towards the GOP. The Republican party still has a long way to go to earn the trust and respect of the American people – even though the GOP is likely to score some impressive gains next year, it won’t matter much unless the people actually trust the GOP to do the right thing, once back in power. The people are in the process of taking back their government – our job, as Republicans, is to simply assist them in this task and then carry out the long-needed reforms being demanded. We do that, and we’ll route the left for good in this nation.

If you were to ask a pro-abortion rights Democrat during an election year what their position on the controversial issue was, they’d probably say “I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I think the number of abortions should be reduced,” or some variation of that. That little caveat at the end is meant to hide their true, radical abortion views.

The problem is, they do everything in their power to increase the numbers of abortions by making abortions easier to get (even for minors) and easier to pay for.

I’m always reminded of the pro-abortion rights slogan “Keep your laws off my body,” “Keep the government out of my bedroom,” or something stupid like that. So, it amuses me to no end that these pseudo-libertarian baby killers have no problem with the government’s involvement with abortion when it comes to paying for them.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that.  On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.  The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

So, not only does the House version of Obamacare include taxpayer-funded abortions, the government has the power to determine “when abortion is allowed.” So, you’ve got the government back in the bedroom, and you got the laws ”controlling” your body, etc. etc.

I think even the most ardent pro-abortion rights individual ought to be able to see that the government (read: taxpayers) should not be funding abortions. All it does is put the government in control of the very things the pro-abortion crowd claims to be against.

Yesterday on Twitter I said that no one who has actually read the Obamacare bill could honestly support it.I also explained that that is why he wanted to rush it through. Naturally, a few Obamabots on Twitter responded claiming they have read it and support it nonetheless. Oh really?

Granted, if you believe the government should have unlimited power with regards to the health care of Americans, sure, perhaps you may love the love the idea of a government committee rationing health care, issuing a national ID healthcard, and loads of other things that most Americans would think would be impossible to consider in the land of the free..

Domestic Divapalooza went through the bill herself earlier this month, picking out some devilish details. If you still support ObamaCare, by all means, say, for the record, that these things, explicitly mandated in the text of the bill, are things you support.

Otherwise, don’t pretend that you’ve actually read the bill, understood it all, and still love it to death.

Want to avoid another Great Depression? Then understand:

The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy. – Milton Friedman

Indeed:

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. – James Madison

The answer to the “if you don’t want Obamacare, you want people to die” sort of liberal argument:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. – Frederic Bastiat

Did liberals ever like democracy?

…many men are now beginning to say that the democratic ideal is no longer in touch with the modern spirit. I strongly agree; and I naturally prefer the democratic ideal, which is at least an ideal, and therefore, an idea, to the modern spirit, which is simply modern, therefore, already becoming ancient. I notice that the cranks, whom it would be more polite to call the idealists, are already hastening to shed this ideal. A well-known Pacifist, with whom I argued in Radical papers in my Radical days, and who then passed as a pattern Republican of the new Republic, went out of his way the other day to say, ‘The voice of the people is commonly the voice of Satan.’ The truth is that these Liberals never did really believe in popular government, any more than in anything else that was popular, such as pubs or the Dublin Sweepstake. They did not believe in the democracy they invoked against kings and priests. But I did believe in it; and I do believe in it, though I much preferred to invoke it against prigs and faddists. I still believe it would be the most human sort of government, if it could be once more attempted in a more human time. – G K Chesterton

I agree; liberals never really did…because “democracy” means that those working and middle class pinheads will rule the roost, not well-trained liberals who know what’s what.

What is the government role in curing the Obama Depression?

Not much:

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. – Adam Smith

…which three books would you consider vital?

For me, I’d have to plunk down for The Fall of the House of Hapsburg by Edward Crankshaw, Caesar and Christ by Will and Ariel Durant and War Through the Ages by Lynn Montross.

The Fall because it takes us through European History from 1848 to 1914 through the prism of the Hapsburg Monarchy and exposes the various stresses which led to the collapse of European civilization in the cataclysm of the First World War and, also, it cuts through a lot of the fog surrounding that time and shows that for all its errors, there was much merit in a supra-national government as a counter-balance to rampant nationalism.

