Gosnell is guilty of 1st degree murder of 3 babies; he was originally hit with charges against 7 babies, but 3 of the charges were dropped and apparently he was acquitted on the remaining. But he is guilty of 1st degree murder. He was also found guilty of manslaughter on the woman he killed while doing another abortion.

As mentioned here, Gosnell was apparently laughing and having a grand ol’ time last week. After the verdict was read a little while ago, he was shaken and bewildered.

I hope a lot of his “professional” brethren are also shaken and bewildered, as well as their supporters. Remember, the group that Obama asked God to bless, Planned Parenthood, knew about Gosnell and never reported him to the authorities, nor did any other pro-abortion swine.

Justice is served.

First off, it wasn’t strong enough; it wasn’t a declaration of war. President George W. Bush wanted America to return to normalcy as soon as possible, something not possible under an official declaration. While noble, it was foolish. Because if you think about it, normalcy against such an intractable enemy is not possible. The completed and attempted terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (the underwear bomber, Hasan’s massacre at Fort Hood, tha attack on our consulate in Benghazi, etc.), culminating with the recent bombing in Boston, show this to be true. One of the reasons World War II ended as quickly as it did and in a broader arena had everything to do with the federal government involving every American in the effort. With the 2001 AUMF, Bush said the role of winning the war was to solely go to the Executive Branch, with minimal input from Congress and the people when necessary. What Bush failed to understand is that a war of that magnitude must involve all Americans, not just a select few. Worse, Barack Obama has done the same thing and extended it further. To add to this mistake, both men worked on policies that unnecessarily expanded the domestic reach of the federal government when winning the war should have taken top priority. It’s no wonder we are nearly a dozen years into the 2001 AUMF.

The second problem with the AUMF is it allowed Congress to get away from having any responsibility. Yes, the PATRIOT Act was enacted, which was appropriate at the time (and still is while the AUMF is in effect). But Congress was happy to let both the Bush and Obama administrations go about the business alone; plus, Congress was anxious to move on whatever domestic policies hit their fancy at the time, usually with fringe benefits to its members. In my opinion, it was a dereliction of duty, one that continues to this day. Oh sure there are some in Congress who have made and are making complaining noises when pressed by certain groups. But by and large Congress has abrogated its responsibility for most of these twelve years.

The third problem had to do with how both Bush and Obama decided to declare victory in Afghanistan before there was one, a mistake Bush repeated in Iraq. Before the military job was finished, Bush (and he gets the lion’s share of the blame) began implementing the reconstruction of Afghanistan before it was close to being ready; he did the same in Iraq. Look at the government in place now, with the crooked Hamid Karzai barely hanging on while the Taliban licks its chops to take over once the U.S. leaves. The whole of Afghanistan needed to be punished for its role in 9/11. Is that outrageously brutal, especially on the people who were horribly oppressed by the Taliban? I would counter that if Afghans believed they were horribly oppressed by the Taliban, why didn’t they do more to get rid of them before 9/11, which would probably have been the end of Al Qaeda there and bin Laden as well? Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the U.S. occupation should have declared martial law indefinitely until the Afghans decided they had had enough of war, conflicts that had been going on in Afghanistan since 1979 when the Communists took over, followed by the Soviet invasion. Someone with the absolute power of MacArthur in Japan following WWII was needed. Reconstruction can only occur after the military is done with their work, a lesson Bush failed twice, and a lesson Obama is now failing.

The fourth problem is that the AUMF didn’t target the right enemy. It said it would go after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks; in effect, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The problem is, the government of Afghanistan was part of it. Can you imagine on December 8, 1941, Congress declaring war on just the militarists of Japan, or a couple of days later targeting just the Nazis? And here’s the other thing; neither Al Qaeda or the Taliban were the first Islamists to conduct an illegal war against the United States. From the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Baathists (under Saddam Hussein) running Iraq to Hamas and the PLO in Israel, from the Iranian terrorists running Iran and the Baathists running Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon, there isn’t a group there that hasn’t committed a terrorist act, an illegal act of war, against the U.S. and its people. Add on top of that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the huge number of terrorists infesting Pakistan and its government, and this war isn’t going to end soon. Had the AUMF been an official declaration, it should have included every single terrorist-supporting nation in the Middle East, starting with Afghanistan and moving west. If Pakistan was to be an ally, it needed to brutally shut down its terrorists, just as Egypt under Mubarak had done. Yes, there would have been issues regarding the oil in the Middle East; that problem would have been solved by taking over the oil fields in those countries and only the oil fields, leaving the rest of those countries to rot until they had gotten their acts together. The U.S. could have made sure the oil flowed and taking a cut to help finance the operation. It would have also cowed the nations in the Arabian peninsula and forced them to deal with the terrorists in their midst. A declaration against this enemy would have allowed the federal government to include all Americans, the one necessary ingredient to winning the war.

So yes, it is time to reconsider the AUMF. It should also be the time to reconsider the PATRIOT Act, along with the FISA updates that allow, for lack of a better phrase, warrantless wiretaps. It would also force the hand of the Obama regime to get off the pot about trying the terrorists in Gitmo.

Since the takeover of Iran by the terrorists running that country, all subsequent administrations from Carter through Clinton have dealt with terrorism as criminal acts instead of illegal acts of war. The U.S. was at war but the federal government refused to believe it. That changed on 9/11. But thanks to how badly the war has been fought, terrorism will revert to mostly being criminal acts again, with a few exceptions that will be in place in a new AUMF, if passed. And thanks to Obama’s decision to help get rid of Mubarak in Egypt, Qaddafi in Libya, and potentially arming terrorist trying to overthrow Assad in Syra, the enemy is expanding their territory.

As it is, the 2001 AUMF left the people of the U.S. subject to frequent and unnecessary terrorist attacks from Islamist radicals, attacks that are still continuing. Until such time that the U.S. government gets its act together to deal with them, the threat of more attacks will remain in place regardless of whether the 2001 AUMF remains as is or is modified to be less onerous on our rights in so-called “peacetime”.

The two had been together for 10 years and are expecting twins via a surrogate in July.

Let’s dispense with any pleasantries right now. The couple is not expecting anything. Apparently, the two men’s relationship has been on the rocks for awhile and they separated on New Years Day this year. Yet, they contracted some woman to get pregnant just before they split up (it doesn’t say if either or both men donated the sperm). What this is is arrogant irresponsibility. Regardless of who ends up with the custody of the twins, whether it’s either of the men or the mother, the children will become statistics and born to an unmarried single parent.

Now, naysayers will say married couples often do this as well. True, with one significant exception: nobody other than the parents are involved in conceiving the child. With the two gay guys, they decided to involve another in this irresponsibility.

In every piece I’ve read about this story (there are a few here), there is no reporting at all about the mother. I have no doubt this is in part due to medical privacy laws. But with a Democrat media so hyped up on same-sex “marriage” based on the “feelings” of same-sex couples and how same-sex couples supposedly believe in their own “privacy”, how is it the feelings of the mother don’t even register an iota of interested reporting? And even as Democrats whine incessantly about how Republicans want women to remain “barefoot and pregnant”, the mother of these twins is being used as nothing more than a baby-making factory for a couple of arrogant Hollywood brats. Heck, in every one of those pieces about this, the mother isn’t referred to as a woman or even a person; she’s called a surrogate and nothing more.

So what if the mother decides she wants sole custody? Or think about this; according to the Supreme Court in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the mother can abort her pregnancy without any say from the two men. As the Court noted, she has the sole right into making this decision. Would she then be contractually obligated to compensate either or both men for either retaining custody or aborting the twins? If I were the judge in either the custody and/or contract case, I’d have these men sterilized and never allowed to enter into a contract to be parents. Ever.

Supporters of same-sex “marriage” say what they advocate for is in no way different than a real marriage. Obviously, it is completely untrue.

As I stated above, Gosnell was originally charged with eight counts of murder. Thanks to his lawyer working the system, that number was reduced to five since the prosecution couldn’t prove three of the babies were alive after they were outside of the womb. Now, some pro-abortion clown might say that this disproves my point about Roe making back-alley abortions legal. Except it doesn’t. While these three babies may not have been murdered as specified in the statute, it doesn’t mean Gosnell didn’t perform thousands of what the statutes would say are legal abortions in his back-alley abortion mill.

We also have to acknowledge these facts. Gosnell wasn’t associated with Planned Parenthood. And while circumstantial evidence of PP’s practices might indicate some of their Pennsylvania “clinics” referred mothers to Gosnell, there aren’t any facts that I know of that proves it happened (if they have come out, I will strike out this line in an update).

But there are other facts as well. In testimony given under oath to members of the Florida state legislature, a PP lobbyist said it is up to the abortionist and the mother to decide if a baby born alive following a botched abortion should remain alive. Having the state declare the child alive and with guaranteed rights might restrict women’s “access” (this is one of the pro-abortion zealots’ favorite words) to their reproductive “health” (another of their favorite words) rights; ie., infanticide is A-OK with PP. (Whether they approve of the Gosnell method by severing the living baby’s spinal cord with scissors, who knows; PP might have a more “humane” method to murder these babies.) These are the same kinds of arguments Barack Obama made a little more than 10 years ago when he was still a lowly state senator in the Illinois legislature, and several times prevented a vote in the Illinois state Senate a bill to guarantee the rights of a baby born alive after a botched abortion. He said such measures would make for onerous over-regulation and would…here it comes…wait for it…restrict women’s “access” to their reproductive “health” rights. Obama prevented these votes despite the fact that testimony had been given in the Illinois legislature and to Congress that abortionists were regularly letting the living human beings born of a botched abortion die of exposure; ie., infanticide. This was the policy Gosnell was allowed to “work” under for nearly 20 years, thanks to the criminal malfeasance (and accessory to these murders) of the aforementioned Pennsylvania government employees masquerading as decent human beings.

Yesterday, Obama gave a speech to a Planned Parenthood gathering, to “celebrate” the “work” they do in the name of reproductive “freedom” or some such nonsense (the quoted words are mine and not attributed to Obama). Like a petulant child, Obama whined about how some legislatures are working on further restricting abortions in their states, restricting “access” for women. However, he didn’t mention Gosnell. Which makes sense. In a state where “access” wasn’t restricted at all because the regulatory regime was rendered non-existent by the Pennsylvania state government, Gosnell was allowed to ply his butchery without anybody taking him to account. If Obama had even thought about bringing up Gosnell, it would completely undercut the zealous, pro-abortion “access” argument he and PP make, along with the other pro-abortion fanatics, on a regular basis. As I said in the first sentence of this post, back-alley abortions were illegal before the Roe v. Wade decision 40 years ago. But thanks to the likes of Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, the Pennsylvania state government, all of the other pro-abortion nuts, and Kermit Gosnell, back-alley abortions are quite legal and can be protected by law.

This is what is happening in New York state under Democrat fake Catholic Andrew Cuomo, which I’ve mentioned here. The “reproductive health act” Cuomo wants passed would permit unlimited late-term abortion on demand, would endanger the lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions, and would preclude any future reasonable regulations of abortion (see this Hot Air post for more info). As of right now, the bill hasn’t yet come up for a vote. If passed and signed into law, New York state’s Gosnell-like abortionists would be able to have their back-alley abortions legalized by statute. All in the name of “access” and women’s rights to reproductive “health”.

You know, one of the arguments I keep hearing from the pro-abortion crowd is how they don’t want the government to regulate or have control over women’s bodies, and conservatives who are against abortion aren’t really conservatives. But think about it. When a man and a woman have sex together, nobody really has control over their bodies, especially if the couple isn’t using birth control at the time (heck, even if the man has a condom, it could break). So the “control” argument is a false one. What it also means is that when it comes to control and self-regulation of their own bodies, the women who have had abortions aren’t very good at it. And because of this, more than a million human beings are killed every year, with Planned Parenthood performing at least a third of those for the last few years.

