Friday, July 03, 2015

Oh my! Sulu goes so low.

Yet another entrant into the category "Imagine the veritable s**t storm had a conservative said this."

George Takei went on a racist rant Monday in an interview in Phoenix, unleashing on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in response to Thomas’ comments regarding the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, NewsBusters reported.

“He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there,” Takei said, later adding, “This man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America. I’ll say it on camera.”

Takei’s rage came in light of the Justice’s contrary stance on the recent equal marriage decision, where the Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Thomas released a statement saying that the government does not grant human dignity, and as such cannot take it away. Thomas argued that human dignity is inherent, and that the Supreme Court cannot issue it.

As for Takei’s “blackface” remark, liberals seem pretty pleased by it.






Takei later explained away his "blackface" remark as not really meaning what we believe it meant, or something.





Uh huh. Kinda like when Rep. Ryan Winkler called Justice Thomas an "Uncle Thomas" and claimed to have believed it meant "turncoat." Whatevs.

Of course the mainstream media didn't call Takei on his behavior given that he falls within the trifecta of their favorite protected classes: Leftist, minority and gay (in that order). Oh, and he posts funny things on Facebook, so he's providing a valuable service y'know.

Truth be told, I'm not the least bit shocked Takei wasn't called out on any outlet outside of right-of-center venues. Again, he's the lovable gay guy who starred in perhaps one of the more revered Science Fiction TV shows in the history of entertainment. Certainly a disgusting racist tirade doesn't fit within that template. Besides, if Clarence Thomas would just possess the thought process most leftists believe a black man should adhere to, there would have been no problem. As such, George is absolved of responsibility. Love wins!

---------------------------------------------

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Hall call

The top scoring American born defenseman in National Hockey League history.

The second most points of any American born NHL player.

Those accomplishments alone would suggest that the owner of those records would be in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Well, it took longer than it should have but the official announcement came Monday.

The routine repeated itself every summer, around the time when Phil Housley knew the Hockey Hall of Fame was about to announce its newest inductees. The South St. Paul native and 21-year NHL veteran would wait by his phone, hoping to get the news that he had been elected.

Year after year, Housley was disappointed, leading him to wonder if it was ever going to happen. That explained the flood of emotions he felt Monday, when he finally got the call to the Hall with four other players and two men elected in the builder category. The highest-scoring American-born defenseman in NHL history said he was “shocked, excited and extremely proud” to enter the Hockey Hall of Fame 12 years after his retirement, a memorable conclusion to a long wait.

Housley, 51, is the oldest of the players who will be inducted in a ceremony on Nov. 9 at the Hall of Fame in Toronto.


Phil's wife Karin captured his reaction upon receiving the call.





While I've gotten to know Karin pretty well over the past few years, I have only met Phil on one occasion, which was his wife's 50th birthday celebration 17 months ago.




Yes, 2015 is shaping up to be quite a memorable year for the Housleys. Not only is Phil entering the Hall of Fame, he and Karin celebrated 30 years of marriage in mid June and they will be first time grandparents this fall! I am absolutely sincere when I say that such blessings couldn't be happening to a much classier couple. 

---------------------------------------------------

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 29, 2015

Box Score of the Week

Milwaukee Brewers at San Francisco Giants - July 19, 2006.

---------------------------------------

The Brewers' Tony Gwynn, Jr. recorded his first major league hit. It occurred on the 24th anniversary of his Hall of Fame father collecting his first hit in the big leagues. 

----------------------------------------

Labels:

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Wake up kids, we've got the dreamer's disease.....

A busy show planned today on the Northern Alliance Radio Network program The Closer. The 2-hour bonanza begins at 1:00 PM Central Time.

Right at 1:00 I will be joined via phone by John "Tig" Tiegen and Mark "Oz" Geist. These gentlemen were in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and witnessed the attack on the American consulate. They also contributed to the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi. John and Mark will be in the Twin Cities on July 17 for an event brought to you by the Shadow Warriors Project. Check out the details here.

Then at 1:30, Mark Skousen will call in to the program. Mark founded and produces FreedomFest, which is promoted as "an annual festival where free minds meet to celebrate 'great books, great ideas, and great thinkers' in an open-minded society." He'll promote the upcoming FreedomFest taking place in Las Vegas July 8-11.

Finally at 2:15, recently crowned Miss Minnesota Rachel Latuff will join me in studio. We'll discuss Rachel's experience during the first two weeks as the new titleholder, chat about her platform Teaching the Heart: Building the Social and Emotional Wellness of Youth and their Teachers and look ahead to her preparation for the Miss America pageant slated to take place in a little less than three months.

Oh, and the U.S. Supreme Court released some decisions on some high profile cases. I'll discuss those if time allows.


So please give me a call at (651) 289-4488 if you'd like to discuss any of the topics I plan on addressing. You can also text comments/questions to (651) 243-0390.

You can listen live in the Twin Cities at AM 1280 on your radio dial. In and out of the Minneapolis-St Paul area, you can listen to the program on the Internet by clicking this link, or check us out via iheart radio

Even though I have a face for radio, there is a UStream channel where you can watch the broadcast, if you so desire. Check it out here.  

And if you're so inclined, follow along on Twitter at #narn or "Like" our Facebook page.

