NewsBusters Declares: Twitter Has A Liberal Bias! Topic: NewsBusters
It seems that no instance of liberal bias, real or imagined, gets past the eagle eyes of the Media Research Center. Why, even Twitter is biased!
No, really, An Aug. 5 NewsBusters post by Aubrey Vaughan declares that "Twitter has selectively crafted a list of suggested news accounts that suspiciously skip over any conservative news pundits." He continues:
The news list suggests 51 accounts. Populating that list are six ABC accounts, three NBC accounts, two CBS accounts, three MSNBC accounts, six CNN accounts, two NPR accounts, two PBS accounts, three BBC accounts, two NY Times accounts, two Huffington Post accounts, and a combination of other arguably liberal accounts including Newsweek, the Economist, Time Magazine, LA Times, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, AP, Reuters, ProPublica, Bloomberg News, and Slate. Excluding two government news accounts (FBI Press Office and West Wing News), two technology accounts (Digg and Wired's Gadget Lab), and three more specialized news accounts (Life.com, the Onion, and Al-Jazeera English), that leaves only two more accounts: Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
While liberal media outlets are greater in number and it makes sense to include all the major networks, Twitter does not promote the the media accounts equally. MSNBC's David Gregory and Rachel Maddow are suggested. CNN's Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Ali Velshi, and Jack Gray are suggested. Each network station also has a number of their TV personalities suggested. Absent from the list are suggestions to follow Fox News personalities like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, or radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, completely swaying the list in favor of liberal media outlets and their even more liberally inclined opinion journalists.
Vaughan seems to have decided that if a news organization is not explicitly conservative -- like the Wall Street Journal or Fox News -- it must be liberal. He doesn't offer the metrics by which he has decided this; we weren't aware that, say, the Economist was "liberal."
Vaughan then rather laughably fails to see bias where it's most obvious:
Admittedly, the suggested accounts on the government list are much less biased. It actually follows a greater number of Republican than Democrat politicians, but that can be explained by the fact that it follows all the major 2012 presidential contenders, and no Democrats are running against President Obama. In addition to following candidates, the Republican suggestions include former Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain, Ambassador Condoleezza Rice, House Speaker John Boehner, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The high-ranking Democrats on the list include Obama, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and press secretary Jay Carney.
A clear Republican bias is "much less biased" to Vaughan? That seems to confirm our theory that conservatives don't think there is such a thing as conservative bias.
WND Makes Another Embarrassingly False Article Quietly Disappear Topic: WorldNetDaily
Remember how WorldNetDaily has made false statements in articles -- and even entire false articles -- disappear without explanation or even a correction, contrary to how a real news organization would act? Well, it's done it again.
An Aug. 4 WND article repeated statements by Rush Limbaugh marking President Obama's birthday:
"Tomorrow is Obama's birthday," he said today. "Not that we've seen any proof of that."
He continued, "But tomorrow is Obama's birthday and they're trying to rally Obama's base by sending out fundraising letters.
"What? What? … What, Snerdley, what? We haven't seen any proof of that. They tell us Aug. 4 is the birthday. We haven't seen any proof of it. Sorry. It is what it is," he said.
Just one little problem: that's actually what Limbaugh said last year, not this past week.
After MSNBC's Rachel Maddow picked up the story as portrayed by WND, she was huffily excoriated by NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard for presenting last year's Obama-bashing as this year's, declaring it a "bald-faced lie" and ranting, "Why are media members today allowed to lie with total impunity?" (Funny -- we could say the samething about Sheppard.)
Maddow apologized on the next night's show, explaining that she made the mistake of trusting a WND article.
This is a highly embarrassing error for WND to commit, especially since WND editor Joseph Farah co-wrote one of Limbaugh's books and WND regularlydevotesarticles to Limbaugh's radio pontifications. This tells us that people at WND don't listen to Limbaugh's show as closely as they want their readers to think.
As per its usual style of violating journalistic ethics in handling errors, WND simply deleted the article without telling readers it was deleted and issuing a public correction; it still resides in Google cache for now. Somehow, we suspect Farah issued a private apology to Limbaugh.
