Laverne Cox Is Not A Woman

Couldn't agree more. But remember, Godless liberals don't deal well with facts, they only deal with feelings:

The world is abuzz with news that actor Laverne Cox has become the first transgender person to appear on the cover of Time magazine. If I understand the current state of the ever-shifting ethic and rhetoric of transgenderism, that is not quite true: Bradley Manning, whom we are expected now to call Chelsea, beat Cox to the punch by some time. Manning’s announcement of his intention to begin living his life as a woman and to undergo so-called sex-reassignment surgery came after Time’s story, but, given that we are expected to defer to all subjective experience in the matter of gender identity, it could not possibly be the case that Manning is a transgendered person today but was not at the time of the Time cover simply because Time was unaware of the fact, unless the issuance of a press release is now a critical step in the evolutionary process.

As I wrote at the time of the Manning announcement, Bradley Manning is not a woman. Neither is Laverne Cox.

Cox, a fine actor, has become a spokesman — no doubt he would object to the term — for trans people, whose characteristics may include a wide variety of self-conceptions and physical traits. Katie Couric famously asked him about whether he had undergone surgical alteration, and he rejected the question as invasive, though what counts as invasive when you are being interviewed by Katie Couric about features of your sexual identity is open to interpretation. Couric was roundly denounced for the question and for using “transgenders” as a noun, and God help her if she had misdeployed a pronoun, which is now considered practically a hate crime.

The phenomenon of the transgendered person is a thoroughly modern one, not in the sense that such conditions did not exist in the past — Cassius Dio relates a horrifying tale of an attempted sex-change operation — but because we in the 21st century have regressed to a very primitive understanding of reality, namely the sympathetic magic described by James George Frazer in The Golden Bough. The obsession with policing language on the theory that language mystically shapes reality is itself ancient — see the Old Testament — and sympathetic magic proceeds along similar lines, using imitation and related techniques as a means of controlling reality. The most famous example of this is the voodoo doll. If an effigy can be made sufficiently like the reality it is intended to represent, then it becomes, for the mystical purposes at hand, a reality in its own right. The infinite malleability of the postmodern idea of “gender,” as opposed to the stubborn concreteness of sex, is precisely the reason the concept was invented. For all of the high-academic theory attached to the question, it is simply a mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality. Facebook now has a few score options for describing one’s gender or sex, and no doubt they will soon match the number of names for the Almighty in one of the old mystery cults.

Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman. Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.

Genital amputation and mutilation is the extreme expression of the phenomenon, but it is hardly outside the mainstream of contemporary medical practice. The trans self-conception, if the autobiographical literature is any guide, is partly a feeling that one should be living one’s life as a member of the opposite sex and partly a delusion that one is in fact a member of the opposite sex at some level of reality that transcends the biological facts in question. There are many possible therapeutic responses to that condition, but the offer to amputate healthy organs in the service of a delusional tendency is the moral equivalent of meeting a man who believes he is Jesus and inquiring as to whether his insurance plan covers crucifixion.

This seems to me a very different sort of phenomenon from simple homosexuality (though, for the record, I believe that our neat little categories of sexual orientation are yet another substitution of the conceptual for the actual, human sexual behavior being more complex and varied than the rhetoric of sexual orientation can accommodate). The question of the status of gay people interacts with politics to the extent that it in some cases challenges existing family law, but homosexual acts as such seem to me a matter that is obviously, and almost by definition, private. The mass delusion that we are inculcating on the question of transgendered people is a different sort of matter, to the extent that it would impose on society at large an obligation — possibly a legal obligation under civil-rights law, one that already is emerging — to treat delusion as fact, or at the very least to agree to make subjective impressions superordinate to biological fact in matters both public and private.

As a matter of government, I have little or no desire to police how Cox or any other man or woman conducts his or her personal life. But having a culture organized around the elevation of unreality over reality in the service of Eros, who is a sometimes savage god, is not only irrational but antirational. Cox’s situation gave him an intensely unhappy childhood and led to an eventual suicide attempt, and his story demands our sympathy; times being what they are, we might even offer our indulgence. But neither of those should be allowed to overwhelm the facts, which are not subject to our feelings, however sincere or well intended.

RELATED:  National Review Writer: Laverne Cox’s Trans Identity Is ‘Delusional’

Liberal TIME Magazine Emasculates The Black Male By Featuring 1st Tranny (Who Just Happens To Be Black) On Cover

"Transsexuals" (or 'trannies') are morally bankrupt, confused souls who dissatisfied with the biological sex organs they were born with, make false claims against God stating that there must have been a "mistake" due to their own issues with gender identity. This choice of gender non-conforming creates a "victimhood" which in turn leads to a creation of "rights" for trannies by white liberals hellbent on creating a Godless society and making it the new normal. Of course, according to Godless white liberals (and their simple-minded advocates of the Left) this is all in the name of "equality", so in no way, shape or form does putting the first tranny on the cover TIME magazine (who just happens to be black) have to do with emasculating the black man or equating "transexual rights" with civil rights. Nor should anyone be bothered by the high rate of transsexual men who use their "victimhood" as an excuse to deceive straight men. Nor should anyone be bothered by the white liberals equation of race with unGodly sex acts. Nosirree:

"Orange Is the New Black" actress Laverne Cox is starring in arguably the biggest role of her career — as a real life mainstream icon to millions.

Time magazine tapped the transgender actress for its cover story entitled, "The Transgender Tipping Point."

Cox — who has used her fame from starring on the Netflix prison drama to campaign for equal rights regardless of gender identity — recounted being beaten with drumsticks as a boy who looked feminine by members of his school's band.

She also told the magazine of an even uglier incident during her childhood in Alabama, which didn't involve any physical blows.

RELATED: Houston Mayor Forces All to Open Girls Rooms to Men

The Queen Of Mean: 15 Times Michelle Obama Was A Very Angry First Lady — Tantrums, Feuds, Fights & More!

RadarOnline.com:

Last week, former staffer Reid Cherlin called Michelle’s office a “miserable place to work” in an essay for The New Republic, claiming there was an inappropriate focus on fashion and intra-office politicking instead of making real change. The White House said in a statement, “From day one, the First Lady ambitiously set out to make a measurable impact on the lives of everyday American families. The First Lady is laser-focused on moving the needle wherever and whenever possible.”