I’m also amazed that so many homosexuals are pro-abortion fanatics. Think about it; a homosexual will never ever conceive a child with the person they say they are in love and have sex with, someone of the same sex. It isn’t biologically possible. Add this thought as well. Homosexuals claim they are born being homosexuals. If true, and I’m not saying it is, do they care how many homosexuals have been aborted every year out of the million plus babies killed? Oh I’m sure homosexuals will claim that laws that seemingly violate reproductive “rights” are just as bad as sodomy laws. It’s a ridiculous argument since there will be less homosexuals, a group incapable of reproducing without intervention, something just about all heterosexual couples do without the assistance of a third party. It’s almost like pro-abortion homosexuals are emulating the Shakers.

At one time, a pro-abortion Democrat who shan’t be named (*cough* Bill Clinton *cough*) said he believed abortions needed to be safe, legal, and rare. We knew then he was lying, and we know every pro-abortion Democrat (and any other pro-abortion zealot) who says this now is lying. With more than 50 million dead babies since Roe and with some murder charges against Gosnell being dropped (it’s possible he’ll be acquitted of all the murder charges regarding the dead babies), the words “rare” and “safe” have long held no meaning in that statement; all that matters is that abortions are legal.

I still remember when another Democrat fake Catholic, Massachusetts’ now-dead-and-buried Ted Kennedy, falsely, egregiously, viciously, and infamously attacked the now-deceased Robert Bork during the latter’s confirmation hearing after President Ronald Reagan nominated the brilliant jurist to the Supreme Court. It is no mystery that Bork thought Roe v. Wade was a badly written and bad decision, and it’s possible he might have voted to overturn it if and when it was brought up to the court in a case. (After Bork’s nomination was withdrawn, Anthony Kennedy, no relation to Ted and appointed by Reagan and then confirmed, was the deciding vote in Casey v. Planned Parenthood — go figure — which upheld the “essential holding” of Roe.) Let’s revisit Kennedy deliberately slandering Bork and note the first words out of this dead miscreant’s mouth:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions,…

Well, guess what? Ted Kennedy’s, Andrew Cuomo’s, Kermit Gosnell’s, Planned Parenthood’s, and Barack Obama’s America has devolved into making back-alley abortions completely legal, whereas prior to Roe v. Wade, they were always illegal.

At the end of his speech to PP, Obama said the following [emphasis mine]:

“As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

That’s who occupies the White House today, someone who wants God to bless the now-legal back-alley abortions. I know what I’m going to say is sinful, and it really shouldn’t be said, but I’m so angry inside I have to vent. Can someone explain to me how anyone can think Barack Obama is a decent human being?

Thatcher also raised British prestige by steadfastly defending the rights of her people to choose who would govern them. I mean, of course, Thatcher’s defense of the Falkland Islands in 1982 from an illegal attempt by the Argentine government to conquer them. These are the same islands the Obama regime hypocritically refers to as the Malvinas to stick it in the eye of the Brits, especially those who live on the Islands and have repeatedly voted to remain a part of the UK.

Women leading England wasn’t first done by Thatcher, which has a long history of not only strong female rulers, but also some good ones. But there should be no doubt about who was the greatest of all of England’s and the UK’s female leaders; that would be England’s Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I.

As it was when Thatcher came to power, England at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign was a mess. Near the end of the reign of Elizabeth’s predecessor, Elizabeth’s half-sister Queen Mary I, England had lost its remaining possession on mainland France, the city of Calais, which had been in English hands for much more than a century. The question of religion was completely up in the air as first King Henry VIII’s establishment of the Protestant Church of England had come to a standstill by the end of his reign, only to see it become more evangelical during the reign of his son and successor (and the half-brother of both Mary and Elizabeth) King Edward VI, and then came the restoration of Catholicism under Mary, who also brutally punished those who advanced the new faith. At the time of Mary’s death, her husband was the very Catholic King Philip II of Spain (he was also nominally the King of England as well) who used that marriage to repeatedly threaten England. England had been a premier European power under Henry and Edward, only to see the country go downhill under Mary. Elizabeth’s long reign and her own toughness not only saw England recover, but to begin becoming the naval force it would be in a century and for the three centuries thereafter.

But as with any other leader, Elizabeth was by no means perfect, as Thatcher wasn’t perfect. But despite their issues, history has shown them to be great leaders at a time when England and the UK needed great leaders.

We in the U.S. have seen many a great American ladies. But none have yet been able to attain the role to lead the nation as did Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher. And unfortunately, the only American woman likely to do so is the woman Democrat voters rejected five years ago, Hillary Clinton. What is worse for us in America, Clinton brings nothing since her political career can be summed up in this way: she’s the wife of an impeached President. Clinton helped cover up her husband’s philandering and mendacities to the courts (his perjury was the true reason he was impeached) and the American people, she was elected U.S. Senator from New York only because her husband was still President, she spent eight years as Senator doing nothing except triangulating in order to improve her chances for the White House in 2008, and spent the last four years as a completely incompetent Secretary of State. Even as many conservative women are actually proving they could be leaders by being good governors, their accomplishments are being ignored by the media so that the latter can focus on getting Clinton to be the next person to Occupy the White House, despite the fact that Clinton hasn’t shown any ability to lead anything; even her 2008 campaign wasn’t close to being good enough to keep Obama from getting the Democrat nomination. But as we saw in the last election, being incompetent doesn’t keep a Democrat out of office since the incompetency is going to be ignored by those partisans that make up the U.S. media.

One other thing. Undoubtedly, the media will attempt to falsely characterize Clinton as some sort of equivalent to Thatcher. I would call that an insult to Thatcher and her legacy. After all, as Sec. of State, Hillary never got Obama to stop calling the Falklands the Malvinas.

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. The states, in particular the legislatures, which would include the people of the state when there is a ballot initiative passed by popular vote, have had the sole power to regulate it, provided those regulations follow the Constitution. Up to 2003, the law in every state and in the federal government has always stated a marriage consisted of one man and one woman; attempts to redefine marriage to allow for plural marriages or to keep mixed-race couples from marrying each other have been rendered illegal at various points in U.S. history. At one time, a divorce could only occur when the state legislature passed a resolution instead of having it done in the courts. But while a civil matter in the law, marriage has religious aspects as well. This is important as the judiciary at the state and federal levels have pretty much taken over the power, some would say usurped from the legislatures and the people, answering what is and what isn’t a marriage.

In just about every faith in Christianity, along with the religions of Judaism and Islam, a marriage is holy, and therefore recognized, with certain limitations, especially when divorce is involved, regardless of whether a couple was married in a religious or civil ceremony. It is also true that in those faiths, homosexual relations are sinful, just as heterosexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and celebrating those relations is a celebration of sin. Until such time that these religions somehow consider homosexual relations as not sinful, which would contradict the many places saying it is in the Old and New Testaments where it says so (and, for Christians, would contradict the warnings in Revelations 22:18-19), the adherents to these religions are supposed to be free of interference from the various levels of government to believe and speak out against the sin of homosexual relations. This doesn’t mean there should be attempts to criminalize these relations, especially since such laws are now illegal; but, the rights to adhere to these beliefs remains. This is not insigificant as there are troubling aspects related to the same-sex “marriage” debate that would not be found in any of the previous rulings on marriage.

Massachusetts was the first state to discover a “right” to same-sex “marriage”, doing so in 2003. However, it was done through the courts and not through the legislature or the people. In fact, there appears to have never been an attempt in the previous decade or so prior to the 2003 ruling to have either the Massachusetts legislature or its citizens decide what constituted a marriage. Following the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, attempts to allow the voters to define marriage as consisting of one man and one woman were deliberately delayed by the state legislature until there were enough votes to keep the people from deciding one way or another. Other than that, Massachusetts lawmakers have removed a restriction that used to allow the state to deny a non-resident couple to marry in the state if the marriage was not not recognized in their home state; in other words, under the change a same-sex couple who could not be married in Arkansas (my state) would be allowed to be married in Massachusetts.

Judicial rulings in other states such as Iowa legalized same-sex “marriage” in the next few years. Vermont, which had passed the first civil union law in 2000, was the first state to have the legislature pass a law to recognize same-sex couples as married without being forced to do so by the courts.

Then there is what happened in California.

The Proposition 8 case now before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry, came out of a ruling (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) in the U.S. District Court for Northern California by the Reagan-appointed Judge Vaughan Walker. Ignoring as irrelevant inferences about Walker’s handling of and suitability to rule on the case, his decision makes some claims that should give pause. But first, the facts. Walker’s ruling throws out Proposition 8, an amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman, as a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the U.S. Constitution. It should be noted that Proposition 8 came out of a California Supreme Court ruling in In re: Marriage Cases that threw out Proposition 22, a statute (as opposed to a constitutional amendment) saying the same as the later Proposition 8, and thus the ruling created the “right” of same-sex “marriage” in California in contradiction of the voters; even though Proposition 22 was invalidated by it, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Walker that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, even citing Baker v. Nelson (see Part I for information on this case) as non-applicable (because same-sex “marriage” was made legal in California in In re: Marriage Cases, the district court did not run afoul of the Baker precedent in taking the case). The panel’s Perry decision was crafted to only apply to California. It will be up to the Supreme Court to render a decision to overturn Walker’s and the panel’s ruling and remand it back to the lower courts, to allow it to stand for California on the merits, to allow it to stand for California by not ruling on the merits but deny standing to the plaintiffs (the California state government declined to defend the vote of their citizens), or to have Walker’s ruling apply to all 50 states (there may be one or more scenarios as well).

Walker’s ruling included what he called many “Findings of Fact”. However, at least one “fact” is not a fact. “Findings of Fact” 62 states as follows:

Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

Wrong. Here is an example. There are people who work in government who issue marriage licenses along with other duties. There are bound to be people who do this job who are going to believe same-sex “marriage” is wrong on religious grounds and will not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even in a state that recognizes same-sex “marriage”. After In re: Marriage Decisions and before Proposition 8 passed, there were implied threats by government officials in California that all employees having anything to do with marriage must include same-sex couples regardless of an employee’s religious beliefs, a threat which would be a violation of Article I, Sec. 4 of California’s Constitution. So one of Walker’s “Findings of Fact” “facts” is not based on a fact.

To continue, “Findings of Fact” 77 through 80 go through a litany of complaints about religious objections to same-sex “marriage”. The effect of these complaints allows Walker, just prior to his conclusion, to render an individual’s religious beliefs in this manner:

Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In other words, Walker says these religious beliefs are not rational. There is only one thing to say to this: is he kidding? Our individual beliefs, religious or otherwise, guide us to live our lives as good citizens. I don’t steal not only because the government says it’s illegal, but because I believe it’s something God commanded me not to do. Many of the things I’ve done that aren’t illegal were done because I’ve tried to follow God’s Commandments; conversely, I’ve done things not considered illegal that did violate God’s Commandments and I wish I hadn’t done them. Walker’s own beliefs, whether they are guided by religion or not, do guide him in how he lives, which includes being a homosexual in a loving same-sex relationship.

The question then is, how are Walker’s beliefs rational while declaring as irrational those who have religious beliefs to think homosexuality is sinful? The answer is, of course, there is no answer. What does it mean to be rational? Is belief in a god rational to be protected by the First Amendment? How about the belief that God as Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead? Or the belief that the Ten Commandments is the law of God? And what about belief in no god? Is this rational and proteced by the First Amendment? Or the belief that homosexuality is perfectly normal. Is that rational or based on data that shows it to be rational? If it is normal, how come more people aren’t homosexuals, especially where same-sex “marriage” is legal? Or is it that homosexuality is considered normal only by those who believe it? Wouldn’t that make the notion of homosexual normality irrational? To decide that an individual’s religious beliefs that are not contrary to the law but Walker considers not rational is just a fancy way of ignoring a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution, much like the Obamacare HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate does.

