The Gay Wedding Gotcha Question That Isn’t

TheFederalist.com:

It started with Marco Rubio, but the “would you attend a gay wedding” question is one that is rapidly being applied to the entirety of the potential 2016 field. Thus far, Rubio has said yes, Ted Cruz has demurred, and Rick Santorum stands alone as a “no”. John Kasich says yes, he’d attend a loved one’s gay wedding (and also that he’s waiting for a signal from God on whether or not to run). And Scott Walker one-ups them all by saying: I already did.

This has all the hallmarks of being a gotcha question that really isn’t, along the lines of last cycle’s “should states have the right to ban contraception?” questions from George Stephanopoulos. It’s not about whether you believe in federalism. It’s not about the philosophical interpretation of the roles of states or the rights of citizens. It’s a question designed to test your allegiances. It’s being asked this cycle by reporters because of the obvious tension within the Republican coalition between the social conservative base and the need to appeal to general election voters who are increasingly fine with gay marriage. As such, just like the 2012 contraception question, it’s not about a pressing policy issue. It’s about trying to find a subject where the natural voter’s response is “what? Don’t be ridiculous”, but Republican candidates’ responses will be a fifteen minute discourse on the finer points of Griswold v. Connecticut.

“Would you attend a gay wedding” is a matter of personal conscience. But that’s why it’s such an obvious opportunity for turning the question back on the actual policy battle at issue, a bit of ju jitsu I haven’t seen from any of the respondents yet. The whole point is that it’s your decision whether to attend or not. 

Conservatives and (most) libertarians believe people ought to be able to decide whether to freely associate with others themselves, not be dragooned by the force of government into mandatory associations as the secular left maintains. The entire point of religious freedom laws in Indiana and elsewhere is that we want to give people who say “I cannot in good conscience participate in this ceremony” the right to defend themselves in court based on their deeply held beliefs. That used to be a bipartisan principle, and now it’s effectively a monopartisan one – but it’s the right principle. A Republican Party unwilling to defend it has been reduced from a party founded on the idea that no man should work and toil and earn bread where another eats it… to one only ready to smash their clay fire pots and raise a sword in the air for the cause of the Keystone Pipeline and the Medical Device Tax.

Hugh Hewitt has probably done us all a favor by teeing it up on a radio show that will feature appearances by every 2016er early on, as opposed to leaving it until the debates. The downside is that just means that the question will have to be updated by the time everyone’s answering questions on stage. I’d suggest something like “Would you send your kids to a school that teaches the Bible says being gay is a sin?”, or “How many Sam Smith albums do you own?”, or “Would you order a pizza from someone who wouldn’t cater a gay wedding?”. Only once the voters know your stance on bigot pizza can they be fully informed as to which side of Culture War 4.0 you are on.

This is a test. It is an early test. It should be easy for Republicans to pass it.

RELATED:  Hugh Hewitt puts Cruz, Santorum on spot on same-sex marriage

Kirsten Powers Rips Obama for Being ‘Largely Silent’ on Christian Slaughter

Mediaite.com:

What do you call it when 12 men are drowned at sea for praying to Jesus?

Answer: Religious persecution. 

Yet, when a throng of Muslims threw a dozen Christians overboard a migrant ship traveling from Libya to Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi missed the opportunity to label it as such. Standing next to President Obama at their joint news conference Friday, Renzi dismissed it as a one-off event and said, "The problem is not a problem of (a) clash of religions."

While the prime minister plunged his head into the sand, Italian authorities arrested and charged the Muslim migrants with "multiple aggravated murder motivated by religious hate," according to the BBC.

As Renzi was questioned about the incident, Obama was mute on the killings. He failed to interject any sense of outrage or even tepid concern for the targeting of Christians for their faith. If a Christian mob on a ship bound for Italy threw 12 Muslims to their death for praying to Allah, does anyone think the president would have been so disinterested? When three North Carolina Muslims were gunned down by a virulent atheist, Obama rightly spoke out against the horrifying killings. But he just can't seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace.

Religious persecution of Christians is rampant worldwide, as Pew has noted, but nowhere is it more prevalent than in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where followers of Jesus are the targets of religious cleansing. Pope Francis has repeatedly decried the persecution and begged the world for help, but it has had little impact. Western leaders — including Obama — will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded. The president's mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually extracted after public outcry over his silence) are few and far between. And it will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries-old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians were at that moment being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered for their faith. 

A week and a half after Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being "people of the cross." Seven of the victims were former students of my friend and hero "Mama" Maggie Gobran, known as the "Mother Theresa of Cairo" for her work with the poorest of the poor. She told me these dear men grew up in rural Upper Egypt and had gone to Libya seeking work to support their families. They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Rather than hectoring Christians about their ancestors' misdeeds, Obama should honor these men and the countless Middle Eastern Christians persecuted before them. 