Caesar and Christ because it covers that pivotal time of human history – more important than any other – which contained within it the life of Christ, the rise of Christianity and the rise and fall of the Roman empire. Understanding our world is not possible without an understanding of that period from approximately 200 BC to 400 AD.

War because an understanding of the military is vital for anyone who wishes to understand the mechanism by which the most startling changes have taken place in our society and how that mechanism reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the societies.

What are your picks, and why?

Technically, I could have made this “What Media Stupidity? Part 1″, but why start a whole, new thread:

U.S. consumer confidence took an unexpectedly steep slide in June, figures released on Tuesday showed, suggesting the 18-month-long recession had yet to loosen its grip on the economy. (emphasis added)

Unexpectedly? By whom? How much of a liberal pinhead do you have to be to not expect a massive slide in consumer confidence when unemployment is going heck for leather towards 10%? The surprising thing is that anyone could be confident – the economy is collapsing around our ears and all of us, even here to for safe government employees, are wondering not if the axe will fall, but when. Unless you’ve got some irreducibly valuable skill (doctor, Marine, etc), you’re at risk of a job loss.

But there is that good, old MSM bias – the MSM has it that the “green shoots” are real and that after a month of MSM cheerleading for Obamunism, people should be upbeat. The next paragraph is even more funny:

A separate report on April house prices in major cities offered some encouraging signs that the worst of the housing slump may be over, but that was not enough to lift investors’ spirits. (emphasis added)

Yeah, the worst of the slump is over…or, at least, it may be; but if the worst of the slump is over am I supposed to jump for joy that my house has lost 70% of its value? Kick up my heels and vote Democrat because it hasn’t lost 80% of its value? Believe Obama if he claims that he “saved” 10% of my home value? We’ll be at least a decade recovering housing prices – and, indeed, there is the chance that my house (and the houses of millions of other Americans) will never recover their value. We could say “it’ll always recover” when the drop was even as much as 20%…but I’ve seen nice houses for sale here in Las Vegas for as little as $50,000; anyone want to bet against there being swell digs for $40,000 not too long from now? How about $25,000? My Dad’s first house was something like $10,000…we’ve only got to drop a bit more for my house, adjusted for inflation, to be worth that…a half century of wealth is on the verge of being wiped out.

Not enough, but at least better than the mewling poltroonery thus far:

Obama directly addresses the Iranian government for the first time after a day of violence in Iran:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

Now, Mr. President, get in touch with those Iranian security forces which might be willing to flip and take the side of the Iranian people – do it, and do it now.

The ultimatum:

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Backers of beaten presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi will decide on Saturday whether to defy a stern warning by Iran’s top authority and stage mass protests over a disputed election.

(Editors’ note: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.)

Iran’s top legislative body holds an extraordinary session on Saturday morning to which it has invited Mousavi and the two other candidates who lost against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the June 12 election, which Mousavi wants annulled.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanded an end to the rallies on Friday, issuing a strong warning to leaders of the street protests that they will be responsible for any bloodshed.

I’m sorry, people of Iran, but the world’s oldest democracy will do nothing to help you. In fact, much to our shame, once you are either cowed or beaten into submission by your corrupt and inhuman overlords, our government will likely go out of its way to “engage” your murderers and oppressors. It is to be hoped that by 2012 we will elect a government worthy of the name “American government”, and then maybe a new settlement can be made in Iran.

Makes me ashamed of my country:

…Lefties keep assuring me on Twitter that western meddling will only make it easier for the regime to demonize the protesters, but (a) the demonization’s going to happen anyway, (b) no one’s asking Obama to send in the Marines, just to speak up, and (c) Angela Merkel managed to issue a statement earlier today calling the Basij thuggery “completely unacceptable” without killing the uprising in its crib. And still, from the White House, nothing. To think, some commentators are accusing The One of “cowardly silence.”

You’ll also be pleased to know that, according to no less than the New York Times, Obama didn’t bother holding any meetings or conference calls about this yesterday. Remember: Health care is a “crisis.” This is but a “situation.”