Here is another point. Homosexual acts aren’t the only sins mainstream religions preach against. Heterosexual acts outside of marriage have always been considered sinful as well, even as these acts have been made culturally normative. Same-sex “marriage” activists have claimed that because homosexual acts have been targeted as sinful by the various mainstream religions and faiths, homosexuals have been exclusively targeted as sinners. Nothing could be further from the truth as all sexual sin is denounced; just because our present culture ignores those denouncements doesn’t mean they don’t occur.

In a section regarding the Equal Protection Clause, Walker introduces uses this falsehood:

Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex —— heterosexuals —— do not have their choice of marital partner restricted by Proposition 8.

Can anyone guess how this statement is incorrect? Come on, I know you can. No? If I’m married and want to marry another woman, I can’t while I’m married. Oh sure I can get a divorce, but at the time I’m married, I can’t marry someone else. It’s the same if I wanted to marry a woman already married. Can’t be done. What if we’re both married? Can’t be done. Being a man, I can’t marry my mother or my sister; if I lived in New York, I couldn’t marry my father or brother either. My choice is therefore heavily restricted under Proposition 8, as it is in every state; I can’t choose to be married to just any woman at any time. In fact, my choice is even more restricted under Proposition 8; I can only be married to one woman at any one point and nobody else, not another woman I’m not related to, not a man I’m not related to, not my mother, not my sister(s), not my father, and not my brother(s). I’m not even going to get into other possibilities as I would be accused of equating those with a homosexual act. And guess what else? Other than with the wife I am married to, all mainstream religions find sinful any acts of sex I have with those other people. So the idea that finding homosexual acts sinful amongst those who believe it is so is just one type of sexual act that is deemed sinful, even if the sex act is with someone of the opposite sex.

This is especially true with incest. Sex with a sibling, especially an opposite-sex sibling where a child is produced, has always been sinful. But even here, the ancients could see the negative effects from the children born of these unions. They may not have known scientifically why there were these negative effects, only that God marked the acts sinful and that there were bad consequences. Even times more closer to the present, 500 or so years ago, pictures of Hapsburg kings and emperors, of the Catholic Holy Roman Empire no less, showed how that family ruined itself in the name of “purity”, only to see the descendents of those and other incestual unions die out within a few generations. In the present, we have more scientific knowledge of how children produced from incest are genetically harmful, especially as the incest crosses generations. Boy them ancients were smart, weren’t they? It kind of makes you wonder about those other sexual sins God frowns upon, doesn’t it?

Here’s another fact that goes completely unmentioned in Walker’s diatribe. Biology. Walker would have us believe historically women were treated as inferiors in a marriage only because it was dictated by the culture. While that is true to a large degree, there are two other factors: in general, men have always been physically stronger than women so there were some jobs only men could do or could do well; and, only women can bear children. Not even the Equal Protection Clause can “fix” either of these. While the former item is much less important for humans to survive in the present day, which is reflected in today’s culture as the role of women has expanded, even in marriage, the latter defies cultural changes. Even as women have taken on real positions of power, they cannot ignore the simple biological fact that it is only they who will bear children. But then again, there isn’t much in Walker’s ruling reflecting anything that might negatively impact his ruling.

This is where Walker’s “Findings of Fact” 77 through 80 get insidious. The complaints listed read like a repeat of how the federal government has dealt with racial discrimination long after the legislation enacted to correct it have served their purpose but are still litigated. It is an attempt to set things “right” for homosexuals whom Walker believes have been so unduly burdened in the past, and to use the past to avoid having to protect religious freedom. That is one reason why Loving is cited as a reason for Walker believing he is justified in throwing out Proposition 8, similar to the reasons why the federal government uses the past against states where racial discrimination was policy and ignore the fact that the majority of people in those states no longer have an interest in reinstituting those policies. It is a way to promote discrimination against those with religious beliefs against same-sex “marriage”.

Here are some more examples. Harsh threats of termination and prosecution have been issued in the state of New York by Gov. Cuomo and other officials following passage of their same-sex “marriage” law, a violation of Article I, Sec. 3 of that state’s Constitution. In addition, it would be just as discriminatory in California and New York based on their Constitutions (and I would guess those of every other state) to deny employment for any job to an otherwise qualified individual based on their religious beliefs, as it is discrimination to deny employment on other grounds.

So far, I haven’t seen where these religious beliefs are protected when put into practice by religous organizations and individuals holding these beliefs. Dana Loesch has a post with a comprehensive list of attacks on people and organizations by government and same-sex “marriage” advocates for what is considered general doctrine. Fox News’ Todd Starnes has a post on an attempt by homosexuals to have a Catholic priest physically removed from the George Washington University campus for preaching Catholic doctrine against homosexuality (they also want to have defunded the Newman Center, a center for GWU Catholics and others, that is apparently on campus). In the post, the head of the Newman Center Society, the parent organization of the one at GWU, defended this doctrine as one that treats all sex outside of marriage as sinful. Now there are those who might say that because a same-sex couple is considered “married” by the state means that the Catholic doctrine (and the doctrine of other Christian faiths and other religions) against homosexuality by now-”married” same-sex couples would be moot. Unfortunately, it is not for those others, and especially not the government, to say this considering religious texts going back centuries and millenia that are the basis for this doctrine clearly state homosexual acts are sinful. Those with these religious beliefs are on fairly firm ground legally following the recent unanimous Hosanna-Tabor ruling by the Supreme Court. But of course, all law is settled law until it isn’t, and there is no way to predict, unfortunately, how the court would treat these cases. The track record isn’t promising. As there has been litigation against those who had nothing to do with committing the “sin” of racial discrimination but happened to have something to do with a state that did decades ago, expect litigation for years against those who have committed the “sin” of denying “married” same-sex couples or who believe same-sex “marriage” promotes sinful behavior. While Walker claims referring to homosexual acts as sinful harms same-sex couples and those morals have no place in law, the law he would impose creates new “morals” that would make the new “sins” illegal and/or criminal.

Then there is the case against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing wrong with Section 2 of DOMA. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Congress has the power to make sure states handle marriage on their own, especially if one believes it is the states who are responsible for regulating marriage under the Constitution. If a same-sex couple considered “married” in New York moves to Arkansas, they are not married as far as Arkansas law is concerned. If that same couple wants to be “divorced” as they would be in New York, they can go to New York to get the divorce; it is not an issue Arkansas’ should be forced to deal with. So if Section 2 of DOMA is valid under the Constitution, what about Section 3, which is the main part of DOMA being considered? Well, that’s a darn good question. If a federal employee and/or their same-sex “spouse” lives in a state where same-sex “marriage” is legal, then Section 3 is a problem. If a federal employee and/or their same-sex “spouse” lives in a state like Arkansas where marriage is one man and one woman, Section 3 is fine. If a federal employee and (note the distinction) their same-sex “spouse” live in a foreign country, then Section 3 is a problem since where they were “married” would matter. If anything, it can (I believe) be considered unconstitutional, but also to have Congress fix it. Otherwise, all removing Section 3 does is give the federal government sole power over regulating marriage, which brings in a whole host of other problems, namely plural marriage.

I hope I was able to provide some information you may not have known before and kept you interested.

Examining Loving, there are important considerations that must be taken into account. In addition, I learned an awful lot about marriage regulation in this country that I had not even known existed. There are probably lawyers who knew much of this, but I doubt even they know everything about how marriage was dealt with in this country. Part I here will show a broad history of marriage and the law in the United States through the 20th Century. Part II will discuss what has come about in our present century, and the potential threat to religious rights.

Marriage in the United States has always been dealt with at the state level, and for decades, it was pretty much the province of state and territorial legislatures. The federal government, especially Congress, did get involved when it came to dealing with the Mormons in 19th Century since polygamy had been practiced by its adherents since the religion’s inception. Although living in other states, and often persecuted in those states, Mormons eventually established an area of their own in and around Great Salt Lake, an area that had just been added to the United States as a result of the Mexican War (1846-1848). Although being incorporated as Utah Territory, the federal government and the Utah Mormons remained conflicted over the polygamy issue. During the Civil War, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed in Congress (and signed by President Lincoln) making plural marriages a federal crime; it was tested in 1878 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States. But usually, and when dealing with non-plural marriage, the federal government did not get involved.

Following the Civil War and for nearly a century, former Confederate states believed they had an interest in preventing marriages between blacks and whites, passing laws criminalizing miscegenation. (UPDATE) Many of these states had passed these same or similar laws going back to colonial times. But along with these states, a majority of other states, including those that had been added after the Civil War, had passed anti-miscegenation laws. Many of those states still had those laws on the books for much of the 20th Century. It was often the case that those who passed and supported these laws believed there was a religious element found in religious texts, primarily the Bible. (/UPDATE) Such was the case in 1967 when Loving was decided. The state of Virginia made a claim that there was no way their law violated the Equal Protection Clause since it treated both blacks and whites the same in charging both parties in a mixed-race marriage with a felony. While technically true, the Supreme Court said, and I agree, the law was an Equal Protection violation as it was targeted to make it a criminal act for blacks to mix with whites, which contradicted the findings of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding segregation and McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) regarding criminalization of the cohabitation by a mixed-race couple.

However, there was no such thing as same-sex “marriage”, that is until the Massachusetts created it for that state in 2003. There had been sodomy laws; in 1986, the Supreme Court deemed them constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick, which stood for 17 years until 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. But nothing in any state regarding same-sex “marriage”. The first attempt that I know of where two people of the same sex tried to get married was in the late 1960s in Minnesota. All that happened was that an application for a marriage license was denied, an action upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson. Since it was required to be the final appellate review, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments to reverse the Minnesota decision and the state court ruling was upheld; since the Court did not take the case via a writ of certiorari (where the Court asks for the review), the U.S. Supreme Court’s unwritten decision was considered a denial on the merits, meaning there was no right to same-sex “marriage” and that lower federal courts must use Baker v. Nelson as precedent. Beyond that, the only similarity between not recognizing same-sex “marriage” and the anti-miscegenation laws is that certain people were not allowed to marry each other. Since no state considered even allowing a same-sex couple to be “married”, there couldn’t be a crime. That is a critical distinction.

I would also add this. Historically, it was normal for the general population to marry someone of the same culture and ethnicity, mostly because those who made up the general population didn’t and/or couldn’t mix with those of different cultures and ethnicities. (UPDATE: It wasn’t as if a serf in Europe with no rights and a family to support could take an excursion to exotic locales. /UPDATE) But those who could, usually royalty and aristocrats (and often, members of the military of a state), often married someone of different a culture and ethnicity, and often for diplomatic reasons. But generally, and especially since the advent of Christianity, the only requirement for a marriage was that it included one man and one woman. As far as I’m concerned, the anti-miscegenation laws redefined marriage by adding in a racial qualification, just as same-sex “marriage” attempts to redefine marriage by modifying the gender qualification.

Loving also made it a point to adhere to something else. While states could not regulate marriage based on race, nor could they allow by omission new features added to the definition of marriage (e.g., plural marriage in Utah by Mormons), state regulation of marriage remained intact. There are a couple of references to a case called Maynard v. Hill, which I’ll discuss more below. Maynard clearly held that marriage regulation was the province of the states that came down from English common law and recognized in Loving. Despite its inherently religious features, marriages in the United States have always been a civil matter subject to regulation by the states, provided those regulations were valid under the Constitution. But even with this fact, how religions view marriage was also protected under the first two clauses of the Bill of Rights, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. That is until what happened in Massachusetts in 2003.