2 of 15

After working on the 2008 Obama campaign, digital activist Scott Goodstein said he’d clashed with Mrs. O. “I got yelled at by Michelle Obama for creating ringtones,” he said. “‘Oh my god you’re turning him into a hip hop star’ [she yelled,] ‘Novelty cell-phone rings are not going to get anyone elected President!’ Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people were joining the mobile program to download ringtones.”

3 of 15

In 2013, one heckler learned the hard way that Mrs. Obama will not back down from controversy. After an audience member yelled out during her speech, Obama snapped, “One of the things that i don’t do well is [deal with hecklers]. Do you understand me? Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”

4 of 15

Cameras caught the First Lady in an epic eye roll during the Inauguration Day luncheon in 2013. According to reports, she overheard John Boehner teasing the president about his smoking habit, but Boehner’s people later denied it.

5 of 15

Speaking of cigs, the Prez has said Michelle’s why he quit. “I haven’t had a cigarette in years,” he said in 2013. “That’s because I’m scared of my wife!”

6 of 15

When Barack became a state Senator in 2004, he has admitted that Michelle was unhappy with his time away from home — and she made it clear. “Leaning down to kiss Michelle goodbye in the morning, all I would get was a peck on the cheek,” he wrote in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope. “My wife’s anger toward me seemed barely contained.”

7 of 15

During a 2004 campaign trip in Illinois, Barack was called away from a planned family RV trip, leaving Michelle livid. The Chicago Tribune’s David Mendell, who covered the trip, said, “The tension between Michelle and her husband was palpable.

8 of 15

According to a 2009 report in Star magazine, Barack “thought public school would be” fine for daughters Sasha and Malia upon their move to DC, “but Michelle is the boss. She put her foot down and now the girls go to Sidwell Friends School.”

9 of 15

Biographer Christopher Anderson wrote in Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage that the First Lady did not appreciate her husband’s flirtatious banter with his constituents. He alleges she complained, “I want to tell these women, ‘Back off. Get a life.’ It’s just embarrassing.”

10 of 15

And in another passage, Anderson says Barack told his wife that he wished women in the crowd would stop “grabbing my a**.” Michelle is said to have sniped, “He’s loving it. He’s a man isn’t he?” Anderson claims.

RELATED: Michelle Obama's control-freak lunch program

Richard Martinez, California Shooting Victim’s Father Goes Off on ‘Idiots’ in Congress: ‘Have We Learned Nothing’ Since Newtown?

As long as you have extremists on both sides, more interested in their self-serving ideology than actually saving lives, the chances on there being any significant change on gun control in the near future is between nil and none. That being said, maybe somebody should hip Richard Martinez to the Safe to Tell Hotline, now instituted in Colorado, as an answer--considering all the videos/red flags this killer/idiot/coward gave out before he went on his mass shooting spree, perhaps Safe to Tell could've worked in this situation and prevented the deaths of the innocent lives now lost:

Following his impassioned words against the NRA during Saturday afternoon’s press conference, Richard Martinez, father of Chris Martinez, one of the people shot and killed by Elliot Rodger Friday evening, spoke to CNN about his loss and what he plans to do to help prevent even more incidents like this one.

“He’s our only child and he died on Friday. I’m 61 years old now. I’ll never have another child and he’s gone,” Martinez said through tears. “So the reason I’m doing this to try to see if we can do anything to make my son’s death mean something. Because that’s all we have got.”

Martinez castigated the media for focusing on the shooter while ignoring the victims. “If there’s all these things in the media about the shooter, and there’s nothing about the victims, then it sends the wrong message and the people need to understand that real people died here,” he said. 

When he was asked about Congress’ lack of action on guns following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Martinez asked in return, “What kind of message does it send to the world when we have such a rudderless bunch of idiots in government? I can’t tell you how angry I am it’s just awful!”

He continued, growing more heated and hysterical with every word:

“What has changed? Have we learned nothing? These things are going to continue until somebody does something, so where the hell is the leadership? Where the hell are these people we elect to Congress that we spend so much money on? These people are getting rich sitting in Congress, what do they do? They don’t take care of our kids.

My kid died because nobody responded to what happened at Sandy Hook. Those parents lost little kids. It’s bad enough that I lost my 20-year-old, but I had 20 years with my son, that’s all I’ll have. But those people lost their children at six and seven years old. How do you think they feel? And who’s talking to them now? Who is doing anything for them now? Who is standing up for those kids that died back then in an elementary school? Why wasn’t something done? It’s outrageous!”

As the video shows, Martinez continued to rail against a system that he believes failed to protect his son along with so many others, but, for now, CNN cut away to commercial.

RELATED: Why Mass Killers Are Always Male

Stephen A. Smith Goes on EPIC Rant About Mark Cuban and Race After Being Labeled an ‘Uncle Tom’

TheBlaze.com:

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith refused to backdown on Friday after he came under fire for defending Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban’s comments about bigotry in a recent interview. Despite being labeled an “Uncle Tom” and a “sellout” by some in the black community, Smith made it clear that he stands by what he said “100-fold.”

“‘Stephen A. Smith is a sellout,’ ‘Stephen A. Smith is an Uncle Tom,’ ‘Stephen A. Smith ain’t black,’ ‘you ain’t one of us’ — these are the kinds of things that were said to me yesterday,” Smith said on ESPN’s “First Take” Friday.

Regardless, he said he doesn’t care who disagrees with him and they would be smart not to expect an apology.

“When I say I don’t give a damn… that does it no justice,” Smith said. “I stand by everything that I said yesterday tenfold, 100-fold. And I don’t care who in the black community disagrees with me — I’m not interested in their disagreement on this particular issue because they are not looking at the bigger picture here.”

While Cuban did say he’d “cross the street” if he saw a black kid in a hoodie at night, he also said “in the same breath” that he’d have reservations about a bald guy with tattoos all over his body, he continued.

