Stand by for polygamy

The Supreme Court has just ruled that so-called “gay marriage” is an actual marriage. The decision, by the now-standard 5-4 split, may be found here. The core of the decision is this:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-State.

The basis for this meddling is the ever-troublesome Fourteenth Amendment. Enacted in large measure to punish the South for its rebellion, and in part to ensure that newly freed slaves were not disenfranchised, it’s been the basis for, among other things, birthright citizenship and legalized abortion.

The former results in people entering our nation illegally, having a child while they are here illegally, and then claiming they should be considered to be legal immigrants simply because they now have a close relative who is (technically) a citizen.

The latter has resulted in the killing of many millions of otherwise viable children in utero.

Let’s just say that this Amendment was a bad one from the start, and ought to have been repealed many years ago (say after the last surviving Confederate soldier died, since the driving purpose of the Amendment was to punish those pesky Rebels).

I’ve no idea how many gay people will now go out and get “married.” Estimates of what percentage of the population is gay vary, and to judge from the barrage of pro-gay sludge on television most people might think that, in the words of the Nirvana song, “everyone is gay,” but reality is that it’s not that many. The WaPo reported last year:

 The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

All things considered, those who might actually get “married” will be a small number relative to our married population. So, I say, they want to get “married,” fine. Just don’t force me to believe that any Bible-believing Christian would perform the ceremony in good conscience.

But here’s something to think about: if marriage between two males or two females is acceptable, why not a “marriage” among three or more adults? Hey Mormons and Muslims: bring on your polygamy. There are no rules here!

The Fourteenth Amendment, after all, requires that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.” At least it doesn’t require us to honor a marriage between a guy and his pet goat. Yet.

Do tell

This statement by a State Department flackette caught my eye: “We cannot win this war by killing them; we cannot kill our way out of this war.”

The context is our non-war war against ISIS/ISIL, the latest armed representatives of the Religion of Peace, a/k/a Islam.

It is one thing to “lead from behind,” or practice whatever “strategic patience” might be.

These are the excuses Obama and his acolytes use for not engaging in yet another war in the Middle East. While there may be good arguments to be made against engaging ISIS on the battlefield, that is not the point here. To speak of war as somehow not boiling down to killing a sufficient number of the enemy as to force them to surrender? Nonsense.

This is beyond naive. It is either mind-numbing stupidity, or it is simply throwing words out there at random, hoping that something sticks. Either way, such a statement ignores the blunt reality of every war ever fought successfully* by America: our enemies were only brought to heel by the killing of enough of their soldiers (and civilians, unfortunately) such that they had to either surrender or sue for peace.

Of course, you do other things while killing the enemy. You use propaganda, you try to convince the enemy’s citizens that they are on the wrong side, etc. What you don’t do is community organizing, attempting to get them a better broadband connection and job training. What do you do? Kill enough so that the costs of war are too great for the enemy to bear. Period.


*Not all wars ended successfully, of course. It is telling that of the two most recent major conflicts that we did not win, Vietnam and Korea, we did not go all-out. In Vietnam we tried “hearts and minds.” We lost. In Korea, we fought with one arm tied behind our back, and were not allowed to pursue the Communist Chinese troops across the Yalu. That one ended in, at best, a tie.


To those who did not read George Orwell’s 1984 and may be unfamiliar, at least give a quick read to the Wikipedia entry for Newspeak. Newspeak is what came immediately to mind when I heard the Obama administration unveil their new approach to Islamic terrorism.

The magnificent term is “strategic patience.” Ahh, what could be wrong with this? After all, the administration’s critics are always claiming that the Obambis don’t have a strategy for defeating ISIS and other Islamic terror groups. It is good to have a strategy, is it not?

And then there is “patience.” Is not patience a great virtue? Why, the very question answers itself. Of course it is. So, in combination, “strategic patience” must be a very, very good thing.

It is, usually, a good thing to have a strategy — so long as that strategy has any chance of actually doing something. But patience is not always a good thing. Not if it allows ISIS to become entrenched and even expand its reach. If a gang of Islamists is beheading, burning, and crucifying, then patience isn’t going to do much to save the innocents.

So, the usual suspects will bleat on about how wise Obama is, not to rush in like that over-achiever George W. Bush. On this issue, they will, again, simply be admiring the emperor who does not happen to be clothed. “Strategic patience” is just another way of saying “leading from behind.” Both of which are merely ways to appear to be doing something and hoping that someone else does the heavy lifting.

Except in today’s world there is no one else who is both willing and able to defeat ISIS and other Islamist terrorists. Those who praise Obama’s use of “strategic patience” are merely engaging in Duckspeak.

None dare call it treason

It was pretty clear that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was, at the very least, AWOL. It was far more likely, from the evidence provided by his Army mates who attempted to find him, that Bergdahl was a deserter. In case we’ve forgotten, desertion in time of war is punishable by execution. But let’s leave that for the time being; it’s not been proven in a court-martial that Bergdahl did desert. Due process and all of that.

But it was clear to anyone who has ever served in the military that what Bergdahl did was desertion. A despicable act in peace; an act that can cost lives in war. In this instance, Bergdahl’s actions, no matter what they are called in legal terms, apparently did result in the deaths of some of our servicemen who were sent on patrol to find him.