Before concluding this part, I want to mention Maynard v. Hill, referenced in Loving. It had to do with an 1888 case. In 1850, a married man, David Maynard, left his wife Lydia and children in Ohio to go to California, but settled on land in Oregon Territory (at the time of the case, the land was in what was Washington Territory, now Washington state). He applied for a grant as a married man, but was required to wait four years before it would be his. In 1852, Maynard was granted a divorce, while the waiting period on his grant had not yet come to term. By the time the term was completed, Maynard owned the land; however, he had also married someone else. After some hearings in which Lydia Maynard had claimed her rights to a portion of the land, it was determined that half of Maynard’s land would become public and neither Maynard’s first or second wife would have a claim to it. Sometime after both David Maynard and his first wife Lydia had died, their children claimed the land, which led to this ruling. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court stated that because the grant for the land had not yet come to term at the time of the divorce, it was not yet David Maynard’s land, which meant Lydia Maynard could not make any claim to it, nor any of her descendents. The suit was dismissed.

What was really fascinating is how the divorce came about. Today, a married person seeking a divorce would, usually with an attorney, draw up a divorce settlement to be agreed upon by the other married person, who usually is also represented by counsel, and then go to court to have a judge grant the divorce. But in 1852, it didn’t happen this way. As an aspect of English common law, states and territories had their legislatures draw up a divorce and have it passed as any other bill or resolution (this was done in England and the UK as divorces at that time were done through an Act of Parliament). This is what happened with David Maynard as the divorce was passed through the legislature of the Oregon Territory as part of its power to regulate marriage. And divorce. (UPDATE: The latter provides sense to why divorce was so rare. To get one, a person had to have influence with legislators in state and territorial government. This means money. Maynard had money and became a founder of the city of Seattle. Even after the judiciary took over the role of granting divorces, requiring cause meant more money needed to be paid to attorneys to prove it. It also makes one understand why so many were stuck in bad marriages with no way out. As the reasons for allowing divorces became much more relaxed, they became cheaper and more frequent. /UPDATE) As an aside, the whole thing was done without Lydia Maynard’s knowledge, and at one point David claimed his wife was dead, which was obviously refuted when Lydia showed up in a hearing for her claim. She didn’t find out about the divorce until about a year later. But just because David had lied about Lydia being dead, it didn’t mean she was awarded land she couldn’t legally claim since at the time of the divorce, the term of David Maynard’s grant had not yet completed, which is why half of the land became public land and did not revert to any private owner.

What Maynard also shows is that it is very much within the power of a state, provided the Constitution is followed, to have same-sex relations treated as a marriage (the quotation marks around the word are deliberately omitted) according to the law if the legislature or the citizens so wish it. At the end of the 20th Century, no state had enacted such a measure. But during the early part of this century, up to and including the present day, the judiciary has taken over the powers of the legislature, some would say usurped, contra Loving and, I would argue, the U.S. Constitution and all state Constitutions.

Then it hit me. There is a line of defense that could be used in court by the Methodists and anyone else who finds themselves in a similar predicament. See what you think.

JUDGE: Counsel, call your next witness.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I call the defendant to the stand.

[Preliminary process goes on]

Did you refuse to rent out your facility to a same-sex couple wanting to use it for a civil union ceremony?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Have you rented out your facility for weddings?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So why did you deny the couple the use of your facility?

DEFENDANT: Because the civil union ceremony goes against our religious beliefs.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Please elaborate.

DEFENDANT: Sex between two people of the same gender is sinful and a civil union ceremony is a celebration of this sin.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: But would you rent out the facility to a gay couple if they were to use it for some other purpose, a purpose that wouldn’t go against the Methodists’ religious beliefs?

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: I object. This line of questioning is not relevant to the facts of this case.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your honor, I wish to show the court that the defendant is not denying renting the facility based on someone’s sexual orientation, but because the defendant does not want the facility used for certain events that violate the defendant’s religious principles.

JUDGE: I’ll allow it, but only on those grounds and only within the protocol of this court. Objection overruled. Restate your question.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you, your honor. [To defendant] Hypothetically speaking, would you rent out the facility to a gay couple if they were to use it for a purpose that wouldn’t be for what you call a celebration of sinful behavior?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So it isn’t as if you would deny renting the facility out to someone or some people who are gay?

DEFENDANT: That is correct.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Is there any other kind of sex-related behavior that the Methodists find sinful?

DEFENDANT: Yes. Sex outside of marriage is considered sinful.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Even if the couple is a man and a woman?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You’ve rented out the facility to hold wedding ceremonies, even those Methodists didn’t preside over, correct?

DEFENDANT: That is correct.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hypothetically speaking, if the law were to be changed to extend the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, would you rent your facility to be used for a same-sex wedding ceremony, and why or why not?

DEFENDANT: No, and for the same reasons we don’t rent the facility for a same-sex civil union.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: But it’s not as if anyone is demanding you preside over the ceremony and marry the couple.

DEFENDANT: That doesn’t matter. For Methodists, the ceremony celebrates and encourages an act of sin.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Now, hypothetically speaking, would you rent out your facility to a group who wanted to use it for a party to celebrate the premiere of a pornographic film?

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: I object. Counsel is attempting to equate a same-sex civil union with pornography.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your honor, it is not my position to equate a same-sex civil union with pornography, but to show the court the defendant does not restrict the use of its facility to only same-sex celebrations, but to any event that celebrates any sin related to sex.

JUDGE: Objection overruled. Please answer the question.

DEFENDANT: No, we would not rent out the facility to a group holding a premiere party celebrating the release of a pornographic film.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Why?

DEFENDANT: Because it celebrates sinful behavior.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What if, hypothetically speaking again, the film showed a loving and married husband and wife having sex?

DEFENDANT: The fact that the film is showing the act of sex being performed is what is objectionable and sinful.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Even if the couple in the pornographic film were an actual husband and wife?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your honor, the defense rests.

The person I was debating claimed this scenario was an extreme example as he would think it highly unlikely that such a group would hold their event in a church-owned facility. But because the event is unlikely doesn’t negate the fact that a group could attempt to rent out the facility for such a purpose since the facility is rented out for other purposes. And that’s where we left our conversation.

I’m interested if a similar line of questioning could be used in a court to defend any organization being charged with discrimination if said people in the organization, on religious grounds, did not want to be associated with the celebration of sin. Also, if any legal eagles would happen to find my scenario accurate or completely off-base.

The worship of God by those who did not follow the Church of England was perilous in the late 16th and early 17th Centuries. Not following the faith could lead to fines, imprisonment, and even death for serious offenses. In many but the more harsher aspects of those times, the America of today is starting to see religious persecution for violating a new, unofficial, doctrine being foisted upon the people, a new religion so to speak.

Those now known as the Pilgrims left England to go to what is now The Netherlands early in the reign of England’s King James I (also styled King James I & VI, since he was also James VI, King of Scots), which began in 1603. At the time, which was a few years before the Thirty Years War that would begin in 1618, the region was in the middle of separating itself from Spain, and many Protestant faiths were practiced. But with the coming conflict and a longing to retain some semblance of English culture, but without having English law hound them as it had before, the Pilgrims were granted a charter to go to America, eventually leasing the Mayflower to take them. Once the Plymouth colony was established, the Pilgrims were able to freely worship their faith. As a result, others who would not conform to the Church of England set sail to colonize and practice their faiths, along with adventurers seeking new opportunities, as well as the English government staking its claim to all of the new territory as a part of England. By the time of the American Revolution over 150 years later, there were people of all different Christian faiths living in the United Kingdom’s America (the crowns and governments of England and Scotland were merged following the Acts of Union in 1706 and 1707 under Queen Anne; Wales and all of Ireland had been English territory for centuries).

After gaining independence for America, seeing it nearly founder under the Articles of Confederation, and then uniting the country under the United States Constitution, the Founders sought to enshrine the freedoms of the new republic in amendments to the Constitution; these ten amendments became the Bill of Rights. Because of the Founder’s understanding of the historical experience of those having been ruled under the auspices of a state religion, the first two clauses in the Bill of Rights were set forth to deny the federal government the power to establish a state religion and to make sure all Americans could worship, or not worship, any faith they desired (provided the faith didn’t subvert the Constitution, the law). The faith in God of the Pilgrims helped them persevere, and in time, led the Founders to see the wisdom of making sure freedom to worship for all was paramount in the law.

On this Easter, let’s remember the Pilgrims and all that their faith allowed them to achieve, and by extension, we as people, we as a people, and we as a nation. Let us also remember that Jesus came not destroy the Prophets and God’s law, but to fulfill them. Government at all levels in America is seeking to establish a faith where its “morality” replaces morality: where the state replaces the mother and the father; where “access” to an abortion clinic is more important than the tens of millions more to be murdered on top of the tens of millions already murdered; where lust replaces commitment; where theft by one private party against another private party is made legal when those in government act on their greed; where the motives of fellow Americans is constantly questioned (for me, guilty); where the government actively teaches people to covet; and, where those in government seek to have themselves and their “morality” placed higher than God and morality, and to persecute, with the law, those who don’t. As long as we put our faith in Him, we can’t be beat.

Happy Easter, and God go with you.

Poppycock. The only people dishonoring veterans and soldiers is the Department of Defense. In what can only be thought of as a shameful display, the DoD is refusing to award Purple Hearts to those wounded by the traitor Nidal Hassan during his treasonous terrorist act of war at Fort Hood nearly four years ago. The Department’s excuse is, or should be, embarrassing to every veteran, soldier, and employee at the DoD, including and especially Hagel:

Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News.

Since it happened, Obama and his miscreant regime have refused to call Hasan’s treason an act of terrorism, let alone an act of war, or treason, which it was by every sense of the word. Considering the evidence, a treason conviction should be a cakewalk. The disgusting Obama and his puppets have sickly and cynically decided it was an act of “workplace violence”. But, this is the same regime that wanted to use the regular federal courts as a kangaroo court to convict terrorist Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and the other terrorists still at Gitmo.

Will Hagel resign? Like I said, he should, for the sake of his honor and the honor of the veterans and soldiers who have defended us. I’ll be surprised if he did the right thing since I have yet to see any Obama appointee resign when confronted with the regime’s cowardly hypocrisy.

The Senate early Saturday passed its first budget in four years by a vote of 50 to 49.

The close vote was a big victory for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.),…

How is this a victory for the Democrats? That they had just enough morons to vote to pass it? Four Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2014 and from states that went for Romney in 2012 (including Mark Pryor from my state) voted against this mess, joining all of the Republicans.

The Murray budget…does not constitute a net spending cut.

Did Senate Democrats have to approve the quoted sentence before it went public? Because the correct sentence would read “The Murray budget constitutes a spending increase.” But that would make the Democrats really look bad, wouldn’t it?

Democrats argue that America cares first and foremost about economic growth, and their approach eschews austerity that could cost millions of jobs.

Another Democrat-approved statement that is quite the Krugman-esque lie. Is it stopping the Obama regime from spending billions on frivolous entertainment spending? No. Is it stopping the Obama DoJ from spending billions on its frivolous lawsuits in the courts? No. Is it stopping Obamacare? No. Is it stopping Obama from spending billions in frivolous foreign policy spending? No, and Obama is promising to spend even more money. Is it stopping the Obama regime from throwing billions of dollars in tax money down the toilet to failed “green” energy companies? No. Is it resetting the budget baseline to what it was before Porkulus? No. Where is the actual austerity? Cutting employees who work on programs that are the equivalent of paying people to first dig holes and then filling them in (e.g., Head Start, everything related to Porkulus) is not austerity; it’s fiscal responsibility.