“Everybody wants to ignore that,” Smith said. “I don’t want to say everybody because I’m not speaking for everybody. … We want to pounce on him making this statement and alluding the black folks or talking about somebody in a hoodie that happens to be black… He talked about the prejudices that exist in all spectrums by all of us. Are we going to sit here and literally act like we don’t have any prejudices?”

Smith went on to argue that what Cuban said is “100 percent correct.” The commentator also addressed the “elephant in the room,” which he said many white people won’t talk about out of fear of being labeled “racist.”

“I look at our unemployment rate consistently being double that of folks in white America. I do understand that, to some degree, there’s a level of racism that we all have to overcome… but that doesn’t mean every single issue is race related,” he said. “Sometimes it is about how you represent yourself, it is about how you present yourself.”

He wasn’t even close to done:

“When I talk about not having a command of the English language, and still you want a job, and you want to have a career, but you don’t want to get your education, you don’t want to go out there and pound that pavement. Everything’s about the sprint, it’s not about the marathon, it’s not about you putting forth the necessary effort and due diligence over the long haul to get the thing you need. That’s a reality in our community.”

Smith also explained that not everyone in the black community can be Lebron James, Jay Z or Dwayne Wade — because they are “special.”

The rappers and professional athletes don’t represent the real “American dream,” they represent a “fantasy turned reality,” he added. Rather, Smith said he looks at himself as a good representation of that dream.

“Queens, New York City, left back in the fourth grade, grew up poor, the lever of education that I had was a public school system, I ultimately graduate from high school, I go to a historically black institution like Winston-Salem State University, I graduate with honors, there is no journalism program, I still graduate with honors, I still beat out thousands of people to get an internship… and I’m on national TV everyday.”

RELATED: Is Mark Cuban ‘Racist’? CNN’s Don Lemon and Marc Lamont Hill Hash It Out

Catholic School Principal Apologizes for Using Photo of ‘Poor Role Model’ Ellen DeGeneres

Of course, if it hasn't started already, expect the pushback from the Gay Mafia to be quick and severe. After all, with her adept use of passive-aggressiveness, Ellen DeGeneres has positioned herself as the queen of the Godless, pro-gay agenda. And like her counterpart, Barack Obama, the liberal media cannot say anything bad about Ellen (despite her moral bankruptcy and many professional failures), more reason to go after anyone who dares to speak her name openly in a negative manner:

A Catholic school in Pennsylvania sent out invitations to a graduation dance that prominently featured a photo of Ellen DeGeneres. The principal quickly realized her mistake, apologized for including an openly gay person on the invite, and vowed to personally destroy every single copy of the invitation she could get her hands on.

Principal Nancy Matteo said it was “completely wrong” to include such a “poor role model” on the invite, especially considering her sexuality and that she “lives her life outside the teachings of the Catholic Church.” She claims she was “distracted” when she included the photo, by the way.

In an e-mail to parents asking for the invites back, Matteo said, “I need every single invitation returned and I will personally destroy them… Once again, I am sorry for my lack of forethought. I look forward to receiving the old invitations and distributing new ones.”

RELATED:  Adam Carolla: The gay mafia is real

Study: Women Slut-Shame Each Other On Twitter as Much as Men Do

"Slut-shaming", another term/cause celebre by white leftists to fight the "war on women":

A British study has revealed that women are tweeting slurs that are derogatory to their own gender almost as frequently and viciously as men. But is this really so surprising?

In the 2004 film Mean Girls, Tina Fey’s character, a high school math teacher, addresses a gymnasium full of clashing teenage girls about what she dubs “girl-on-girl crime”: “You’ve got to stop calling each other sluts and whores,” she pleads. “It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores.” Her message, along with much of the film’s, is clear: females can be their own gender’s worst enemy.

While that’s a truth that’s largely accepted about high school girls – where cliques and bullying are defining characteristics of the environment – it’s also an outlook that often carries over into adulthood. And not entirely without reason.

Last week, UK think tank Demos released a study that examined online misogyny and who, precisely, was behind it. Looking at tweets that used the words “rape,” “whore,” and “slut” that were sent from UK-based accounts between Dec. 26, 2013 and Feb. 9, 2014, the study found that more than 100,000 messages used the word “rape,” while 85,000 used the term “slut” and 48,000 used the word “whore.”

Naturally, a large proportion of the tweets were inoffensive – ie they shared news stories about rape or advocated against the use of misogynistic terms – but many were used in an offensive, off-handed way or worse. Around 12 percent of tweets that contained the word “rape” and 20 percent that contained “slut” or “whore,” seemed to be intended as a direct threat or insult. But the most surprising element of the research – according to the think tank – was the revelation that women were almost as likely to send tweets with the words “slut,” “whore” or “rape” – used both casually and offensively – as men were. Demos’ analysis found that accounts with male names used one of the words 116,530 times, while accounts with female names did so 94,546 times.

Is this surprising? It seems perplexing that great numbers of women are tweeting misogynistic insults that are derogatory to their own gender. But when you take a closer look, it’s not actually all that surprising that women are capable of bullying and gross misogyny, particularly online. Research has shown time and time again, that hostility toward women thrives online. Women are routinely subject to harassment, sexist attacks and rape and death threats online. In January this year, two people in the UK pleaded guilty in court to sending menacing tweets about British feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez and were sentenced to jail time. One of the culprits was a woman, 23-year-old Isabella Sorley.

That women are behind some of those attacks doesn’t come as a surprise to Cheryl Dellasega, a professor at the Pennsylvania State University and author of the book Mean Girls Grown Up. She says that women – and men – often adopt the dominant attitude and language that’s used around them in order to fit in. “You have to comply the norm,” she says. “Even if it’s a norm you don’t like.”