Of course, Maddow's apology wasn't good enough for Sheppard, for he ranted again in an Aug. 6 post:
However, is the far-left MSNBC now relying on far-right publications for its research? Are there really no resources at a division of Comcast, General Electric, and NBC to do some basic fact-checking beyond a website that those associated vehemently disagree with at every turn?
And are YouTube video descriptions considered credible enough for MSNBCer's to cite dates from?
Doesn't give you much confidence in the veracity of any of their reporting.
Is Sheppard agreeing with Maddow that nobody should be foolish enough to trust WND? If so, why isn't NewsBusters forcefully making this case to its readers? Perhaps for the same reason it won't criticize a conservative publication for publishing unflattering information about a conservative presidential candidate.
Sheppard goes on to complain that Maddow "felt the need to attack Limbaugh by accusing him of racism" by playing other Limbaugh sound bites, but Sheppard doesn't dispute the characterization, so he must agree that Maddow's clips accurately depicted Limbaugh's racial insensitivity.
CNS Whitewashes Perry Prayer Rally Topic: CNSNews.com
An Aug. 5 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr touts the prayer rally today in Houston authorized by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Starr quotes only from Perry's proclamation for the rally and a Perry spokesperson. The only opposing view Starr provides is a single sentence: "Critics have said the prayer rally is designed to advance Perry’s political ambitions."
But that's only one component of the criticism of Perry's rally. Starr doesn't mention that one major criticism of the rally is the far-right nature and history of hateful comments by the groups and ministers who are putting on the rally for Perry. Right Wing Wach has compiled a fact sheet about them.
Starr also failed to report signs of low attendance at the rally. The Houston Chronicle reported on Aug. 1 -- four days before Starr's article was published -- that only 8,000 people had signed up to attend the rally at Houston's Reliant Stadium, which seats 71,500.
So much for CNS' purported mission statement of "fairly present[ing] all legitimate sides of a story."
Kessler's Oppo Research: Attacking Pawlenty to Help Romney Topic: Newsmax
Ronald Kessler declares in his Aug. 4 Newsmax column that "Ahead of next week’s Iowa caucuses, Republican presidential nominee Tim Pawlenty’s camp is worried about his pardon of a convicted sex offender who was later arrested again for criminal sexual conduct with his own daughter."
Why does Kessler care about this? Because he's the PR agent for Mitt Romney. Kessler shilled for Romney during the 2008 Republican presidential campaign -- rather uncomfortably so -- and after Romney was eliminated, he dutifully switched his allegiance to the candidate he had been bashing on Romney's behalf, John McCain.
Kessler spent the first few months of this year trying to pave the way for a Donald Trump candidacy, but when that failed, Kessler's allegiance returned to Romney, and he remainsfirmly in that camp.
Kessler's hit piece on Pawlenty is really nothing more than surrogate oppo research for Romney's campaign.
Of all the dictators over the past hundred years, I believe Obama's rise to power mirrors that of Adolf Hitler's more than anyone else. I know, I know … I can practically hear readers chuckling. Enslaved people throughout history have a propensity for chuckling – until they wake up one morning and find themselves in chains. So, by all means, feel free to chuckle – but do hear me out.
Though most people don't realize it, Hitler was legitimately chosen to be chancellor of Germany in 1933 by President Paul von Hindenburg. At his swearing-in ceremony, Hitler faithfully repeated the oath of office: "I will employ my strength for the welfare of the German people, protect the Constitution and laws of the German people, conscientiously discharge the duties imposed on me, and conduct my affairs of office impartially and with justice to everyone."
Nice words … similar to those uttered by Obama when being sworn into office. Hitler was a charming, eloquent speaker who carried on incessantly about change. (Sound familiar?) Then, once elected, he moved quickly to establish a dictatorship – accomplishing that seemingly impossible feat in 52 days. Obama moved swiftly as well, but opposing forces in America made it impractical to establish a quick dictatorship.
The upstart Nazi Party (which was the commonly used name for the National Socialist German Workers' Party … repeat, Socialist) staged a slobbering love affair between Hitler and the German people. (Sound familiar?) When Hitler spoke for the first time as chancellor, it was said that "he was greeted with an outpouring of worshipful adulation unlike anything ever seen before in Germany." (Sound familiar?)