As was mentioned in the Grand Jury report (H/T: streiff at RedState), this all started under the administration of the GOP’s pro-abortion RINO Tom Ridge, extending through the administration of pro-abortion Democrat Ed Rendell as Pennsylvania officials deliberately did not inspect the state’s abortion mills for 20 years and ignored complaints against Gosnell; he often left pieces of the dead babies in the wombs of the mothers because he was monstrously negligent. As the indictment pointed out, Gosnell would induce labor to kill the babies after they were born because it was easier for him and his staff to do it. And yet, and to make sure people get it, AND YET, not one (or so few as to not matter) supposedly pro-life Republican candidate or office holder (forget the Democrats) has either mentioned this case or tied Gosnell to Roe and Obama’s pro-abortion fanaticism. We all know the pro-abortion Democrat media will avoid this story for as long as possible. I’ve been covering this since it came out two years ago, along with others.

While this has been going on, zealous pro-abortion advocates have been using the courts to try to overturn every single, sensible regulation to make abortions safer and more rare. New York state is about to pass an abortion law that will codify the state’s law code that were the opposite of the laws Pennsylvania officials ignored, creating more Gosnells. Any pro-abortion fanatic who dares to claim they want abortions to be legal, safe, and rare is a liar and should be told so to their faces. They have proven time and again they only care about them being legal; the other two adjectives they ignore because they want “access” to be more important. With Gosnell, they have blood on their hands. The blood of tens of millions of dead babies. On. Their. Hands.

Gosnell is Roe v. Wade personified. When he wasn’t committing murder according to the law, Gosnell was performing abortions based on policies supported by Barack Obama and every other pro-abortion moonbat in Congress. The American people need to know.

While you may wonder what this has to do with today’s politics in the U.S., I want you to think about it this way. Barack Obama knows only one job, campaigning for the office he wants to be elected to. Beyond that, he’d rather play. Obama likes games. Instead of doing what’s best for the country that re-elected him to be President, Obama would rather bully his enemies. But when actually confronted, Obama changes the rules so that he can win and cries until he gets his way. Tell me if that isn’t what a child does? On top of that, Obama has a party full of politicians and supporters willing to enable him to continue acting like he does. Take the recent actions of he and his gun grabbing proposals. Obama was smart enough to know he can’t buck the 2nd Amendment with Executive Orders. So he sends out his enablers to bully and scare people into believing legitimate gun owners are wannabe child killers. Obama has acted this way for nearly 20 years; it is unlikely he’ll ever grow up.

With that out of the way, back to the subject at hand. English law and custom has varied over the centuries when determining if a monarch has attained the age of majority, when s/he is old enough to rule on their own. So it doesn’t make sense to rely on that for my list. Every one of the rulers listed below became monarch when they were considered minors by today’s standards. Some grew up physically and emotionally stable, some didn’t; some didn’t live long enough to grow up. It is listed chronologically, and consists of all the monarchs of a united England, which occurred in the mid-10th Century under the House of Wessex. I hope you enjoy it.

Eadwig (955-959): The eldest son of King Edmund, at around 14 he succeeded his uncle King Eadred as king of a united England (Edmund had been king prior to Eadred). King Eadwig spent all of his time in conflict with powerful members of the clergy and his younger brother Edgar. Two years into the reign Edgar’s supporters broke away from Eadred’s government and established a separate kingdom in northern England under Edgar. Eadwig died when he was around 18, succeeded by his younger brother.

Edgar (957/9-975): King Edmund’s youngest son and younger brother of Eadwig, King Edgar was 14 when he began his rule of northern England and 16 when he inherited the rest of the country following the death of his brother. Edgar was known as a powerful king who not only reconciled the crown with the church, he was able to extract oaths of allegiance from many of the British kings ruling other kingdoms on the island of Great Britain. He also had sons to succeed him. Edgar died at the age of 32.

Edward the Martyr (975-978): Edgar’s oldest son, he was around 13 when he became king. Right away, his reign was contested as he may not have been the Edgar’s designated heir. While Edward had some support, it gradually fell away as Edgar’s widow Queen Aelfthryth gained more power to see her son succeed, Edward’s half-brother Aethelred. Edward was murdered after three years.

Aethelred Unraed (978-1016): Edgar’s younger son and half-brother to Edward the Martyr, Aethelred succeeded at the age of around 10. Aethelred was the longest reigning king of a united England prior to the Norman invasion. He is often known as Aethelred the Unready due to his age of accession and the messiness of much of his reign. However, a proper translation of the word “unraed” would make it appear that he was badly advised, and his name could be rendered as Aethelred the Ill-Advised. Despite the problems of his reign, it does appear that Aethelred’s policies helped the English economy flourish. But it was his long dealing with the Danes that have marred Aethelred’s reign. For many years, the Danish raiders would attack England in order to exact tribute, which Aethelred paid (prior kings, including Alfred the Great, did the same, although eventually Alfred was able to beat the Danes in battle). But around 1002, Aethelred decided to fight back and to slaughter the remaining Danes in England. This may have included the sister of Denmark’s King Sweyn Forkbeard, who began a 12-year war to conquer England. The war concluded successfully for Sweyn and he became England’s king. However, he died within months and Aethelred once again assumed the throne. Sweyn’s son Canute (Cnut), now King of Denmark, took up his father’s cause and battled it out with Aethelred, which continued for two years until Aethelred died in 1016. Aethelred’s eldest son Edmund Ironside succeeded to the English throne, but lasted only a short time as he and Canute battled it out in the months following Aethelred’s death. Eventually, the two declared a truce and divided England, but Edmund lived for only a few more weeks, dying in the same year as his father, and Canute took over all of England. Eventually, Aethelred’s line was restored in 1042 with the accession of his younger son and Edmund Ironside’s half-brother, King Edward the Confessor (Edward’s mother was Emma of Normandy, great-aunt of William the Conqueror).

Edgar Atheling (October 14, 1066-December 25, 1066): Edgar was born around 1053, the grandson of Edmund Ironside and son of Edward the Exile. In Old English, the word “atheling” roughly means something along the line of royal heir presumptive. In the mid-1050s, King Edward the Confessor had no son to succeed him and his wife was unlikely to bear him one; it was around this time that King Edward supposedly made arrangements to have his cousin William, Duke of Normandy, succeed to the English throne. Finding out his cousin Edward was living on the continent, King Edward had sent for him; the Exile returned with his son Edgar and daughter Margaret to England in 1057, but mysteriously died within weeks. Within the next few years, the most powerful nobleman in England, Earl Harold of Wessex, had also promised to support William’s accession to the English throne following King Edward’s death. The historical record is incomplete, but it is entirely likely Edward wanted the next monarch to remain within his family and he may have designated the teenage Edgar as his heir, and possibly named Earl Harold to rule as regent. But when King Edward died in 1066, and with the threat of a potential Norman invasion, the remaining English nobles did not seem to want to have to deal with a king who was clearly a minor, and they bypassed Edgar and had Harold crowned as the next king. Needless to say, it was a disaster. Harold’s army was crushed by William at what is known as the Battle of Hastings, with Harold being killed. The English nobles installed Edgar on the throne, but never had the boy crowned. By Christmas, 1066, William had pushed further north, was crowned King William, and Edgar went into exile in Scotland. After remaining in Scotland for a few years, the remaining Anglo-Saxon nobles were defeated by William following a series of rebellions; after the last one, William demanded of the Scottish government to have Edgar be sent into permanent exile. Over the years, Edgar grew up to fight in the First Crusade, as well as getting back into the good graces of William’s successors, returning to England and Scotland periodically. He died, never having been crowned, in 1025 at the age of 72, but it isn’t known where. Edgar’s sister Margaret eventually married Malcom III, King of Scots, and the Anglo-Saxon/Scottish line merged with the Norman one when their daughter and Edgar’s niece Matilda married William’s youngest son King Henry I of England and gave birth to a son William and a daughter also named Matilda (all English and British monarchs after Henry’s successor King Stephen (Prince William had predeceased King Henry) died in 1054 are descended from her).

Henry III (1216-1072): Henry was the son of King John, and around 10 years old when he inherited the throne, along with being Lord of Ireland, which had been given to England by the English Pope Adrian IV fifty years prior. England was in chaos in 1216. When John was crowned king in 1199, he was not only King of England and Lord of Ireland, but also Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou; he held power over what is now most northern and all of western France. But within five years he lost all but Aquitaine (in what is now southwestern France), and spent his remaining time fighting to get it back; he also struggled with the powerful Pope Innocent III over who would become Archbishop of Canterbury, the most powerful church position in England. After more than 10 years the nobles had had enough and demanded he recognize their rights and to have his power curtailed. Signed a year earlier by John, he was able to extract himself from the first issuance of Magna Carta and the First Barons War was raging throughout the country; while the war was going on, John died. Named regent by Henry’s supporters, knight extroardinaire William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, tried to have Magna Carta reissued, but the rebellious nobles were having none of it. In fact, the rebels invited Prince Louis, son of King Phillip II Augustus of France, to invade England and become the next king. However, neither Louis nor the nobles were able to bring their rebellion to a successful completion, and the war petered out within a short period of time following Louis’ return to France. Pembroke had Magna Carta reissued once again, this time successfully. Pembroke died in 1219 and Hubert de Burgh, chief minister, succeeded as regent. It was while de Burgh was regent that Magna Carta was reissued in 1225 and became the de facto Constitution of England. However, one of the original clauses from 1215 had been removed, one that declared the king was to have a council, appointed by the king and nobles, along with another group to have oversight of the king and council. But the 1225 version was notable in two respects: no king could create a tax without the approval of a different council (which eventually became Parliament), and there was an establishment of rights for all English subjects, not just the nobles. It was this version that became the hallmark of what eventually became the English Bill of Rights in 1689 and the U.S. Constitution a century later. Henry began his personal rule in 1227, setting his sights on having his father’s lost French lands restored to England. Despite the fact that Henry pretty much ruled within the confines of Magna Carta, he became a victim of faction as his court consisting of competing family members; his wife’s cousins called the Savoyards, and the Lusignans, the half-brothers from his mother’s second marriage. For 30 years, these factions were allowed to fester in Henry’s court. He was also a very pious man, and made the major renovations of Westminster Abbey we see today. But his piety got the better of him in the late 1250s. The popes of the time were locked in a struggle for Sicily and enlisted Henry to invade and conquer the island, and install his second son Edmund (“Crouchback”) as its king; Henry also promised to front thousands of pounds in a short amount of time and risk having England be subject to excommunication if the venture failed. The Savoyards were outraged and blamed the King and the Lusignans. They tried to implement more controls over Henry, but he was able to ignore them. The result was the Second Barons War. One of the Savoyards, Simon de Montfort, attempted to install a constitutional monarchy; he had won the early battles and held Henry’s eldest son Prince Edward hostage. Unfortunately for Montfort, Edward escaped, was given control of the military, beat Montfort, and had the rebel drawn-and-quarted. For the remaining 7 years of Henry’s reign, his power was secure and he allowed Edward to go on crusade. While Edward was away, Henry died, and Edward was proclaimed King Edward I (“Longshanks”).