RELATED: Guest commentary: Dems Exploit Women in Fake War

White, Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller Plays Race Card On Opposition To Obamacare

What a comfortable times we live in, when white, liberals (thanks mostly to their collective effort to place a half-black face on the presidency) can play the race card on anyone who dares to oppose The One:

HotAir.com:

I’m used to this by now but I can’t tell you how dispiriting I find it knowing that we’re in for four or even eight years of it under President Hillary, to whom all resistance will inevitably be dismissed as vestiges of sexism. (Hillary herself has already begun to feed that beast.) In fact, I think this sort of demagoguery will happen much more frequently under Clinton than it has under Obama. There’s more to be gained from it politically: Electoral returns from racism charges are marginal because Democrats already win 90+ percent of the black vote, but women’s votes are hotly contested. The gender gap has been crucial to Democratic gains over the past eight years; they have every incentive to cry sexism early and often in the interest of making that gap wider. Also, call me naive but I think there are some — some — Dems who recognize how grave the charge of racism is and tend to shy away from it. Inveterate race-baiters like Jim Clyburn, who can find a Reconstruction analogy in the Benghazi hearings, aren’t deterred, but not all Democrats are as quick to take the gloves off. I think they’ll be quicker on the charge of sexism, simply because it doesn’t carry quite the same stigma as an accusation of racism does. (Whether it should is a separate question.) Prepare for lots, lots more of this in years to come.

Two noteworthy details here. One: Rockefeller couldn’t be more casual in lobbing his grenade. He’s not out at a fundraiser with a drink in his hand, mindlessly babbling to some reporter with his guard down. He’s at an actual Senate hearing with a Republican senator sitting right in front of him, and yet it’s bombs away — and not for the first time. Congressional rules of decorum forbid swearing and personal insults, but if you want to charge the other side with racism for questioning Obama’s pet boondoggle, fire away. Two: Unlike most instances where this accusation is made, the target was present and eager to respond. Watch the very beginning and then the last few minutes of the second clip to see Johnson hit back. I would have walked out if I were him, but admittedly, his approach is smarter.

RELATED:  Rep. Clyburn: Benghazi Committee ‘Same Kind of Thing’ That Led to End of Reconstruction

California Governor Jerry Brown Lies and Blames Rising Seawater on Climate Change

LATimes.com:

An aide to Jerry Brown confirmed Wednesday that the governor was wrong when he said global warming would eventually cause rising seawater to inundate Los Angeles International Airport.

Citing new studies, Brown called attention to the global warming issue on Tuesday, saying a predicted 4-foot rise in sea level within the next 200 years could force the relocation of LAX at a cost of billions of dollars.

But various sources say that the nation’s third-busiest airport -- bordered by the Pacific Ocean -- has elevations ranging from 108 feet to 126 feet and is protected by higher coastal bluffs on the west side.

“The governor misspoke about LAX,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the Brown administration.

Environmental officials for Los Angeles World Airports, the operator of LAX, said the airport has an elevation of more than 120 feet. “A 4-foot rise in sea level,” they said, “should have minimal impact on airport operations.”

In addition, a recent study by USC's Sea Grant Program did not identify LAX as one of the coastal areas in Los Angeles threatened by sea level rise.

Airport officials said, however, that any organization with coastal structures should be concerned about the potential adverse impact of climate change. They added that the airport department is part of a citywide effort to explore and plan ways to cope with predicted increases in sea level.

During a news conference Tuesday in Los Angeles, Brown mentioned current research, which concluded that a 4-foot rise in the world’s oceans could happen within 200 years as a massive cluster of glaciers melts in Antarctica.

RELATED:  Pat Sajak: People Who Believe in Climate Change Are ‘Unpatriotic Racists’

‘Grow a Pair and Stick Up for them Damn Selves’: CA Mayor Cameron Hamilton Rightfully Addresses Bullying

"Bullyling", the latest cause celebre for weak, anti-God, liberals, gets some needed pushback from a local 
California mayor:

A California mayor is coming under fire for comments he made last week about bullying. Porterville Mayor Cameron Hamilton said during a city council meeting that while he’s against bullying, he’s tired of it being used as a “mantra” and said some kids should just “grow a pair” and defend themselves.

The city council was debating setting up a “safe zone” to combat bullying at local schools. The proposal would designate areas where kids can go to get help if they’re dealing with bullying at school. A frustrated Hamilton spoke up and said, “I’m against bullying, but I’m getting damn tired of it being used as a mantra for everything, and the ills of the world. All most people just have to grow a pair, and stick up for them damn selves.”

One councilwoman retorted, “It’s hard to just grow a pair when you’re a 10-year-old little girl.” Hamilton fired back, “Then maybe the other 10 year olds that think they want to stop bullying will stand up for her, instead of a safe zone with a placard and a bunch of training that goes on.”

Some local residents have already voiced their outrage. Melissa McMurray, from the group Gay Porterville, lambasted Hamilton for the remarks, explaining that what he said sounded a lot like a “witch hunt,” even though that wasn’t the intention of the safe zone proposal.

RELATED: Bullying battle: California city could become nation's first no-tolerance zone for bullies

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/18/14

Romney Calls for NH Police Commissioner to Apologize, Resign for Obama Slur

Taser Death Could Get Supreme Court Review

Christians Sin by Putting Kids in Public School

The Pill Kills Families

Catholic Cardinal: Obamacare Regulation ‘Violates God’s Law’

Karl Rove Is Right About Hillary's Health

Suspend Your Reality For Godzilla: It’s An Anti-Global-Warming Alarmism Smash

Sports Illustrated's McCann Lumps Pro-Traditional Marriage Supporters With Actual Criminals
 
10,000 Young Toddlers Are on Stimulant Drugs for ADHD
 
GOP Iraq War Vet Blasts ‘Democratic Hacks’ Who Called Him a ‘Coward’

The God of Liberalism

Kristol on NYT: Liberals Worried About ‘Persecution’ of Someone Making $750K

How Godless Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments

WND.com:

One of my readers, we’ll call him Moses, is the publisher of a mainstream newspaper in California. He wrote me the other day with an insightful observation. Since Moses works in one of the most liberal industries, in one of the most liberal states in the union, I won’t divulge his real name. We don’t want Moses tarred, feathered and banished to Oklahoma with a scarlet “C,” for Christian, emblazoned on his Harris Tweed sport coat. (Note: I have antipathy toward neither Oklahoma – I once lived there – nor Harris Tweed, though I do recommend against wearing Harris Tweed in Oklahoma. Especially in the summer.)

“Matt, think about this,” wrote Moses. “Every one of the Ten Commandments is explicitly violated by a principle of the left.”