Obama has also developed a habit of citing the American people's tacit approval of aspects of his agenda, when most would find difficulty discerning such approval. When such measures become contentious, the president asserts that the American people "want" it, and surmises that his detractors' capitulation will necessarily follow. Were he to decide that he wanted to drill holes in all of our heads, he would simply state that this is what the American people wanted.
This war in the capital right now is a war between communism and capitalism. If Obama calls the "rich jet owners" evil or greedy one more time, I will explode.
Rich people are job creators ... whether they mean to be or not. Don't people with mansions need employees, accountants, lawyers, gardeners, decorators, lots of plumbers, assistants, maids, cooks, dog walkers and comedians?
Obama the Marxist quoted the Communist Manifesto when he said, "Spread the wealth."
Communists "spread the wealth" by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - over-taxation, fees, fines, over-regulation. Communists don't have a middle class. Everyone is poor except the elite: Reid, Pelosi, Jarrett, czars and Dictator.
Over the last couple of weeks I've been watching the speeches of President Obama, House Majority Leader Boehner, Senator Reid, and a host of other influential power brokers inside the beltway and on Wall Street. The crisis of the debt ceiling has turned into something much worse than a financial problem - it has completely morphed into a political problem, which will ultimately result in a geo-political problem.
There are many parties to blame in this mess, but the fact remains that both sides of the fence have an intense hatred for each other.
President Obama, through his rhetoric, is manufacturing, creating, fertilizing (however you want to say it), class warfare, race warfare and a social uprising that could bring our country down from within.
This outcome of this debt crisis will hopefully show all of us – right, left and center – that it's time for the establishment to be removed. John Boehner can spend his time at tanning salons and hooka bars, but he has no place as speaker of the House. And, Barack Hussein Obama, who "kidded" at this year's White House Correspondence Dinner that he is the Lion King from Kenya, can and should go back to his native land.
Looking back on the late '60s, there are several similarities between Barrack Obama and Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Obama believes government should play a crucial role in the economy (price controls/stimulus packages); and like Nixon, Obama relies on slick political gimmicks to destroy his enemies. But unlike Nixon, Obama doesn't rely on henchmen within his administration to do his dirty work. After all, who needs a Spiro Agnew when popular comedians and MSNBC commentators do your hatchet work instead?
WND's Rush Falsely Smears Soros As 'Nazi Collaborator' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Among the various attacks on President Obama in Erik Rush's Aug. 3 WorldNetDaily column, like his claim that Obama "became a constitutional lawyer, I contend, expressly so he could use his knowledge to skirt the Constitution," he feels the need to describe George Soros as a "former Nazi collaborator."
That is a malicious lie. As has been documented, the Jewish Soros, while a teenager in Nazi-occupied Hungary, had to pose as the godson of another man in order to keep from being identified as a Jew. During that time, the man was assigned to take inventory of a Jewish family that had left its belongings behind in exchange for safe passage out of the country, and Soros tagged along. The property was being taken by the Nazis no matter what Soros did, which was little more than tag along. There was no collaboration with Nazis.
Given that this comes from a guy who has likened Obama to a rapist, can we really expect anything from Rush except malicious smears?
CNS Reporter Moonlights For Partisan Attack Group Topic: CNSNews.com
An Aug. 2 WorldNetDaily article touts a report by the right-wing Capital Research Center -- home of the perpetuallywrongMatthew Vadum -- on the legal watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, largely complaining that George Soros has donated to the group and that it goes after liberals more than conservatives.
That CRC report, interestingly, was written by a familiar name: CNSNews.com reporter Fred Lucas.
Why is Lucas, who purports to be a "news" reporter, moonlighting for a clearly partisan "research" organization like the CRC? After all, any organization that keeps Vadum employed clearly has a partisan agenda to push. This seems to be just another sign that CNS no longer cares about keeping up the pretense of being a real news outlet and has embraced its real agenda of being a right-wing attack machine.
It's also yet another swing of the revolving door of CNS staffers who swing between CNS so-called journalism and right-wing activism.
It's also worth noting that while both Lucas and WND hyperventilate over Soros donating $100,000 to CREW and other liberal groups donating as well, they are dwarfed by Richard Mellon Scaife foundation donations to the right-wing Judicial Watch -- more than $8.7 million since 1997. Lucas and WND don't seem bothered at all by that.