Edward III (1327-1377): Great-grandson of Henry III, grandson of Edward I, and son of Edward II, Edward III was proclaimed and crowned king at the age of 15. His mother, Queen Isabella, was also a royal princess of France. England suffered 20 years of inept rule by Edward II, a string of unsuccessful rebellions by the nobles, and a wife who hated him; on top of that, his overlord was his brother-in-law, King Charles IV of France. When called upon by Charles to answer charges, Edward sent his queen and his heir to take care of it. They went, but did not do what was asked. Instead, Isabella found a lover in a disaffected noble named Roger Mortimer, raised an army, invaded England, beat her husband, and had her son crowned as King Edward III, with the Queen and Mortimer as regents (Edward II was murdered shortly thereafter). However, the regents ruled as ineptly as had the prior king. When he turned 18, Edward began his personal rule by turning on Mortimer and his mother, having the former successfully tried in Parliament for treason and executed, and sending the latter into permanent retirement. For the remainder of his long reign, Edward restored the dignity of the monarchy, began the Hundred Years War with France to claim the throne of that country (which was waged with varying degrees of success during that time), meddled in the affairs of Scotland repeatedly (at one point, he held David I, King of Scots, as hostage for several years), dealt with the Black Death that ravaged England, and himself was a victim of faction at court towards the end of his reign. Along with the other titles Edward inherited, he added King of France to go along with them, as well as adding the French coat-of-arms to his, as he waged the Hundred Years War; the title King of France would remain until it was finally removed by King George III in 1801. Edward III’s eldest son, Edward, Prince of Wales (the “Black Prince”), died a year before the King; the Prince of Wales’ son succeeded Edward III as King Richard II.

Richard II (1377-1399): He was 10 when he succeeded his grandfather. A series of councils ruled in Richard’s name while he was still a minor, councils that deliberately excluded his powerful uncles, especially John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. While still a boy, England was racked by the Peasants Revolt of 1381, a rebellion that spread quickly throughout the country. The rebellion itself was nearly a success, and required Richard to answer to the people about their complaints. However, the leader of the revolt overreached himself, and the king and his government crushed the rebellion and retained control of the country. As Richard grew older, he involved himself more and more into the affairs of the state; one of those was the Hundred Years War still being fought. Richard’s chancellor Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, requested a huge tax for the endevor. Parliament was outraged, and demanded Suffolk and others in the council be removed from their positions. Richard refused, and five of the lords in Parliament, the Lords Appellant, confronted him; included were the King’s uncle Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, and Richard’s first cousin Henry, Earl of Derby (Derby was the eldest son of the Duke of Lancaster). Richard had to give in, but he would not forget the incident (several members of Richard’s council were executed, while Suffolk fled permanently to France). For the next several years, Richard tried to extricate himself and England from the Hundred Years War; several years of negotiations went for naught, although he did manage to work out a 28-year truce (the truce lasted 18 years). Around 1397, Richard declared that he would restore the rights he claimed to have lost, demanded the arrest of three of the Lords Appellant; Gloucester, Richard’s uncle, was murdered around this time, although it isn’t known if it was on the King’s orders. Richard also involved himself with a dispute between the Duke of Norfolk and Derby, now Duke of Hereford. Norfolk was exiled for life and Hereford for 10 years. But, Richard promised Hereford that the latter would inherit Lancaster after Hereford’s father died. In 1399, Lancaster died, but Richard reneged. Raising an army, Hereford took advantage of Richard’s absence (he was in Ireland) and invaded England; Richard was forced to return to England. Hereford captured Richard, claimed the title of Duke of Lancaster, and won support for his actions. Since Lancaster was also a grandson of King Edward III, he decided to depose Richard and had himself crowned as King Henry IV. This would store up trouble for the future as Richard had no children and the rightful claimants to the throne were those descended from Henry’s older uncle and the second son of Edward III, Lionel, Duke of Clarence. About a year after being deposed, Richard died under suspicious circumstances.

Henry VI (1422-1461, 1470-1471): He was the great-great grandson of King Edward III, great-grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, grandson of King Henry IV, and son of King Henry V, one of the most powerful warrior kings England ever had. Henry VI was also the youngest person ever to be crowned King of England, being nine months old at the time. Having waged a hugely successful campaign against the French during the still raging Hundred Years War, Henry V was able to be named heir to the throne of France. He died about a month before France’s King Charles VI, and immediately there was a dispute for the French succession between Charles son Charles VII and the now King Henry VI of England; both ended up being crowned King of France (Henry was the only King of England to receive both), but the Hundred Years War would continue as a result. Henry’s two uncles were named regents: John, Duke of Bedford, was primarily regent in France, while Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester did the same in England. For about 25 years or so, England’s economy stayed fairly strong, but Henry’s claim to rule France slowly ebbed away as first the city of Orleans was relieved by an army that included Joan of Arc, and then Henry lost the support of the powerful French Duke of Burgundy, who became allied with King Charles VII of France. Henry was taught his role and duty as king, but as he got older he delved more deeply into the Church, shunned the warrior ethic of his father, and ignored his duties as ruler. Around 1450, Henry’s cousin Richard Plantangenet, Duke of York, began staking his claim to the throne as the descendent of King Edward III’s second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence; Henry’s claim was based on the usurpation of the throne by his grandfather, King Henry IV, son of King Edward III’s third son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. As Henry did not so much as rule, power was wielded by another of his cousins and a rival of York, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. Somerset spent much time trying to fight in France and to stanch the power of York. In the former, he was unsuccessful; England lost the remaining battles against France, lost Aquitaine (which had been an English possession for 300 years), and only held on to the city of Calais (which was reclaimed by France a century later). Somerset also lost out to York as well. In 1453, Henry had a complete mental breakdown that incapacitated him for 18 months. Somerset was forced to name York as Lord Protector, regent to the King. When Henry’s sanity returned, and although his health was permanently wrecked, York was put aside and Somerset restored to favor. This lasted a short time as York raised an army in 1455 and battled Somerset, who was killed; this was the beginning of the Wars of the Roses. York was killed five years later, and the cause was taken up by his son the new Duke of York, Edward Plantagenet. With the help of the powerful Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, York’s forces won and had captured Henry, although Henry’s wife and his son the Prince of Wales fled to France; York had Henry deposed and was crowned King Edward IV, keeping Henry in custody for the next nine years. Fortune turned against Edward as Warwick switched sides, helping Henry reclaim the throne in 1470. This lasted less than a year as Edward came back to England with an army and first killed Warwick in battle, the Prince of Wales in another, captured Henry again, and was reinstalled as king. By this time, Henry was a basket case. He died of unknown causes, possibly murdered on the orders of Edward, within a couple of weeks after Edward’s restoration.

Edward V (April-June, 1483): He was the eldest son of King Edward IV, and about 12 when he was proclaimed king. King Edward V is probably the most tragic king in England’s history. Originally, a council was to rule in a cooperative regency, similar to the arrangements made for King Richard II a century earlier; it was for very similar reasons as well since the most powerful noble in England was Edward’s uncle and the youngest brother of King Edward IV, Richard Plantangenet, Duke of Gloucester. Gloucester managed to usurp the council and was named Lord Protector. He also delayed Edward’s coronation. Ten weeks into Edward’s reign, Gloucester came across “evidence” claiming that his oldest brother’s marriage was invalid, rendering the young king’s birth status as illegitimate and ineligible to be crowned King of England. Since the children of Gloucester’s other brother, George, Duke of Clarence, were not eligible for the throne via an act of attainder, Parliament declared Gloucester as King Richard III of England. Edward and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, were put into the Tower by King Richard, where they died shortly thereafter of unknown causes, although it is a good bet they were murdered on orders of King Richard.

Edward VI (1547-1553): Edward was the long-awaited son of King Henry VIII, becoming king at 10 years old. As Prince of Wales, he was given an exceptional education to teach him about his role and duties as king, learning several languages, and being well-read on the new faith his father established. Henry’s will stated a council would run the government during Edward’s minority. However, Edward Seymour, who had taken the title Duke of Somerset and its lands, took over the council and was named Lord Protector, regent to King Edward. Somerset’s rule was very crisis-ridden. First, Somerset’s younger brother Thomas Seymour had married King Henry VIII’s widow Queen Catherine (Parr), but tried to start a relationship with the 15-year old Princess Elizabeth, and then trying to marry Elizabeth following Queen Catherine’s death; Somerset was forced to order his brother executed by an act of attainder (a resolution of execution passed in Parliament, as opposed to having a trial in the courts). Second, Somerset started a war with Scotland which caused France to come to its aid, thus bringing England to near financial ruin. Revolts broke out all over England as a result of Somerset’s policy. While Somerset did all this in Edward’s name, he left Edward out of the decisions. The council decided enough was enough and allowed John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, to take over as leader of the council and had Somerset arrested. Warwick named himself Duke of Northumberland, but for the good of the realm, had Somerset restored to the council. Instead of becoming Lord Protector, Northumberland was named Lord President of the Council, and was de facto regent to King Edward. He then promptly ended the war with Scotland and France, which allowed England to recover lost revenue, saw Somerset executed trying to raise an army to reclaim his lost power, involved the council in the governing of the realm, and expanded the Anglican Church to become more evangelical than it had been up to that point. Northumberland also brought Edward in on decisions, preparing the young king for his personal rule. But by 1553, Edward took sick and it was seen that he wouldn’t recover. Being unmarried and without children, and knowing the rightful heir to the throne, his eldest half-sister Princess Mary, would restore Catholicism as England’s religion, Edward wrote a will that bypassed not only Mary, but Elizabeth as well, naming as his heir his second cousin Jane Dudley (Lady Jane Grey), who also happened to be Northumberland’s daughter-in-law. King Edward VI died at the age of 15 on July 6, 1553.

It should be noted that Henry VIII spent 10 years trying to have a son to succeed him, changing England’s religion, abandoning one wife and daughter, and executing another wife while abandoning another daughter, to do so. He had even gotten Parliament to bypass the descendents of his older sister Margaret, the monarchs of Scotland (Margaret had married James IV, King of Scots, in 1503), to claim the English throne. But when Edward VI died, there were no males around to become king. England was to have a ruling queen for the first time in her history. But who it would be was anybody’s guess.

Jane (July 10-July 19, 1553): Also known as Lady Jane Grey and the Nine-Day Queen, Jane Dudley was 15 when her father-in-law John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, tried to have Parliament recognize her as Queen Jane, as attributed to the will of the recently deceased King Edward VI. Jane came to her position by being Henry VIII’s grand-niece, granddaughter of Henry’s youngest sister Mary; her father was Thomas Grey, Duke of Suffolk, and Frances Brandon, Henry’s sister Mary’s daughter. The main reason Edward chose Jane to succeed him is because she was as committed a Protestant as he and her father-in-law were, and Edward did not want to see England’s reformation ended, knowing it would if his eldest half-sister Mary became queen. Northumberland had managed to arrange the marriage of Jane to his son Guildford Dudley (also 15) prior to Edward’s death, in the hope his family would become the next dynasty ruling England. After proclaiming Jane as queen, Northumberland worked very hard to not only to gain support for Jane and get her crowned, but also to make sure Princess Mary could never reach London, setting off with an army. But Mary’s support was very strong, and by July 20, the council he had led declared that Mary would be the next ruler. Northumberland immediately caved and was arrested the next day. Jane and her husband were thrown into the Tower; she, Guildford, and Northumberland were all found guilty of treason, and Northumberland was beheaded shortly thereafter. Now Queen Mary I, she initially spared the teenagers knowing it was Northumberland who was really behind the attempt to keep Mary from the throne. But a Protestant rebellion in early 1554, which also implicated Mary’s sister, Princess Elizabeth, allowed the Queen to have both Jane and Guildford beheaded; Elizabeth was luckily not found to have been a part of the rebellion and was freed, although monitored for the remainder of Mary’s reign. Just as Edward predicted, the evangelical faith he wanted to have implemented died, although a more streamlined faith would eventually take its place under Mary’s successor, Queen Elizabeth I.

Notable child rulers who became English kings:

William I (1066-1087): William the Conqueror. Although he was 38 when he became King of England, William was originally proclaimed the ruling Duke of Normandy at the age of 7, following the death of his father. When he died, he decided to have his eldest son Robert (“Curthose”) inherit Normandy, while having his next eldest surviving son William inherit the throne of England. This would stir up trouble for decades not only between Robert and William, but also the Conqueror’s youngest son Henry (who would eventually become King Henry I).