So I thought about it.

And you know what? Slap me with a Red River catfish if Moses ain’t exactly right.

To be sure, as individuals, we’ve all violated many, if not most or all, of the 10 Commandments. In our fallen, sinful state we have an inherent propensity to rebel against God’s perfect and holy will for our lives. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Thank God for making available a path, narrow as it is, for eternal redemption and salvation through Christ Jesus.

Still, there is a difference between individual sins and a philosophical worldview that embraces those sins as a matter of course. Modern liberalism – “progressivism,” leftism, secularism, pick your poison – is built upon, by and for sin itself. Liberalism’s entire fabric is constructed by precept planks that are soaked through and stained by man’s arrogant rebellion against our Creator God.

In sum, liberalism is folly. It represents man’s futile attempt to disorder God’s natural order. It’s the unholy brainchild of God’s very first enemy, given by that enemy to God’s favored creation, us, with the sole purpose of destroying that creation.

Unfortunately, we’re all too happy to help. Liberalism just formalizes the process, making sin public policy.
Volumes could be penned on the myriad ways in which the central tenets of liberalism violate each of the Ten Commandments. The following is a much truncated analysis:

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17):

1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.

At worst, liberalism denies the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, it adopts that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberal “Christianity” falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp.

Secular humanism, liberalism’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images.

We’re talking idolatry here. Liberalism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry (the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects) enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc.
Essentially, liberalism worships the created over the Creator. Liberalism also worships the sins of the flesh (see Commandments No. 1, 6 and 7).

3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain.

To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain. Liberalism does this and much more. Many liberals also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. They hate truth.

4. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.

This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law – the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a holy significance.

5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.

Liberalism seeks to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “gay marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these cornerstone institutions.

6. Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Abortion, euthanasia, “pro-choice,” “reproductive rights,” “death with dignity.” Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the liberal rite of passage for a feminist mother to slaughter her own child in the womb. Fifty-five million dead babies later, liberals continue to worship at the pagan altar of “choice” (see Commandments No. 1 and 2).

7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include marital infidelity, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, et al. Liberalism, it seems, embraces all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. Central to liberalism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, you can do no wrong because there is no wrong.

8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.

With class warfare as its fuel, liberalism embraces the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Liberalism thrives on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, liberal government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring liberal politicians remain in power.

9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals: “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.” As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Liberals lie. That’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of liberalism is par for the course.

10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.

Again, liberalism uses man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all liberal economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives liberal government the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only does liberalism violate this commandment, liberalism commands its adherents to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.”

As Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so, too, does liberalism masquerade as good. It’s deceptively packaged in flowery euphemisms and feel-good sound bites that promise “equality,” “tolerance” and libertine notions of “social justice.”

RELATED: Santorum: Obama Wants a ‘Godless’ Society

SunTrust Banks Fights Back Against Liberal Terrorism and Reverses Decision On Conservative Benham Brothers

A rare victory for Christian conservatives living in Barack Obama's Godless America:

After an uproar from conservative customers, SunTrust Banks announced Friday afternoon that the decision to end its relationship with real estate entrepreneurs David and Jason Benham had been reversed.

Earlier Friday, The Daily Caller reported that SunTrust Banks had pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business.

The move came just a week after HGTV announced it was canceling a planned home renovation show hosted by the Benhams because of their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage.

By Friday afternoon, SunTrust released a statement saying the decision had been reversed. The bank didn’t go into detail about why they originally cut ties with the Benham brothers, though SunTrust said the decision was made by a third party vendor. TheDC reported earlier Friday that the vendor had told a Benham Brothers franchisee that the bank itself made the decision.

“We clarified our policies with our vendor and they have reinstated the listings with Benham Real Estate,” SunTrust spokeswoman Beth McKenna said.

“Mid-2013, we consolidated the management of certain residential assets with a third party vendor, which has the relationship with Benham Real Estate,” McKenna added. “While we do not publicly comment on specific vendor relationships, we don’t make choices on suppliers nor base business decisions on political factors, nor do we direct our third party vendors to do so.”

Added McKenna: “SunTrust supports the rights of all Americans to fully exercise their freedoms granted under the Constitution, including those with respect to free speech and freedom of religion.”

After publication of TheDC’s story earlier Friday, conservatives expressed outrage at the bank.

 “SunTrust Banks appears to have punished David and Jason Benham by taking action against their business purely based on their Christian beliefs,” said Chris Stone, the founder of Faith Driven Consumer. “This sends a loud and clear message to people of faith in America, you’re not welcome at SunTrust, take your business somewhere else.”

RELATED: Benham Brothers Can Bank on SunTrust After All

Bill O’Reilly: Minorities Should Be ‘Furious’ Liberals Are Using Them to Stifle Dissent

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly opened his show Friday night with a rant against politically correct liberals who exploit minority outrage in order to fuel their agenda and stifle any sort of dissent, especially on the right, from anyone who dares waver from the politically correct norm.

O’Reilly cited the YMCA school ban, the “hump day” camel ban, and people like Al Sharpton attacking him for his infamous “mf-ing iced tea” comment as examples of this “politically correct madness.” He argued it’s actually dangerous for free speech because this “wipes out dissent” and gives liberals “a point of attack” from which to accuse conservatives of being insensitive bigots.

He said, “The left attacks, attacks, attacks, using minorities as a flashpoint. If I were a minority, I would be furious about it.”

RELATED:  Do Liberals Use Black People as Pawns?

Self-Absorbed Sports lllustrated Swimsuit Model Irina Shayk Slammed for Topless 'Bring Back Our Girls' Photo

And you wonder why so many people have a hard time taking "hashtag activism" seriously?

Sports lllustrated Swimsuit model Irina Shayk was slammed after she took a topless #BringBackOurGirls photo and promoted it on her Instgram account.

For engaging in hashtag activism to pressure the international community save the hundreds of girls who were kidnapped by Nigerian terrorists, commenters, as GossipCop noted, called her a "disgraceful wretch" and, "Put your clothes back on, idiot."

Another person wrote "This is extremely ignorant and dumb. Holding this hash tag in front of your boobs as if it was some kind of Miss America badge. Seriously? THIS.IS.NOT.ABOUT.YOU.”