RELATED:  ‘Stunned’ Krauthammer calls Obama’s Prayer Breakfast lecture to Christians ‘banal and offensive’

Poll: Most Americans Say Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President

Townhall.com:

Clearly, as many pundits and politicians have already noted, authenticity is not Hillary Clinton's strong suit.

Coordinated and scripted campaign stops, gross pandering, and breathless statements about how she was once “dead broke” after leaving the White House have all contributed to the perception that the former first lady is profoundly unrelatable, and an insincere spokeswoman for the working class. 

Appearing fresh and dynamic, however, is an admittedly difficult task for any presidential contender, especially one who has been on the national stage for decades. But given her universal name recognition and heir apparent status, her path to the nomination seems preordained. Hence, her campaign is likely to continue following a scripted regiment of avoiding the media, shunning debates, and embracing the popular zeitgeist of our time that, after losing the Democratic nomination eight years ago to a truly exceptional campaigner, nothing can now stand in her way. 

Indeed, more than half the country already thinks she’s going to win the 2016 election outright, according to a new poll—even though more than one-third of Democrats think that the party “needs a fresh face" in 2016.

But to whom, I wonder, will they look? If a certain progressive senator continues to brush aside the suggestion that she's entering the ring, who will emerge as a credible and viable Democratic alternative? Joe Biden? Martin O’Malley? 

Please. Hillary Clinton, it seems reasonably safe to conclude, will face little or no opposition during the primary. Barring an amendment to the US Constitution allowing presidents to serve three executive terms, the Democrats are putting all their eggs into the Hillary Clinton basket. 

But can she deliver? Can she overcome the scandals and the controversies? That remains to be seen. But Hillary Clinton’s most acute weakness, I think, is that she does not appear to be genuine, approachable, or even trustworthy. Perhaps, as one writer recently put it, she really is the “Mitt Romney of the Democrats.”

We'll see. 

RELATED:  While Hillary Is Bad For America, She Might Be the GOP’s Savior

Rick Santorum: I Wouldn’t Attend a Loved One’s Gay Wedding

Mediaite.com:

Likely Republican presidential candidate and Rick Santorum would not attend the same-sex marriage of a loved one.

After the pair decried the media’s focus on the same-sex marriage fight — calling it something of a distraction from the Islamic State’s brutality abroad — conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked the former senator the same question Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked newly-announced candidate Marco Rubio on Wednesday: Would you attend the same-sex wedding of a loved one or anyone you are close to?

“I would not,” Santorum said, shocking no one. “As a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, uh, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”

A shame that most of these GOP Presidential candidates are doing such a poor job defending conservative ideals while handling the liberal media. I mean, here's the easy answer to this question: 'No, I wouldn't attend a gay marriage and nor would I attend a polygamist wedding either. Next question.'

RELATED: Limbaugh to GOP Candidates: Stop Doing Interviews with Hillary Media Surrogates

Liberal News Media Buries Story About Homosexual TSA Agent Molesting Male Airline Passengers

NBCNews.com:

Two Transportation Security Administration employees have been fired after they allegedly set up a system to allow a male screener to pat down attractive men going through security at Denver International Airport, authorities said. 

The employees were not identified, and there will be no criminal charges because no victims have come forward, according to a police report. 

Denver Police got involved in March, after a tipster brought it to the attention of the TSA in November, which conducted an investigation and contacted police. 

The male screener would give a signal to a female employee when a male passenger arrived that he thought was attractive, and she would falsely enter the sex of the passenger as female, so the machine would report an anomaly that triggered a pat down of a passenger's groin, police said in a report. 

She told the TSA investigators she did this for the other officer at least 10 times in the past, according to the report. 

A TSA investigator observed the scheme in action at 9:25 a.m. on Feb. 9, when he saw a screener give a signal to another and then pat down the passenger's groin and buttocks using the palms of his hands, which is forbidden by TSA rules, according to the police report. 

"These alleged acts are egregious and intolerable," the TSA said in a statement. "TSA has removed two officers from the agency." 

The Denver District Attorney's Office said that because the passenger who was patted down, who the TSA believes was flying with Southwest Airlines, hasn't come forward it could not file charges in the "unlawful sexual contact" case. The case is still being reviewed for other possible charges, a spokeswoman for the DA's office said Tuesday. 