James I (1603-1625): James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her cousin Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, having been born in 1566. Around the time of his first birthday his father had been assassinated and his mother had been deposed and escaped to England (eventually imprisoned there, involved in plots have her placed on England’s throne, and found guilty of treason and beheaded), which brought the infant James to be crowned James VI, King of Scots. Before he would begin his personal rule of Scotland, James would see all three of his regents murdered. James should have been an emotional wreck. With a strong character, he overcame all of this, developing a good reign in Scotland, complete with good relations with his stronger southern neighbor England, then under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I; he kept these relations even after Elizabeth had James’ mother Mary executed. Being childless, Elizabeth decided very late in her reign to ignore the succession law barring Scotland’s monarch from taking the throne of England, naming James as her heir. He succeeded as King James I in 1603.

Via Glenn Reynolds, Bridget Johnson has a post at PJ Media about the trial of U.S.S. Cole terrorist Ayman al-Rahim al-Nashiri where the Obama DoJ is trying to request a competency review, apparently to avoid having a trial. Initially, the regime dropped its charges against al-Nashiri in order to facilitate ending military tribunals and moving all the terrorists at Gitmo to the civilian courts. When the public outcry against such trials were answered by the regime, the DoD refiled its charges in 2010 and al-Nashiri was going to face a military tribunal, with a potential death sentence carried out if the terrorist is convicted. There still hasn’t been a trial, and it looks like Obama doesn’t want one. In this sentence, Johnson may have the reason why [emphasis mine]:

If al-Nashiri was found guilty, the government would be under pressure to hand down the maximum possible penalty in the attack that killed 17 American sailors in October 2000. That would mean putting an al-Qaeda figure to death, something the U.S. may be unwilling to do especially as the administration has put a premium on building relations in the Muslim world — though appeals would surely spill into future administrations before such a sentence could be carried out.

I think the highlighted portion is true. The Obama regime is still carrying out drone strikes, and it is highly likely the attack on Benghazi last year was carried out in response. Carrying out a sentence of death against al-Nashiri would add to the ever-growing phony-baloney “grievances” the terrorists have against the U.S.: we support Israel; we have troops on Muslim holy ground (Saudi Arabia); we invaded Afghanistan; we invaded Iraq; we overthrew Mossadegh fifty years ago; we supported the Shah of Iran; we supported tyrannical regimes in the Arab world; the American people don’t submit to Islam like good little dhimmi; blah, blah, blah. And yet, the Obama regime is so afraid of having bad press in the Islamist world the regime will make it a point to violate the First Amendment regularly, as it did when trying to prevent Korans from being burned and having one of the people involved in making an insignificant and hardly-watched anti-Islamist film targeted and trying to force YouTube to shut it down (the regime was lucky the one person they knew about was violating his parole; by contrast, there have been no arrests of any terrorist for the Benghazi murders, nor anyone from the State Department fired for their criminal negligence).

There is a hard truth that must be accepted. Islam has a problem and the U.S. is doing everything it can to enable the problem. A friend of mine said it isn’t ordinary Muslims who are the problem, but the leaders of the Islamic and Islamist world; I believe he was right, up to a point. A huge number of Muslim leaders across the globe insist the terrorists who commit murder in the name of Islam are still Muslims, and publicly proclaim it. That is why within the Muslim world, there are a huge amount of radical preachers, a far greater percentage than exist in every other religion; worse, they have a huge sway on the opinion of Muslim leaders and on a healthy percentage of their adherents. By comparison, one of the worst groups of radicals claiming to be Christian is the Westboro Baptist Church, but they are shunned by all sides and have no influence outside of their little circle of fellow radicals.

Unfortunately, the spineless “leadership” in the federal government still insists on coddling the radicals. The Obama regime still insists on dealing with Palestinian terrorists who have never shown an inclination on wanting to let Israel remain Israel, a problem exacerbated by the Bush administration for insisting on elections in the West Bank and Gaza. Iraq is a mess. Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, one that could possibly reach the U.S. Syria is being overrun by terrorists, which has hardened the Hezbollah animals running Lebanon. And then there is North Africa: the Obama regime helped to get terrorists to run Egypt; the Obama regime messed up Mali, which required French intervention; there was a terrorist attack in Algeria that left Americans dead. With Libya, the Obama regime decided not to inform Congress or the American people it was going to unilaterally overthrow Qaddafi, then left a huge swath of the country in the hands of terrorists, terrorists who murdered a U.S. ambassador and other Americans. Despite all that, Obama still wants to make nice with the barbarians.

With the ability to get at the vast reserves of oil within our country through fracking, there is even less of a reason for babying these bastards as Obama is doing. Other than protecting our country from a potential nuclear attack from Iran and protecting Israel, I would announce to the world the U.S. doesn’t care if Muslim leaders want to slaughter their own people into oblivion. But thanks to Obama, our country is going to continue to be under threat from these uncivilized 8th Century throwbacks Obama is enabling.

Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.

Gingrich matters because I see the battle lines being drawn for the 2016 Republican nomination between Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. I like them both, but my preference right now is for Paul (no, I was never for his father; Rand Paul is a much more pragmatic conservative, but conservative nonetheless). I believe Paul is a tad more principled a conservative than Rubio. But I see a problem for Paul, a problem that Romney never did address: illegal aliens. This is a problem the federal government has to be involved in, so this isn’t an argument about supporting a “big government” solution. And right now, it is Rubio who has recognized the problem with illegal aliens, something Gingrich points out in a recent newsletter he sent out.

During the debates, I thought Gingrich came up with a real “outside the box” solution for dealing with illegal aliens. Recognizing that there is already a de facto amnesty in this country, and that’s even before Obama’s real amnesty he gave to students who are illegal aliens, Gingrich proposed securing the border and to have local community review boards determine which illegal aliens should stay and which should go. Right away, many conservatives falsely declared Gingrich supported an immediate amnesty. This included Romney, who wrongly hammered Gingrich as an amnesty supporter. But if someone actually listened to what Gingrich was saying, it wasn’t true. Worse, Romney never addressed it at all during his campaign, other than to expand e-verify (something Gingrich, Paul, and Rubio all support).

Now, I’m not naïve enough to think immigration was that much of a factor in this election, nor demographics; as far as I’m concerned, most who identify themselves as Hispanic love big government taking care of them, so most are going to vote for Democrats anyway. But it was a factor in the GOP primary, and had Gingrich won, it might have made a difference. This is especially true since it didn’t help that conservatives were bashing Gingrich for something he didn’t support, falsely claiming he supported blanket amnesty. Instead, it was taken out of the equation with Romney as the nominee, much like Obamacare was. Which is why I believe Rand Paul needs to expand on how he would intend to deal with illegal aliens, possibly by using a variation of Gingrich’s idea including in Rubio’s legislation. Even if it doesn’t pass, at least Paul will have staked his claim and be able to more effectively challenge Rubio if both run in 2016.

Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.

Pro-abortion zealot, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of New York state, is urging the state’s general assembly to pass an abortion expansion law that will allow New York’s abortionists to exceed the monstrosity committed by Gosnell, and to make it legal.

The law in question is the Reproductive Health Act, and he and the legislature are trying to tie it with other bills into a broad-based women’s equity package. The New York Catholic Conference, mentioned in one of the Hot Air links, does a point-by-point deconstruction of the bill:

• The bill would permit unlimited late-term abortion on demand.
• The bill would endanger the lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions.
• The bill would preclude any future reasonable regulations of abortion.
• The bill endangers the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals and other institutions.
• The bill could be used to undermine the state’s maternity programs.

Morrissey links to a group called “Democrats for Life”, who puts out statistics that claims to say there are pro-life Democrats out there. As far as I’m concerned, the real Democrat Party has abandoned any notion of it supporting life, especially since supposedly “pro-life” Democrats sold their souls to allow Obamacare to pass. On top of that, Allahpundit has a post on a new poll that claims the people believe abortions should be legal in all or most cases. So the idea that a group called “Democrats for Life” is going to have any impact to sway zealous, pro-abortion Democrats like Cuomo, fuhgeddaboudid.

In another link at Allahpundit’s post, LifeNews.com links to a report recently released by the National Right to Life Committee. According to the report, there have been nearly 56 million babies killed following Roe. This figure are based on the numbers maintained by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, who receives information directly from abortion providers. The reports also mentions getting information from the CDC, but they rely on state data, which itself is based on voluntary reporting; some states haven’t provided abortion numbers to the CDC for years. These numbers are beyond Stalin-esque; they approach the murder rate of China’s Mao.

As with everything else, pro-abortion Democrats like to demagogue the abortion issue, especially when federal judges and Justices are appointed. As they’ve been saying since the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork in 1987, Democrats have been lying that Bork and those like him would return the U.S. to the days of the back-alley, coat hanger abortions supposedly occurring in a bygone era. Democrats have lied repeatedly they want abortions to be safe, rare, and legal. These Democrats oppose every single effort, and I do mean every one, that could lessen the numbers of abortions and make them safer. So what Democrats really want is for abortions to remain legal, and to expand them. Cuomo and the pigs who support this new legislation for New York state have proven that. What’s really amazing is how Obama and the Democrats want to control a huge swath of the American economy through regulations and economic planning. But they want all the worst aspects of laissez-faire principles that they whine about employed in the murder of America’s most vulnerable, the unborn; and, to have taxpayers pay for every abortion without any pre-conditions or regulations. Democrats monstrously want the back-alley, coat hanger abortions to be legal and paid for by us.

It isn’t known how many more like Kermit Gosnell exist in Pennsylvania with that state’s government abandonment of their duties with respect to abortion clinics. What is a guarantee is that those like Gosnell in New York are going to get rich on the blood they spill, all thanks to pro-abortion zealots in Albany.

Myth #1. New York’s state lawmakers took an appropriate amount of time to put together this comprehensive law. It’s quite apparent the idiots who voted for it, along with Gov. Cuomo who signed it into law, didn’t spend enough time on it.

Per Mark Levin, the new ban doesn’t exempt New York’s police officers:

As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers.

Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity.

I would also assume federal law enforcement personnel working in New York state carry weapons with the same capacity, so they would be in violation of the law as well. And probably all of the various security personnel hired by private parties.

But remember, it’s for the children.

Myth #2. Had there been a ban on 30-round magazines, as was the case with the expired federal Scary Assault Weapons Ban, less children would have been killed. The gun grabbers keep announcing how 20 children were murdered by Adam Lanza in a matter of minutes. They say if 10-round magazines were only allowed to be legally used in the AR-15 Lanza stole instead of the 30-round magazines he had, he would not have been able to kill as many kids and adults. Really?

From the Hartford Courant nearly two weeks ago [emphasis mine]:

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza armed himself with hundreds of bullets on Dec. 14 before he entered the Newtown school.

[snip]

As police wrap up at least the crime-scene portion of their investigation into Lanza’s murderous spree that left 26 people dead in the school, including 20 first-graders, the earplugs are not the only evidence that shows Lanza might have carried habits either from the shooting range or the virtual world of video games into his real-world massacre.

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

More than a week after the shooting, investigators were still finding bullets under doors and in carpets and walls in the school as they tried to match the casings to the magazines.

Investigators are aware that frequent reloading is common in violent video games because an experienced player knows never to enter a new building or room without a full magazine so as not to risk running out of bullets. This has led them to speculate privately that this might be a reason that he replaced magazines frequently.

Investigators have not said how many shots Lanza fired with the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle after he entered the school by firing half a dozen rounds through the glass at the school entrance. Sources said that he fired approximately 150 rounds during the shooting spree.