Others praised Shayk, who is dating Cristiano Ronaldo, for engaging in hashtag activism like Michelle Obama did -- albeit with less clothes than the First Lady. 

RELATED:  Palin: Obama Admin's 'Lazy' & 'Naive' Hashtag Activism 'Embarrassing'

Pregnant Christian Woman in Sudan Sentenced to Death for Faith

No worldwide outrage from white liberals here:

Hours after a Sudanese court sentenced his pregnant wife to death when she refused to recant her Christian faith, her husband told CNN he feels helpless.

"I'm so frustrated. I don't know what to do," Daniel Wani told CNN on Thursday. "I'm just praying."

This week a Khartoum court convicted his wife, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, of apostasy, or the renunciation of faith.

Ibrahim is Christian, her husband said. But the court considers her to be Muslim.

The court also convicted her of adultery and sentenced her to 100 lashes because her marriage to a Christian man is considered void under Sharia law.

The court gave her until Thursday to recant her Christian faith -- something she refused to do, according to her lawyer.

During Thursday's sentencing hearing, a sheikh told the court "how dangerous a crime like this is to Islam and the Islamic community," said attorney Mohamed Jar Elnabi, who's representing Ibrahim.

"I am a Christian," Ibrahim fired back, "and I will remain a Christian."

Her legal team says it plans to appeal the verdict, which drew swift condemnation from human rights organizations around the world.

In the meantime, Ibrahim, who is eight months' pregnant, remains in prison with her 20-month-old son.

"She is very strong and very firm. She is very clear that she is a Christian and that she will get out one day," Elnabi told CNN from Sudan.

RELATED:  Sudan sentences pregnant Christian to death for apostasy

Ben Carson PAC Outraises 2016 GOP Hopefuls and Hillary Clinton

Newsmax.com:

If money is any indication, a prominent Baltimore doctor with no political experience is an early front-runner in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. 

A group encouraging retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson to run for president raised $2.4 million in the first three months of this year, more than the group backing Hillary Clinton or those affiliated with Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and other potential candidates, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Carson, 62, has emerged as a prominent African-American conservative commentator. He appears regularly on Fox News and writes a weekly column for the conservative Washington Times newspaper.

Carson's spokesman says he is not interested in running for president and he is not affiliated with the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee.

The money is a sign that conservative voters are looking beyond the usual political suspects for a presidential candidate, the head of the Ben Carson committee said.

"My gut tells me that the American people are looking for a citizen statesman, for a non-politician," said John Philip Sousa IV, a descendant of the "Stars and Stripes Forever" composer who serves as the group's chairman.

The first doctor to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head, Carson developed a conservative following last year after he advocated a flat tax, private medical savings accounts and other conservative policies at a National Prayer Breakfast speech that was attended by President Barack Obama.

On his website, realbencarson.com, he has posted a video that explains "the first thing I'd do if I were ever president."

Armstrong Williams, who works as Carson's business manager, said the video did not indicate that Carson was considering a presidential run. "Many of us talk about what we would do if we were president," he said.

"There is no interest in running for president," Williams said. "If the Lord speaks to him and says to him to run, then that's a different story. But I don't know a lot of people in the world who the Lord has spoken to directly."

Though the Draft Ben Carson committee has raised $3.9 million since it was set up last year, it has spent money just as steadily. At the end of March, the committee had $228,000 in the bank and carried $515,000 in debt, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.

Much of that money has gone to direct-mailing and fundraising groups, including one affiliated with the group's treasurer. The committee has also paid for ads on conservative radio shows and a website, www.runbenrun.org.

Other political committees are spending heavily as well. Ready for Hillary, a group laying the groundwork for a potential presidential run by Hillary Clinton, has spent $4.9 million of the $5.7 million it has raised over past two years. The committee had $857,000 in the bank at the end of March.

RELATED: Sure sounds like Ben Carson’s running for president

Poll: 67 Percent Support Creation of Benghazi Special Committee

Townhall.com:

The White House derides continued questions about the Benghazi attacks "conspiracy theories" driven by "delusional" partisans. Harry Reid calls the new commission chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy a distraction cooked up to protect the Koch Brothers' interests. Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has compared the coming proceedings to a lynching. NBC journalist Chuck Todd sniffs that "all" relevant questions have already been answered. The American people have a decidedly different perspective, according to a new Fox News poll: 

Fully two-thirds of the public endorses the propriety and necessity of forming this select committee, which all but seven House Democrats opposed. Fewer than 30 percent have embraced the official White House line on the matter -- and by a 16-point margin, Americans say the Obama administration's general goal has been to deceive, rather than elucidate the truth, regarding Benghazi. Now, it's not as if voters view Republicans as crusading champions for truth in this scenario. Asked whether the GOP was pursuing the select committee to get to the bottom of what happened or to score political points, respondents broke for the latter option by more than a 2-to-1 margin. They nevertheless overwhelmingly back the probe. More numbers lay bare the depth of the public's cynicism over this entire episode: A majority (51/39) believes Obama's team "knowingly lied" about the cause of the attack to boost the president's re-election bid, and a similarly-sized majority (50/40) says Hillary Clinton has been deceitful about the raid.

Seventy-two percent of respondents believe the Obama administration bears at least some responsibility for what happened, with another super-majority (68/27) blaming the administration for the fact that nobody has been brought to justice for the assassinations. Democrats have been agonizing over whether to boycott the panel, or to assign members to it. I've warned that a boycott wouldn't just been a dereliction on principle -- it would be a political liability, too. This poll reaffirms that public opinion does not align with the Left's instincts to walk away from Benghazi. Not by a long shot.

RELATED:  Bridgegate or Benghazi: Can You Spot the Spin?

Ohio Court Forbids Deadbeat Dad From Having More Kids

USAToday.com:

Asim Taylor owes about $100,000 in child support, and an appeals court in Ohio has upheld an unusual sentence meant to make sure that bill doesn't grow: Justices reaffirmed that the Elyria man can't have any more kids until he pays up, reports the local Chronicle-Telegram.