WND Unhappy With Idea That It Can't Lie With Impunity Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 1 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh carries the alarming opening:
A federal judge who owes his lifetime appointment to Barack Obama today concluded that a pro-life organization whose leaders criticized a politician for supporting Obamacare for funding abortions just might be guilty of defamation – and possibly worthy of jail time.
Of course, the facts are much less alarming -- and they could have consequences for WND's brand of loose-with-the-facts journalism.
The case involves former U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus, who lost re-election in 2010 in part, he claims, because of ads by the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List claiming that Driehaus supports "taxpayer funded abortion." Unruh's suggestion that anyone currently faces "jail time" over the incident is false -- that applied only to a criminal complaint Driehaus had originally filed with the Ohio Elections Commission that he has since dropped. The current lawsuit is a civil action with no possibility of jail time.
The central question in Driehaus' lawsuit is whether the Susan B. Anthony List's claim that he voted for "taxpayer funding of abortion" when he voted for the health care reform bill. Dreihaus contends it's false, and the judge (whose appointment background is irrelevant) agreed, writing, ""Whether it is possible … that the PPACA would not prevent taxpayer funded abortion is entirely different from providing for 'taxpayer funded abortion.' The express language of the PPACA does not provide for taxpayer funded abortion." Thus, Driehaus' lawsuit can go forward.
Unruh, of course, is compelled only to report the SBA List's reaction, plus some of his own inadequately documented claims. First he writes:
In fact, the Obama administration confirmed in July 2010, as reported by ABC News, that the president's signature health care legislation funds abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's health is at risk.
Unruh misleads by portraying health care reform as a change from previous federal abortion policy. It is not -- under the Hyde amendment, first approved in 1976, those are the only conditions under which the federal government funds abortions, and health care reform did not alter it.
Unruh then writes:
Further, it now has ruled that all insurance carriers will be required to include coverage of the Plan B "morning-after" pill that can destroy the life of a fertilized egg by preventing the implantation of the developing embryo, Answers in Genesis pointed out.
Noted the prominent organization, "Despite the evidence that Plan B has a secondary mechanism as an abortifacient, the FDA allows Plan B packaging and patient information to claim that it does not cause abortion... The 'truth' of this claim depends on new government-approved definitions."
Of course, Answers in Genesis -- whose goal is "to illustrate the importance of Genesis in building a creation-based worldview, and to equip readers with practical answers so they can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy and graciousness" -- is not an organization qualified to render a medical judgment on what Plan B does. Oh, and it's not an "abortion pill."
The question remains whether the SBA List's ads rise to the level of "actual malice" required under defamation law. Unruh dutifully reported the SBA List attorney's assertions that it does not because his group "researched Obamacare themselves, and they also read the opinions of other groups that also concluded that Obamacare provided taxpayer funds for abortion services," and that even if the claim is false, it's "protected opinion."
This raises some interesting questions for WND, which has repeatedlypublishedfalseclaims about President Obama and his administration. Given that actual malice toward the president is practically WND's editorial policy, if Driehaus successfully obtains a verdict of defamation against the SBA list, that opens up a path of defamation litigation against WND for its shoddy, malicious journalism.
WND will make any plaintiff drag it out in court, however. Remember, it took seven years for WND to admit that it published falsehoods about an associate of Al Gore.
No wonder WND is alarmed by this case -- it might just be the thing that results in it being held accountable for its malicious lies.
Newsmax's Root: Obama, Dems Are Like Drug Addicts Topic: Newsmax
Incredibly, Obama and his Democrats are now blaming the victims in the debt-ceiling crisis.
These out of control D.C. spending addicts are exactly like drug addicts who have abandoned their spouse, kids, and job to do drugs 24 hours a day. Even though they’ve stolen from us, we do all we can to get them into rehab. But since they don’t want to stop drugs, what we get in return is hate, anger, and blame.
They accuse us of being horrible people for not willingly handing over more money to feed their spending addiction. They absurdly assert it’s all our fault and that we’ve forced them to rob us at gunpoint. And they scream that we are extreme.