It’s easy to say that some of the time, Lanza didn’t fire all of the bullets in a magazine before swapping it out for another magazine. And with that, it can be said that banning 30-round magazines would not have kept Lanza from murdering less people.

Myth #3. Despite saying otherwise, gun grabbers hate the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) and want every legally-purchased firearm owned by law abiding citizens taken away from them (I have no doubt the gun grabbers would ignore the Takings Clause and would rather the government just take without paying for them). Yeah, good luck with that.

There are 250 million guns in the United States, legally owned by tens of millions of people. Let’s put this in perspective. Open borders advocates claim that we supposedly “xenophobic” conservatives are unrealistic in wanting to deport the millions of illegal aliens in this country. Realistically speaking, I would say it is unrealistic to deport all of the millions of illegal aliens. Factoring this, one can say there are tens of millions of more legal gun owners than there are illegal aliens. How do the gun grabbers propose to take the hundreds of millions of legally-owned firearms from tens of millions of armed citizens? Let’s say a healthy percentage of these people voluntarily turn over their weapons or are sufficiently cowed to hand them over if threatened with jail. What about all those who won’t? How many thousands, how many millions, will fight back?

Myth #4: The federal government needs more laws for this proliferation of these firearms all over the country. Except they don’t.

Ed Morrissey notes that the Obama regime admits they don’t have the manpower to work with the laws currently on the books, in a quote from a Daily Caller piece he linked to:

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

How does the regime expect to handle new laws with even more background checks?

The gun grabbers like to say how those who look at the 2nd Amendment and see it as a right to prevent a tyrannical government are nut jobs and extremists. But if you take a look, it is they who are the extremists, along with the politicians they support.

Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.

So what’s left? Well, there are the gun-free school zone laws at the federal and state level. But if you actually look at the gun-free school zone laws actually on the books in the U.S. Code (Subsection (q) of 18 USC § 922) and in the Connecticut General Statutes, they were as (in)effective as the expired assault weapons ban. But the Connecticut law needn’t have been.

The original federal Gun-Free School Zones Act law, as part of the Crime Control Act of 1990, was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Lopez decision. It was rewritten shortly thereafter and implemented in a 1997 omnibus spending bill. But everything about the original 1990 law was still in effect. The Congressional Research Service added their two cents about the Gun-Free School Zones Act [emphasis mine]:

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 – Amends the Federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties for the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone, with specified exceptions including the possession or discharge by an individual as part of a school program or by a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity.

Encourages Federal, State, and local authorities to post signs around school zones warning of a prohibition of the possession of firearms in a school zone.

There were no appropriations for doing any more, nor should there have been. In fact, this isn’t even a federal issue. Even after Lopez, Congress went ahead and made enough of a modification to supposedly have it pass muster under the Constitution. But it sure didn’t do a thing to prevent the kinds of crimes that have occurred since its passage, has it? The only way to prevent crimes under this law would be massive appropriations of federal tax dollars to be given to the states expressly for the purpose of putting armed security of some kind in place. It didn’t happen in 1990, it didn’t happen in 1997 when the law was redone, and it won’t be done now with the federal government in hock for what it’s paying for now. Again, this isn’t a federal issue. But I’m guessin’ it made those involved with getting these passed “feel better” about doing something, even if it was nothing. As I had stated above, it’s understandable to want to do something; just make sure something is actually done, which wasn’t the case with either the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act or the ban on “assault weapons”.

So that leaves us with Connecticut and its law. From this conservative’s point of view, a state law is much more appropriate since a state is more directly involved with law enforcement and crime prevention. But as with the federal law, all the Connecticut law does is make it unlawful to bring a gun in or near a school. How did that stop the massacre at Newtown? When the law was originally passed in 1992, on the heels of the 1990 federal law, the bill analysis had this to say [emphasis mine]:

The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (18 USC Sec.922 (q)) prohibits the possession or discharge of a firearm on or within 1,000 feet of private, parochial, or public school grounds. Violation is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Imprisonment is in addition to and must run consecutively to any other jail term.

The act exempts the following, among others, from prosecution: people who possess firearms properly stored (unloaded and locked in gun racks) in motor vehicles or on private property that is not part of school grounds and law enforcement officers acting in their official capacities. The act also exempts people who use the firearms in school-approved programs.

The act states that federal, state, and local authorities should encourage the posting of signs around school zones warning that firearm possession in a school zone is prohibited.

How on God’s green earth are signs supposed to stop someone bound and determined to murder students at a school? Of course we already know the answer to this question.

The potential for violence at schools, as with anywhere else, is always going to be a problem. With the number of firearms out in circulation in the United States, gutting the 2nd Amendment, passing meaningless weapons bans, or figuring out how to get legal owners to turn these weapons in isn’t going to happen. Nor should it be encouraged, especially by the federal government. It also doesn’t help when the guy occupying the White House insults we the people by claiming we the people need to change because somehow we the people find the massacres of innocent children acceptable, then gets thoroughly disgusting by trying to exploit this horrific crime to raise the tax rates of “the rich”.

Gun-free school zones haven’t done anything either. The current federal law should be scrapped altogether since it is truly pointless. The only way to prevent these kinds of massacres is with someone who also has a gun. Urban schools already know this which is why there are local laws in place to better secure those facilities. Unfortunately, there are more places like Newtown, CT where such violence isn’t nearly as commonplace as it is in the cities and some suburbs.

In many of these areas, school districts probably have the money or could raise revenue at the local level to have some form of armed security available in these schools, either with the local police force or a security firm. But there are so many more where these kinds of dollars aren’t available. I wasn’t too keen on the idea when I first heard it; but as I thought about it, I don’t see too many other options. There have been many elected state officials talking about arming some school employees (teachers, usually) to prevent what happened in Newtown, for self-defense along with prevention. It makes the most sense. Whether the states will allow a teacher to bring their own gun in or appropriate money to arm or supply can be worked out when legislation is crafted. But all in all, it seems to be the best option available.

Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.

It is a deal that can get done, but it is not going to be — it cannot be done if every side wants 100 percent. And part of what voters were looking for is some compromise up here. That’s what — that’s what folks want.

They understand that they’re not going to get 100 percent of what they want. And for some reason, that message has not yet taken up on Capitol Hill. And when you think about what we’ve gone through over the last couple of months — a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory, the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don’t make much sense.

I’ll wager none of the Obama propagandists White House Press Corps called out Obama for this outrageous statement; even Jake Tapper, who did ask a fairly tough question to Obama about Newtown, of which Obama took “offense”, didn’t seem to hit Obama for the sentence I highlighted.

But it gets better. Quoting Drew again, “Obama says Boehner’s Plan B is a non-starter because raising taxes on millionaires is really a tax cut for them and a tax hike on the middle class” [emphasis mine]:

The speaker is now proposing what he calls Plan B. So he says, “Well, this would raise taxes only on folks making $1 million or more.” What that means is, an average of a $50,000 tax break for every millionaire out there. At the same time as we’re not providing unemployment insurance for 2 million people who are still out there looking for work. It actually means a tax increase for millions of working families across the country, at the same time as folks like me would be getting a tax break.

Bless his heart, how does Boehner think he can negotiate with a jerk who says such things? Think about it; Boehner is debating a corrupt and indecent incompetent in Obama who is not only allowed a pass when he says a tax rate increase is somehow a tax cut but who also gets a pass when he exploits murdered children to hike taxes on “the rich”.

Boehner has to take the only three steps available to him since the election. He needs to get the GOP to draft a bill that permanently cuts the regular federal income tax rates for everyone but the top level (a real middle class tax cut the GOP can own), get it passed there, then have the House set to have pro forma sessions until this Congress is over, daring Reid to not pass it in the Senate and daring Obama not to sign it if the Senate does pass it. That’s it.

It’s time the GOP and conservatives accept that there is no negotiating with the indecent and corrupt Obama on his terms, on his ground. The only way a jerk like Obama will respect those he tries to bully is if he is shown real strength. If Boehner and the GOP don’t do this, then forget the debt ceiling fight; America would have already lost.

Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.

Conservatives know for a fact that increasing tax rates on the rich will do nothing to solve the federal government’s spending insanity. We know for a fact that following the 2003 tax rate cuts, federal revenue increased to record levels by 2007; unfortunately, spending never did go down, although the deficits were reduced year after year. We have empirical data, the math, proving the problem with the federal government is the spending. Yet, Obama is winning the tax argument in spite of the facts. Worse, he’s got the dummies running the Republican Party falling for Obama’s lies, confirming the GOP is the stupid party.

So how does the GOP stop being stupid? Simple. Be politically bolder and turn Obama’s arguments against him. Obama wants the tax rates of the top two percent of income earners raised. Republicans should write a bill that leaves in place the rates for those income levels, but reduces the current tax rates for the rest of the income levels. And forget all this nonsence of closing out deductions.

Democrats, especially Obama, do not want a serious discussion whatsoever about revenues or spending. It is a fact that if Democrats get their tax increases, they will use it for even more spending, not to reduce the debt. Republicans know this; yet, they are still under the delusion the people will support them in order to have a more fiscally responsible federal government, even though the 2012 election should have removed that fallacy from their pea brains.

According to some conservatives, Obama wants the current tax rates for all income levels to expire so that he can come in early in 2013 and demand Congress lower the tax rates for 98% of the people to what are now the current levels. He would then be able to own what would be the Obama middle class tax cuts. It’s false, insulting, and devoid of logic to think leaving the tax rates as they are now is somehow a tax cut; but, Obama has the media on his side to sell that lie.

According to other conservatives, it’s Boehner who wants the current tax rates to expire and then come through with “tax cuts”, taking the credit for reducing rates to what they are now. There is one HUGE problem with this line of thinking; the media will still call them the Obama middle class tax cuts. They won’t let the GOP or Boehner take credit for anything, even if it is true.

Which is why Boehner and Republicans should out-Obama Obama and demand that the rates for all income levels save the top two be reduced now, regardless of how economists will view it. The plan will rightly be called fiscally irresponsible. However, the country didn’t re-elect Obama because he was fiscally and economically responsible. The difference with this plan compared to other plans the GOP has put forth is that it doesn’t increase spending. The GOP should have learned that you can’t beat Democrats by being Democrats in all but name. Instead, Republicans in Congress should act like Republicans and cut tax rates.

It’s entirely possible a rate reduction would have a positive impact on the economy, although not as great an impact if the right tax reductions were implemented (further cutting corporate rates and reducing regulatory burdens). Democrat economists have lied about the effects of tax rates for year, purposely using static analysis to claim lower tax rates reduce the revenue flow into the federal government, despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence disproving what they say. But they never change their model because it would harm Democrats, so they stick with it.

Will it happen? Come on. I wasn’t born yesterday. Boehner and the GOP continue to prove themselves to be the stupid party time and time again. Boehner’s actions over the last month have confirmed it. As far as I’m concerned, the only other smart thing Boehner should have done is to sent Congress home for the rest of the session and let Democrats own the tax rate increases when they come. Instead, he chose to fight; worse, he sucks at it. But perhaps there is a member of Congress, possibly yours, who will see the political wisdom of cutting these tax rates. Obama, Democrat politicians, and the Democrat media will certainly blame Republicans for causing the current tax rates to rise when the new year begins, making it much harder to fight Obama when the debt ceiling battle begins in earnest next year. So instead of fighting Democrats, and losing, by trying to maintain all of the tax rates, they need to fight for a rate reduction for all but the highest income levels before this session of Congress ends. When Obama and the Democrats balk, and I believe they will, Obama will truly own the tax rate increases coming in January.

Forget math. It isn’t working. Instead of playing into Democrats’ rules, change the rules.

Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.