That means Taylor, who is in his mid-30s and has fathered four children, could go to jail if he impregnates someone during the five years he's on probation, 19 Action News reports. He plans to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court on the grounds that he has a constitutional right to procreate, says his attorney.

The appeals court didn't address the legal merits of the original 2013 court order, saying it didn't have the necessary information—specifically a pre-sentencing report — to do so, reports AP. 

But one of the three judges wrote a separate opinion that backed up the reasoning. "Where, as here, the defendant has demonstrated a long-term refusal to support multiple children by multiple women notwithstanding his ability to work and contribute something for their care, an anti-procreation condition is reasonably related to future criminality."

RELATED:  New Jersey offers deadbeat parents a chance to avoid jail during Child Support Amnesty Week

Why Michael Sam’s Draft Position Makes Sense

Of course, since liberals don't deal well with facts, if Sam doesn't make the Rams roster they'll all collectively scream that it's because of who chooses to engage in sexual intercourse with:

TheFederalist.com:

“Before Sam came off the board, the writers and analysts who make up the broader NFL community on Twitter were becoming more and more furious. I got texts from friends who barely care about football, seriously concerned that Sam was going to go undrafted. A narrative was emerging: The league was avoiding Sam because of his sexuality. It’s unknowable what motivated individual teams, but the possibility is absolutely worthy of consideration. However, the most frequently cited evidence is, if I’m being honest, a little disingenuous. If you were following the story, you’ve probably heard it: Sam was named SEC Defensive Player of the Year (co–Defensive Player of the Year with C.J. Mosley, actually). Mosley went off the board 17th, continuing an eight-year run of SEC Defensive Players of the Year coming off the board in the first round. If the SEC Defensive Player of the Year always comes off the board in the first round, then why not Sam — if not in the first round, then at least in the middle of the draft?” 

“Well, because that’s not a very substantial sample, nor one that means much in terms of predictive value — that award has been around only since 2003. There are actually plenty of examples of players who found themselves in similar situations. For a seven-year stretch from 2002 to 2008, the six players1 who won the Big Ten Defensive Player of the Year award were all drafted in the first round. The 2009 award winner, Michigan State linebacker Greg Jones, was drafted in the sixth round, 185th overall. The Big 12 Defensive Player of the Year award went to players who would be taken within the top 37 selections five years in a row, from 2000 to 2004. The 2005 DPOY was Nick Reid, and he went undrafted. An even more appropriate comparison might be one of the co–Big 12 Defensive Players of the Year this season, Texas lineman Jackson Jeffcoat. Jeffcoat, who had 13 sacks, was one of the two Associated Press All-Americans at defensive end this year. The other was Michael Sam. Despite that strong résumé, Jeffcoat went unselected in New York.”

And Pro Football Talk echoes the comparison: “Maybe Jeffcoat, who signed as an undrafted free agent with the Seahawks, will prove the teams that passed on him wrong and play like a guy who should have gone in the first three rounds. And maybe Sam will prove everyone wrong, too. But I believe Sam was a seventh-round pick because he’s a seventh-round talent.” Indeed, in a sense, it was a good thing Sam even got drafted, given how poorly he performed at the NFL Combine.

“The silent story in Indianapolis was the horrific performance by Michael Sam. He finished with the sixth-lowest grade of all 268 players, only besting three quarterbacks, an FCS offensive lineman, and a linebacker on one of the worst defenses in the Big Ten. Sam’s story is a polarizing one even though it shouldn’t be — your author is rooting for him — but the combine is the ultimate objective test, and Sam clearly failed this one. Everyone knows that the combine bears only tangential reality to playing football, but a miserable showing in Indianapolis won’t do anything to dissuade fears that Sam doesn’t have the physical ability to be a starting defensive end or outside linebacker in the pros.”

 RELATED: Fox’s Eric Bolling: Michael Sam Was Only Drafted Because He Is Gay

Texas To Execute 'Mildly Retarded' Murderer Tonight, Defense Says

CNN.com:

Texas plans to put to death Tuesday a convicted rapist and murderer who, a neuropsychologist says, is "mildly mentally retarded," in the nation's first execution since a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma left an inmate writhing in pain before death.

Robert James Campbell's defense team is challenging, on a variety of grounds, the state's decision to execute him, including ineffective assistance of counsel, state misconduct, Texas' refusal to divulge the source of its execution drugs and the man's mental capacity.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded "the mentally retarded should be categorically excluded from execution."

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied motions for a stay. The motions cited the mental retardation and drug-source claims.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a petition contesting the defense claims of mental retardation, questioned why Campbell waited until 12 years after a court had determined his mental state to raise the claims.

"Campbell's last-minute claim of mental retardation, which was previously raised and rejected in the federal and state courts does not warrant review. Campbell is not mentally retarded," according to pertinent case law, Abbott contends.

The execution of Campbell, 41, is slated for 7 p.m. ET at the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, about 70 miles north of Houston. The facility, nicknamed "Walls Unit" for its red brick facades, has hosted 876 executions since 1924.

According to court documents and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Campbell was involved in a string of armed carjackings in 1990 and 1991. In one incident, Alexandra Rendon, a 20-year-old Houston bank employee, was snatched from a gas station, robbed, sexually assaulted and fatally shot.

"Mr. Campbell gave Ms. Rendon's coat to his mother, and her jewelry to his girlfriend, as gifts; he also drove Ms. Rendon's car openly in his own neighborhood, and told people he had been involved in the crime," according to his application for post-conviction relief.

These facts are key, as the defense team says they indicate that "Mr. Campbell demonstrates no criminal sophistication."

Testing showed Campbell had "applied academic skills consistent with an individual midway through fifth grade," according to court documents, and while he was able to count and add change, he was inconsistent "calculating change from a purchase."

He also asked a friend for help reading a non-digital watch, and an informant told the court Campbell could not read a car's gas gauge and "always had to ask others whether there was enough fuel to get to the destination," the documents say.

RELATED:  Oklahoma stops execution after botching drug delivery; inmate dies

Angry White Men -- aka Journalists

Townhall.com:

A poll released last week reported that 7 percent of American journalists say they are Republicans. The survey also found that the news force is aging, having a median age of 47. And 62 percent of journalists are men. A mere 8.5 percent of full-timers are minorities. Less than 1 in 4 are "very satisfied" with their job. In short, the profession that dubbed the Republican Party a refuge for "angry white men" is teeming with angry white men. 