RELATED:  Obama’s Legacy: Transgender Bathroom Crusade

Orthodox News Site Censors ‘Pornographic Symbol’ Kim Kardashian

Mediaite.com:

In accordance with their religious beliefs, Orthodox Jewish news services frequently censor women from photos, a policy that tends to garner headlines: A New York paper was forced to apologize to the White House for removing Hillary Clinton from the famous Situation Room photo taken during Osama bin Laden’s assassination, and earlier this year, Israeli paper HaMevaser became the subject of international scrutiny after it erased Angela Merkel from a photo of the Charlie Hebdo march.

The industry’s apparent takeaway: They shouldn’t use Photoshop to censor the women, but more clever methods seem a-ok.

In a report about Kimye’s recent visit to Jerusalem, Israeli-based paper Kikar HaShabbat removed Kim Kardashian from an AP photo showing her and her husband, Kanye West, having dinner with Jerusalem’s mayor Nir Barkat. Instead of Photoshop, they just covered her with a receipt, and then chided Barkat for eating with Kimye at a non-kosher restaurant:

According to the AP, another photograph simply blurred her out of a photo, and Kardashian was repeatedly not referred to by name, but as “West’s wife.”

Editor Nissim Ben Haim defended the website’s decision, saying that Kardashian was a “pornographic symbol” who goes against Orthodox values, which, we suppose, is true.

RELATED:  Kim Kardashian And Kanye West Baptize North West In Jerusalem

Chris Christie Says He ‘Will Beat’ Hilary Clinton In 2016, Boasts New Jersey Re-Election Numbers

Inquisitr.com:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t see Hilary Clinton as much of a treat. The 2016 presidential campaign hopeful has boldly professed that his proven track record of getting elected and re-elected is much more impressive than Clinton’s.

“If I run, I will beat her.”

Chris Christie has been thought to be the fourth Republican candidate, according to USA Today, but has failed to announce his candidacy even after Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have already entered the race. It is believed that Christie has been trying to fully establish a domestic and international image before he jumps in. In 2014, he did so with a trip to the U.K., which reportedly didn’t go as planned. Currently, Governor Christie is on the road visiting places like New Hampshire to talk up Social Security and Medicare, two matters that Christie sees as a huge government spending issue.

The New Jersey Governor recently spoke about the many U.S. states where he knows he will be successful.

On his list are many blue states, a few of which President Barack Obama took in his 2008 and 2012 elections. Even with all of the qualifications the other candidates have, Christie believes that he can win states like Pennsylvania, simply because the people there are familiar with him. He recently stated that such states would vote for him because they are “familiar with the type of leadership” that he could bring to the country.

Chris Christie went on to name other states that would particularly benefit from having him in office because of his New Jersey track record. In the Garden State, Christie lead the south through the Hurricane Sandy crisis, cut government funds on failing cities to start fresh and made moves with education reform in failing cities like Newark, Trenton and Camden. Christie believes that these actions were that reason he has had success in getting votes from a wide demographic pool.

“If was re-elected in that state less than a year and a half ago with 61% of the vote, 51% of the Hispanic vote, 22% of the African-American vote and 56% of the female vote,” he said. “Those are the type of numbers we’re going to have to run up across the country and to be able to have the type of sweeping victory you want to have to maintain a Republican House and Senate, and have a Republican president.”

So far, Christie has made Americans aware of his potential entry to the race. The fifth candidate, Ben Carson is announcing his entry on May 4th. So, what Chris Christie is waiting for?

RELATED: Christie: I'm still relevant to 2016

Fareed Zakaria and Bill Maher Battle Over Islam: You’re Not Pushing Reform, ‘You’re Getting Applause Lines’

Mediaite.com:

Fareed Zakaria confronted Bill Maher on his show tonight over his frequent criticisms of Islam, telling him that he’s just doing it for “applause lines” and that won’t actually help reform the religion.

Maher reiterated the “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” critique after talking about the Boston bomber, and Zakaria told him that he’s not going to win hearts and minds if he’s just insulting an entire religion and tell people their faith “sucks.” There needs to be, Zakaria said, “some sense of respect” in how the argument for reform is framed.

Maher bewilderedly asked Zakaria if he honestly doubts that many followers of Islam have rather backwards beliefs. Zakaria said they don’t in some nations, acknowledged his own criticisms of Islam, and told Maher all he’s doing is “getting applause lines.”

Maher responded that it’s a little “insulting,” but Zakaria said people “feel like their religion is being insulted” when people like Maher critique it.

RELATED: Twitter Says It Suspended 10,000 ISIS-Linked Accounts in One Day

Richard Bradley: Ellen Pao Married To "Former" Gay Man Buddy Fletcher Who's Deeply In Debt & Known For Filing Dubious Lawsuits

RichardBradley.net:

I’ve been following the Silicon Valley story of Ellen Pao with interest. Pao is the former partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins who is now suing the firm, alleging sex discrimination. She claims that she was treated differently than male employees were; Kleiner claims, basically, that she wasn’t very good.