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters Monday that the United States is concerned about allegations of ballot fraud.

Kelly described the U.S. government as “deeply troubled” by the events in Iran, which is a stronger expression of concern than over the weekend when Vice President Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

When pressed by a reporter, Kelly declined to condemn the Iranian security forces for their crackdown on street protesters. And he said the U.S. knows too little about the conduct of the election to say for sure whether there was fraud.

Can’t even muster up a verbal condemnation – I guess Obama is worried that would make the Iranian dictators mad at us and we can’t have any more of that…only Bush would want theocratic mass murderers mad at him, and we saw how that turned out.

Michael Totten keeps up the excellent run down on the Iranian situation – including the encouraging report that the regular Army is staying out of it…but the Mullahs have forces (Revolutionary Guards, foreign thugs, etc) to keep the people down. Bottom line, unless at least some of the Army goes over to the people, the Iranian regime will gain control of the situation. Here is a heart-rending quote:

One comment from a reader claiming to be in Tehran struck us all today. A translation follows:

“I am in Tehran. Its 3:40 in the morning. I’ve connected with you [by hacking past the government filter]. It’s a big mess here. People are yelling from their houses – ‘death to the dictator.’ They are setting up a military government. No one dares to go out. No one has seen Mousavi today. Rumor has it that they have arrested him. I don’t have an email but I will contact you again.

Help us.”

The comment begs a critical question: How do we help the Iranian people during this tumultuous time?

How, indeed? By promising the Army that we’ll provide whatever is needed if they’ll overthrow the current Iranian regime and allow a genuine poll of the Iranian people to select a new government. Will Obama do it? I doubt it – he’ll still be wondering just when he should start “engaging” again…and a supreme opportunity in the War on Terror will pass us by.

Memo to Obama:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. – Alexander Hamilton

Because more important than gay rights or any such thing is the rigid and unyielding defense of Obama and the Democrat powerful:

Last Thursday, Bruce reported that, in his celebrated address to the Muslim world in Cairo, President Obama ignored the plight of gays living under Islam. Speculating that no national gay organizations would take the Democratic President to task for this failure, I offered to make a $25 contribution to any that did so by Monday (yesterday) morning.

Looks like I won’t have to contribute to any left-wing gay organization. None did.

These groups are so predictable. And this time, their apologists can’t say that this isn’t within the groups’ bailiwick as they (the apologists) do when we fault the gay groups for ignoring the plight of gays under Islam. Those apologists tell us that this is an international issue, not within their purview as advocates for gay rights within our borders. But, President Obama is an American leader.

The American President chose to address the Islamic world. Gays are being persecuted an executed, on a regular basis in many Islamic countries. The President ignored the plight.

They fail to praise a Republican former Vice President when he offers a more “progressive” view on gay marriage than does the Democrtic President of the United States. They fail to criticize that Democrat President when he ignores the plight of our fellows persecuted in Islamic lands.

Whatever one might feel about homosexuality, the plain fact of the matter is that homosexuals in Moslem nations are under horrible threat – to be discovered is to risk death. For Obama to ignore this issue is to reveal just how far he’s willing to go to bow to the Islamists and the corrupt leaders of the Moslem world. The President’s failure to address squarely the real issue – that as long as Islam is unfree, it will be unjust and thus a threat to the world – instructs the tyrants and terrorists that they may do as they please without fear of the United States.

There are two tests which will allow us to know, for certain, whether Islam is willing to be a cooperative part of the world community:

1. Is there a Church in Mecca?

2. Can an open homosexual live in peace?

The Truth fears no truth, nor any lies – a genuine religion established by God does not worry about what the faithful may hear, but about what the faithful does when the siren song of the world is loud and insistent. There is no real virtue in Islam because enforced virtue is no virtue at all – a gay man forced to hide himself away for fear of being hung is not a man coming to grips with those temptations Moslems – as well as Christians and Jews – believe are sinful. A man hiding himself away is a man who may fall from sin into depravity and take out his frustrations on others – including, perhaps, a wife he never wanted to marry, or a race of people – the Jews, eg – whom he actually has nothing against.