Like all addicts, it has to be someone else’s fault. In this case they blame the taxpayers and the tea party. It’s our fault because we won’t willing give them more money.
Unfortunately, the addiction of Obama and Congress is destroying the American economy and enslaving our children and grandchildren to unimaginable debt for decades to come.
Farah Admits He Was Trying To Cash In On Debt Crisis Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah begins his Aug. 1 WorldNetDaily column this way:
Seven months ago I had a dream.
Hoping to capitalize on the overwhelming popular opinion against racking up new debt, I devised the "No More Red Ink" campaign with the notion of inundating House Republicans with hard-copy red letters urging them to stand firm against any hike in the debt limit.
It seems that Farah is admitting he was trying to make a buck off the debt crisis. (Not letting a crisis go to waste, one might say.) Of course, Farah does this sort of thing a lot by collecting chunks of cash to dump letters of questionable impact on members of Congress on their behalf.
And "cash in" really is the operative term here. Farah asserts that 1.5 million "No More Red Ink" letters were sent to 241 Republican House members. Divide that by the $29.99 WND charged to send those letters, and you come up with 6,224 people from whom WND separated their money, for gross revenue of $186,659. There's no way it cost WND $186,000 to print and send those letters, so that means that WND has turned yet another tidy profit.
Farah may be complaining about "red ink as far as I can see," but he's definitely talking about his little letter scam.
CNS Tries To Revive Bogus Easter/Ramadan Attack on Obama Topic: CNSNews.com
Earlier this year, CNSNews.com tried to attack President Obama by claiming that he issued "did not put out a formal proclamation for Easter--after putting out proclamations for Muslim holidays." Just one little problem: Obama didn't issue proclamations on those holidays, he issued statements, which is a distinctly separate thing.
Having taken three-plus months to figure out the difference between a proclamation and a statement, CNS decided to try again. Thus, we have an Aug. 2 article by Penny Starr claiming that Obama "issued a statement marking the start of Ramadan" but "did not issue a statement marking Easter this year."
Starr does concede (albeit not until the ninth paragraph) that "Obama did host Easter prayer breakfasts at the White House in 2010 and again this year, but she fails to mention that Obama also hosted the White House's annual Easter egg roll.
Why isn't that enough for Starr? Is there genuine concern here, or is it just because CNS is grasping another silly wedge issue to beat Obama over the head with, as it's been trying to do since he took office?
We'll go with the latter, since such partisan attacking has become the direction of CNS under Terry Jeffrey.
NEW ARTICLE: The WorldNetDaily Manifesto, By Anders Breivik Topic: WorldNetDaily
The accused Norway terrorist not only cites WND in his manifesto, his concerns about Islam and multiculturalism are closely aligned with WND's editorial agenda. Read more >>
WND's Laughably Vague Link To Article On Taitz's Latest Screwup Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily posted this link on its front page the other day with an oddly vague headline:
Why did WND write such an oddly vague headline? Because the Washington Post story being linked to isn't really about the Social Security number at all -- it's about Orly Taitz screwing up once again in court. From the article by Al Kamen:
Taitz is looking for information that would prove that Obama’s Social Security number was from Connecticut, not Hawaii, and is therefore fraudulent.
But she’s having some inexplicable problems complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(1), which simply says that only the last four digits of a Social Security number should be used in any documents filed; the first five digits must be redacted.
Seems she repeatedly violated that rule by redacting the wrong numbers, sparking a blistering rebuke this week from Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court here, who wrote that she was “wasting the Court’s time with nonsense,” which is “not the way [for her] to have any hope of prevailing in this case.”
“After making the somewhat hysterical claim . . . that there may be ‘an employee in this court who is intentionally sabotaging’ her,” Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his order, Taitz then “engaged” a courtroom deputy clerk “in a lengthy, accusatory conversation.”
Taitz “is either toying with the court or displaying her own stupidity,” Lamberth said. “There is no logical explanation she can provide as to why she is now wasting the court’s time. ”
Kamen helpfully adds: "Memo to file: Send private note to Taitz to advise her that the last, the very last, federal judge she wants to provoke is Lamberth. Trust us on this."
Given that WND has a history of ignoring Taitz's lengthyrecord of shoddy legal work, it's easy to see why it wants the focus to be on Taitz's nuisance lawsuit.