The case has attracted enormous interest in Silicon Valley as an avatar for discussion about gender imbalance in the tech world.

It’s certainly interesting, from that perspective. But I’ve been following it closely for another reason: Ellen Pao is married to a man whom I’ve written about in depth. His name is Buddy Fletcher, and and he has a history of filing dubious lawsuits inspired by perceived slights and financial desperation. In my opinion he is, at the very least, a scoundrel; the forces of law may yet prove him a criminal. 

I wrote about Fletcher in Boston magazine; he’s a Harvard graduate, an African-American man, who went to Wall Street and tried to make a lot of money. He left his first job at the brokerage firm Kidder Peabody and promptly filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. Like Ellen Pao, Fletcher charged that he was treated differently from the great majority of employees whose identity did not match his. In my article, I found that the grounds for that lawsuit were thin at best. Fletcher didn’t win it—in fact, he lost the ruling on whether he was discriminated against—but he was awarded back pay of about a million dollars. He claimed that as a victory, and the press played along. So when Fletcher opened a hedge fund that appeared to generate remarkable, almost unbelievable returns, the press proclaimed him a financial genius—an African-American who had taken lily-white Wall Street by storm. 

He is broke now, because he is not a financial genius, and there is ample suggestion that he is broke even though he siphoned money from his hedge fund—including retirement money from Louisiana firefighters—to support a lavish lifestyle that included the ownership of three apartments at the Dakota, John Lennon’s old apartment building in New York. (If you don’t know it—it’s pricey.) That didn’t stop him, after he tried to buy a fourth and was rejected by the board after it scrutinized the state of his finances, from suing the apartment building for racial discrimination. That suit trudges endlessly on, even though Fletcher has gone through teams of lawyers because he consistently declines to pay them. 

One other fact about Fletcher that’s worth knowing: Until he fled New York, married Ellen Pao and had a baby, he had lived his entire adult life as a gay man. Not bisexual—gay. 

The judge in Pao’s case has ruled that none of this is admissible, and I think that’s the right decision; in court, Pao’s allegations should stand or fall on their own merits. The mainstream media seems to have decided that it’s sexist or something to write about her marriage, and so I haven’t seen a single smart article that really explores her relationship with Fletcher and whether it’s had any impact on her decision to sue Kleiner Perkins.

But I can’t help but think that her relationship with Fletcher is relevant, even if you can’t establish that legally. I’ll be honest: First, the fact that Pao married him makes me wonder about her, and not just because of his sexual orientation. It just wouldn’t take much digging to find out that Fletcher’s financial ethics are highly questionable. Either Pao didn’t care—not great—or didn’t know. In which case, you have to wonder what kind of a venture capitalist she is. If can’t do basic due diligence on a marital prospect about whom much has been written, how could you be trusted to give good advice on a company in which to invest millions?

It’s also hard not to wonder if the suit isn’t inspired by Fletcher in some way; until the past couple of years, he had made quite a lot of money off allegations of racism and the use of race as a marketing tool. 

And the other way it could have been inspired by him, of course, is due to the fact that he needs the money. He is more than broke; he’s deeply in debt. I don’t know how many lawsuits he’s now defending himself against, but the latest was filed a day or so ago.

Ellen Pao could conceivably make tens of millions of dollars off her lawsuit—the jury is deliberating even as I write this—which probably wouldn’t resolve all of her husband’s financial issues, but would certainly help. 

Remember, as the Rolling Stone/UVA brouhaha proved: for the Left, it's all about the marrative, screw the facts.

RELATED:  Sex, Lies, and Lawsuits

Pope Francis Reportedly Rejects New, Openly Gay French Ambassador to Vatican

Mediaite.com:

Pope Francis has reportedly rejected the nomination of a French ambassador to the Vatican because he is openly gay. Laurent Stefanini was nominated for the position back in January, but the Vatican has made no public statements on whether they will accept his credentials.

And according to multiple news reports, the Vatican generally takes a month and a half to accept such nominations; any longer and it’s taken as a silent rejection.

And at least one French news outlet reports the decision not to accept Stefanini was made by Pope Francis himself.

The pope, of course, is personally against gay marriage, but has talked of people loving their gay brothers and sisters and said the Catholic Church should stop “obsessing” over gay marriage and abortion.

Wow, the leader of the Catholic church and its doctrine, standing up to the Godless Left and not wanting hypocritical gay priests amongst his leaders?! How dare he???

RELATED: The Left’s love affair with Pope Francis may be cooling off