Obama has a prime opportunity, fast slipping away, to really change the dynamic of the world – to force a debate about the real issues which drive people apart and breed war, persecution and misery. Obama has so far chosen to have a make-believe debate – a debate about how bad President Bush was and how good the enemy really is. This ill serves both the United States and the larger world, and it is to be hoped that Obama will wake up from his ideological stupor.

Meanwhile, those gay groups which have remained favorable to Obama while he’s tossed them under the bus – beneath contempt. But, also, just typical of the left – it doesn’t matter what is done, as long as power and money are secured. As it is with the so-called civil rights movement, so it is with the gay rights movement: perks and privileges are the real demand, the supposed object of all the demonstrations and agitations can go hang themselves, for all anyone in the leftist leadership cares. Get it, you ardent supporters of Obama who happen to be gay? You’re just a prop – a disposable item in a leftwing morality play. All you’re good for is to belabor the GOP by taking the extreme statements of a few anti-gay kooks and ascribing it to the entirety of the GOP/conservatism/Christianity.

Wake up and smell the coffee – and also realize that your only safety lies in coming to an accommodation with those very same Christians, conservatives and GOPers you’ve been taught to mindlessly despise. We actually care – because even if you’re gay, you’re our brother and while we might not like what you do, at times, we still don’t want you oppressed or murdered for what you are. Only in a rigidly Judeo-Christian civilization will you find the safety to dissent from the moral norm – everywhere else, you’re eventually for the chopping block.

It is flabbergasting that gay people will expend themselves to elect corrupt Democrats who turn on them in an instant and never seem to realize that we’re here if they want us…Vice President Cheney is one of our most beloved and respected leaders and his daughter is gay. And we don’t care that she is – what she does in that area is an issue between her and her family and, more importantly, her and God. We’ll never say that homosexual sex isn’t a sin because we can’t – might as well ask us to say that adultery isn’t a sin. But as we remain friends even with those who commit adultery, so we can remain friends with gay people. On the fundamental level, a gay person has to be someone who wants government off his back – and this means that on a fundamental level, any reasonable homosexual person simply has to work with conservatism; we might not be all that you desire, but if you work with us to cut down Big Government, we’ll simply make no mention of what you might do at home. And being the strict constructionists we are, none of us would dream of imposing our laws on you, unless we are pressed to it in order to defend ourselves against a usurpation of our rights (which is what the lawsuits for gay marriage amount to).

Imagine if a GOP President had appointed someone who had once said, “We have to quit being afraid of the gay rights movement. We also have to quit – I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘F**k ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think!” – think the liberals would be ok with such an appointee? Of course not – they’d be demanding such a person not only not be appointed, but be hounded out of public life for all time to come and that everyone who ever worked with him be cast under a cloud of suspicion. But given that it wasn’t a GOPer who said that, but a gay rights activist, liberals will be calling the man a hero:

The plan seems to be clear. President Obama proclaimed June as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” He and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have also nominated longtime homosexual activist Kevin Jennings as the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Department of Education’s Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools.

We are in the midst of another alteration in the terrain of American culture. The goal is the affirmation of license with regard to disordered sexual cravings and the rejection of the Natural Law…

…LifeSiteNews.com reported that Jennings had been quoted as saying members of the “religious right” were “hard core bigots” who comprised about 20 percent of the electorate at Marble Collegiate Church.

“We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit – I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘F**k ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think!” Jennings told his audience, which pealed with laughter. “Drop dead!”

We’re all too used to the exceptional nastiness of the left, but do we really need such people to be running the show in the Department of Education? I mean, isn’t there some ACT-UP demonstration where Jennings’ particular talents would be more useful? Certainly, the political sewer has lots of openings so Jennings won’t lack employment. Why do we taxpayers – including the Christians he hates so much – have to pony up for him?

I know that liberals wish to make politics odious to anyone who doesn’t live and breath politics all the time, but I do hope that Obama will take a step back and realize that he can advance his agenda without hiring people who need a bit of psychological therapy and a course of prayer in order to be fit for decent society.