Until then.....

----------------------------------------------

Labels:

Friday, June 26, 2015

Marry on.......

For the second consecutive today a ruling was announced in a significant case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. And for the second consecutive day I was not the least bit surprised by the decision.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.

Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. But in a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples and to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The ruling means the remaining 14 states that did not allow such unions, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans. Already, gay marriages were underway Friday in several states where they had been banned. A court in Atlanta issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples Friday morning, soon after the decision. Other licenses reportedly were issued in Arkansas and Texas -- where Gov. Greg Abbott also issued a memo directing state agency heads to protect religious liberties.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices. He continued: "Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right."

I've said many times on this blog as well as on the radio show that 2+ years ago I conceded the fact same-sex marriage would one day be the law of the land. As such, I wrote last year how social conservatives need to start gearing up for the next phase of this battle, which is religious liberty. We've already witnessed how private citizens who own service oriented businesses are shamed (and in some cases sued) for refusing to violate their religious objections in providing services to gay weddings. And lest you think that we're making mountains out of molehills, check out this excerpt from Chief Justice John Roberts' dissenting opinion.




While I haven't seen any specific stats or polling, I would venture to say that the majority of SSM proponents have no interest in forcing citizens to violate their religious beliefs or demand churches be mandated to host gay weddings. However, we've seen quite clearly what just a handful of rabble rousers will do when there's less than 100% acquiescence to the "Gay-stapo."

One of the persistent arguments from SSM proponents was that legalizing a union of two people who love each other is no one's business and doesn't cause harm to heterosexual marriages. In short, they were saying "live and let live." I can only hope that those who expressed that mantra equally apply that sentiment to those with deeply held religious beliefs.

-------------------------------------------------

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Rule of Law Implications

I wasn't shocked how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on King v. Burwell, but it doesn't make the decision any less befuddling.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, as opponents contended.

The challenge devised by die-hard opponents of the law relied on four words - "established by the state" - in the more than 900-page law.

The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government.

In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges.

The administration, congressional Democrats and 22 states responded that it would make no sense to construct the law the way its opponents suggested. The idea behind the law's structure was to decrease the number of uninsured. The law prevents insurers from denying coverage because of "pre-existing" health conditions. It requires almost everyone to be insured and provides financial help to consumers who otherwise would spend too much of their paycheck on their premiums.

The point of the last piece, the subsidies, is to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a disastrous decline in enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people and premium increases by insurers.

Just a few general reactions:


- I hesitate to react with the obligatory objection of "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" simply because that would imply that I prefer the courts to be another legislative branch and rule according to my preferred ideology. But when Chief Justice John Roberts, who issued the majority opinion, says things like "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them....," that seems to stray from a legal ruling into advocacy.


- Speaking of the Chief Justice, I saw a lot of conspiracy theories suggesting the Obama administration has some dirt on Roberts, thus explaining why he ruled in favor of Obamacare in both legal challenges. While that may assuage the feelings of O-Care opponents, I find that claim to be highly dubious. My best guess is Roberts is keenly aware of how his CJ predecessor William Rehnquist had his legacy (fairly or unfairly) somewhat tarnished as a result of the Bush v. Gore ruling. As such, Roberts doesn't want to be viewed in a similar light, which is a staunch partisan.


- Justice Antonin Scalia issued the dissenting opinion. Perhaps the most memorable paragraph from said opinion was as follows:

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”


- Finally, many Democrats (including Obama) and lefty pundits declare this latest SCOTUS decision to be the death knell of anymore challenges to the ACA (legally and legislatively) and that it's here to stay. Well if indeed Republicans have a viable alternative to Obamacare as they claim to, now would be as good a time as any to bring it forth. It doesn't have to be over.

-----------------------------------------------

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Taking a pass

One of my favorite Abraham Lincoln quotes is the following:

 “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.”


Unfortunately Republicans in the suburbs just west of Minneapolis did not take that to heart.

Democrat Peggy Flanagan is facing no opposition in her bid to replace state Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley.

Flanagan was the only candidate to file by yesterday’s deadline to run in the special election for Minnesota House District 46A. Winkler announced this month that he’s retiring from the Legislature. He’s moving to Belgium after his wife accepted a job with a hotel group there.

Flanagan has been racking up plenty of endorsements to run for the seat, which represents St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Plymouth and Medicine Lake. She received endorsements from the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and from Winkler himself.

It would be an understatement to say a Republican would have an uphill battle in a legislative district within the bluest Congressional District in Minnesota. Heck, a DFL politician in HD 46A could refer to a black Supreme Court justice as an "Uncle Thomas" and still win reelection in  a walk. But if the GOP is ever going to make hay in the Twin Cities metro area, they can't just kiss off chances to engage voters. This particular special election would have provided ample opportunity since both Golden Valley and St Louis Park (which makes up more than 75% of 46A) run on odd year elections. As such, this special election will occur the same day as mayoral and city council races, a fact not lost on my pal Jeff Kolb.





Odd year elections have a tendency to produce absurdly low turnout. If there was ever a chance a Republican could put up a formidable challenge in 46A, this year would seem to be a logical time frame. I guess we'll never know for sure.

-------------------------------------------------------

Labels: , ,