WND would much rather tout Taitz's latest stunt, such as her pending raid on the Hawaii Department of Health with a subpoena to view the Obama birth certificate it has on file. Just a couple little problems with this thing:
First, the subpoena is being filed in the case above, which is a lawsuit against Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue regarding Obama's Social Security number. What does Obama's Hawaii birth certificate have to do with his Social Security number, since there's no evidence he was issued one at the time he was born? That's called non-germane evidence. Plus, Taitz has not offered evidence that she provided notice of the subpoena to Astrue as required by law, since he is the defendant in this case.
Second, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding subpoenas state that "the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena" that "requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies." The original copy of Obama's birth certificate is a protected document under federal health privacy laws. Unless Obama has signed a waiver making the document public -- we'd be shocked if he did for the benefit of Taitz -- the Hawaii DOH is under no obligation to respond to Taitz's subpoena.
In short, we have another Taitz screwup in the making that WND will cover up or whitewash.
CNS' Starr Upset That SpongeBob Defies Laws of Physics Topic: CNSNews.com
An Aug. 2 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr is quite upset that the U.S. Department of Education is using a SpongeBob SquarePants book to promote "the idea that global warming is man made." Starr is further baffled by a certain lack of adherence to reality in SpongeBob stories:
The author does not explain how a pool is built underwater, how vehicles submerged in the ocean can produce exhaust, or how tires burn and send smoke into the air from the bottom of the sea.
Yes, Starr really wrote that. She's also ignoring that, as Media Matters points out, there's nothing controversial about teaching children about the reality of global warming.
This gives us all the excuse we need to go down memory lane for a look at the last time the ConWeb went on a SpongeBob freak-out. In 2005, WorldNetDaily declared that a tolerance-promoting video for children featuring famous cartoon characters like SpongeBob SquarePants was designed to be used by "homosexual activists" to "surreptitiously indoctrinate young children into their lifestyle."
Joseph Farah does have a habit of recycling his old columns, and he has essentially done that twice in the last two days.
Farah's July 29 column is a retread of a rant from June complaining about the Southern Policy Law Center. This time, it appears tohave been spawned by the SPLC hurting Farah's feelings by accurately describing WND as having "grown its influence by peddling paranoia about the president's birth certificate and AmeriCorps' 'domestic armies.'" At no point does Farah challenge the description -- thus conceding its accuracy -- but rather calls it an "epithet" and was off on yet another anti-SPLC rant about how it's purportedly "raising hundreds of millions of dollars through fanning the flames of phantom threats posed almost exclusively by those who love America and its Constitution."
Farah goes on to complain that SPLC chief Morris Dees "pays himself more than $280,000 a year from the 'charity.'" How much does Farah pay himself to run WND? That's not an answer we're likely to get voluntarily. Nevertheless, Farah may as well be talking about himself when he writes, "Fear-mongering is what the SPLC is all about – and turning it into a profit center."
Farah's July 31 column finds him still complaining that Rick Perry doesn't hate gays as much as he does, which is what Farah was doing three days earlier, even repeating his earlier assertion that gay marriage is grounds for secession:
In case you missed his remarks to Republican fat cats in Aspen, Perry said: "Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."
So, let me get this straight, Gov. Perry. If the New York state legislature decided to legalize polygamy or to eliminate the age of consent so pedophiles could legally target "consenting" children, you would have no problem with that?
I assume your 10th Amendment-trumps-all position would be the same?
By the way, this is not just some hyper-theoretical question. You might recall, Gov. Perry, that Utah couldn't join the Union until it outlawed polygamy – the 10th Amendment notwithstanding. Do you think a territory that permitted same-sex marriages even 20 years ago would have been admitted into the national covenant?
Of course not. You know that, and I know that.
In fact, when an existing member of the Union redefines a sacred, 6,000-year-old cultural institution like marriage, the very building block of civilization, it is an implicit violation of the values of that national covenant. It's ground for the national political equivalent of divorce.
Farah repeated another old complaint against Perry for "his advocacy of mandatory HPV vaccines for children." As before, Farah does not explain why it's a bad thing to vaccinate children against a certain type of cancer.