This was all known at the time of the infamous swap last year. Or should have been. But, in his rush to close our prison at Gitmo, Obama approved the swap. The best spin I can put on the action was that Obama, having made a campaign promise to close Gitmo, was not about to let anything stand in his way. Nevermind that those released are not unlikely to once again get into the business of killing Americans.

From the Daily Beast:

The five Guantanamo detainees released by the Obama administration in exchange for America’s last prisoner of war in Afghanistan, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, are bad guys. They are top Taliban commanders the group has tried to free for more than a decade.

According to a 2008 Pentagon dossier on Guantanamo Bay inmates, all five men released were considered to be a high risk to launch attacks against the United States and its allies if they were liberated.

Now, from the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, the definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

What might an objective observer call the release of five hard-core terrorists in exchange for a probable Army deserter? Does this not fit the common-sense definition of “aid and comfort?”

I say it does.

Less than zero

A story in the pot-head’s favorite rag alleges a brutal rape in a fraternity house at the University of Virginia. If it’s in Rolling Stone magazine, it must be true! in response to these allegations, the U-Va worthies have sprung into action. Something must be done!

Here’s today’s example of the hysterical over-reaction by U-Va’s governing board:

The University of Virginia’s governing board unanimously approved a statement of “zero tolerance” of sexual assault Tuesday, less than a week after a magazine story detailed an alleged gang rape in 2012 at a university fraternity…

…On Saturday, University President Teresa A. Sullivan suspended fraternity and sorority activities until Jan. 9 to give the community time to discuss the next steps.

So glad they clarified that. I had thought that the U-Va governing board had some tolerance for sexual assault. I stand corrected.

What these politically correct morons are doing is reacting to allegations of criminal behavior. Behavior which, if actually criminal and proven in a court of law, should lead to jail time. But such niceties of due process elude those on a witch hunt.

Here’s my obligatory disclaimer: I, too, have a zero tolerance for sexual assault. But, also, a zero tolerance for punishment for unproven allegations.


Perhaps it’s a consequence of being led by mush-minded progressives who believe that the primus inter pares of all virtues is getting multinational agreement and approval before the United States does anything.  This is the same mindset that got us the League of Nations and which pretends that the United Nations actually exists in anything but name, Manhattan traffic jams, and lovely formal dinners held at (mostly) U.S taxpayer expense.

One symptom of this disease, which was also shared by George W. Bush, is that we shall not go to war unless we have a lot of partners in a coalition.  In the current conflict against the latest offshoot of the Religion of Body Pieces, ISIS (the “Islamic State” that isn’t islamic, according to Dimbulb Kerry), the Obambis are jumping through hoops to claim that they’ve got lots and lots and lots of nations who are part of the coalition.   Hoo-rah.

Not that most members will be doing anything more than sending nice notes to our State Department, or, if they are particularly motivated, flying a couple of planes (which we will no doubt have to pay for in the long run).  But the point is not what little any of these allies of convenience might or might not do.  The point is quite simply:  Why do we worry about who will join us?

If our fight against ISIS is in our national security interest, then it matters not that Belgium, Britain, France, or Saudi Arabia are with us.  We will and ought to do what is needed, on our lonesome if necessary.

If, on the other hand, our fight against ISIS is not in our national security interest, then none of this is worth even mentioning.

The United States, pre-Obama, used to consider itself the lead nation in the Free World. Leaders stand tall in front and don’t beg for people (or nations) to follow.  Now, under Obama, we’re no longer exceptional, we’re just another happy United Nations member.  No more important than Gabon, Congo, or any other fly-speck of a nation.

It is always nice to have nations on your side.  It is not essential, if the mission is essential to our national security.


Well, my cousins in Scotland are now voting on whether they remain in the United Kingdom. The arguments for separation seem to boil down to Scottish ethnic pride. Period.

Not being one of them, I can’t know how prideful the Scots ought to be about the mere fact of being Scottish. But I do know that cold, hard economic facts are a far better basis for a long-lasting and successful nation. And Scotland is not going to be another Norway, with everybody on the dole forever and ever due to the North Sea’s oil bounty.

“Persistently disappointing revenues” is how The Telegraph describes that bounty. The problem is that the SNP wants to spread all the wealth around in a complete welfare state. And Scotland, if it casts itself adrift from Britain, simply is not economically up to that kind of socialist folly.

As far as Scottish pride goes, seems they are letting those who are not Scots vote. Specifically, citizens of any EU nation or Commonwealth nation who live in Scotland are eligible to vote. Which is hardly “Scottish” nationalism. They will also be letting 16- and 17-year olds vote. Good luck with that project: with too-few exceptions, those children don’t know much and are, shall we say, subject to hormonal swings. Look, I know: I was 16 once, and it wasn’t a pretty picture for logic and rational thought. And I’m pretty smart, at that: I knew everything that needed knowing when I was 16…(this is sarcasm; just can’t find the html tag for it).

All in all, if Scotland votes to secede from Britain, the gits, led by the SNP, will have their moment in the sun. Boy, will Scotland live to regret it.