The irony here is wasted on the ink-stained-wretch community. 

Indiana University has conducted this survey of more than 1,000 journalists every decade since 1971, so it measures changes in the industry. The 2002 survey reported that 18 percent of journalists identified as Republicans. At 7.1 percent last year, America's newsrooms housed a lower percentage of Republicans than San Francisco (8.4 percent). 

No wonder conservatives don't trust the media. 

Professors Lars Willnat and David Weaver also recorded the lowest showing of journalists who called themselves Democrats since 1971, when it was 35.5 percent. Now 28 percent say they are Democrats; half say they are independent; and 15 percent say they are "other." 

Bernie Goldberg, a former CBS reporter who is now with Fox News, thinks many of the self-identified "independent" journalists are liars who "know better than to tell the truth and tell the pollsters who they really are." I suspect that Goldberg is onto something. Though surveys have found more ideological diversity in newsrooms outside the Beltway, a 1996 Freedom Forum poll of Washington correspondents found that 89 percent said they had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. 

I've known colleagues to be rather defensive on the issue of liberal bias. It couldn't be that like Ivy League faculties, liberal editors tend to hire people who dress, think and vote as they do. No, there must be a more noble reason that liberal journalism self-replicates. 

I've heard it before: Journalists are smarter than other people, so of course they're liberal. (That's right; we're so clever that we work in a shrinking industry.) Or: Liberals are drawn to journalism because they question authority. 

RELATED:  Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago.

Dolphins Player Fined, Sent for "Educational Training" After Tweet About Michael Sam

HotAir.com:

I wonder if any other front office in the league would have cracked down this swiftly. Miami sweated through an endless PR forest fire last year over bullying and “locker-room culture” with the Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin mess. They probably decided early vis-a-vis Sam that they weren’t going to tolerate the smallest spark.

And this spark was small. Don Jones’s crime was two tweets, each exactly one word long, after Sam was chosen by St. Louis in the seventh round: “OMG” and “Horrible.” Maybe that was about the pick itself, maybe it was about Sam kissing his boyfriend on TV after he got the call. Either way, after rapidly being fined, barred from team activities until he attends “educational training,” and publicly scolded in separate statements by his coach and GM, Jones issued a formal apology crafted in fluent publicist-ese:

“I want to apologize to Michael Sam for the inappropriate comments that I made last night on social media. I take full responsibility for them and I regret that these tweets took away from his draft moment. I remember last year when I was drafted in the seventh round and all of the emotions and happiness I felt when I received the call that gave me an opportunity to play for an NFL team and I wish him all the best in his NFL career. I sincerely apologize to Mr. Ross, my teammates, coaches, staff and fans for these tweets. I am committed to represent the values of the Miami Dolphins organization and appreciate the opportunity I have been given to do so going forward.”

No doubt the NFL leaned on the Dolphins to hit Jones hard in the interest of sending a zero-tolerance message to the broader league, but like I said up top, I’m sure they didn’t have to lean heavily. People were grumbling on Twitter yesterday that even the slightest criticism of Sam for being gay is now verboten whereas it was A-OK to mock Tim Tebow for his faith, even on the field during the game. Right, but that’s simple economics. Gay-rights activists are organized and willing to use their economic power to punish the NFL if it doesn’t protect one of their own; social conservatives really aren’t beyond statements of disapproval from the Family Research Council etc. Mozilla made the same, perfectly rational judgment in choosing to, ahem, accept Brendan Eich’s “resignation.” Keeping Eich on could have triggered boycotts, caused business deals to collapse, and given the company a lingering black eye in its industry. Firing him wouldn’t. There was, I’m sure, an initial backlash of thousands of social conservatives uninstalling the browser, but after a few weeks the company’s survived the storm and has clear sailing ahead. That wouldn’t have been the case if they’d kept Eich. The NFL understands that.

Tough spot now for the Rams, as Jazz noted yesterday. Do they dare cut Sam if he doesn’t play well in training camp, as often happens to seventh-round picks? Sam claimed this weekend that he should have been taken in the first three rounds (notwithstanding his underwhelming performance during the combine); he didn’t say explicitly that he thought teams had bypassed him because he’s gay, but then Don Jones didn’t explicitly mention Sam’s orientation when tweeting “Horrible” and everyone seems to have read behind the lines on that one just fine. If the Rams end up cutting him, how much grief will they get — including from Sam himself, maybe — for not giving him a chance? 

RELATED:  Trump Decries ‘Double Standard’ for Tim Tebow and Michael Sam

The Unbearable Whiteness of Liberal Media

Prospect.org:

On the staff of The American Prospect, I’m the only member of an ethnic minority. That's not because I bring all the variety the magazine needs, or because the editors don't think diversity is valuable. Everyone on the masthead of this liberal publication is committed to being inclusive—not just of racial and ethnic minorities but of women; gays, lesbians, and transgender people; and the poor.

It's not just the Prospect. Journalism upstarts like Vox Media and FiveThirtyEight have come under fire recently for lack of diversity in their hires, but that's largely because they are drawing from the milky-white pool of “existing talent.” In the corner of the publishing industry that caters to college-educated wonks—a slightly fuzzy designation, but I've included most of the publications my colleagues and I read on a daily basis—racial and ethnic diversity is abysmal.

Nearly 40 percent of the country is non-white and/or Hispanic, but the number of minorities at the outlets included in this article's tally—most of them self-identified as liberal or progressive—hovers around 10 percent. The Washington Monthly can boast 20 percent, but that's because it only has nine staffers in total, two of whom belong to minority groups. Dissent, like the Prospect, has one. Given the broad commitment to diversity in our corner of the publishing world, why is the track record so poor?

Corporate America long ago signed on to the idea that diversity—besides being a noble goal in itself—is good for business. Companies with diverse workforces consistently outperform their competitors; diversity drives innovation, and workers tend to be happier at companies that value inclusiveness. But it's even more important in journalism than, say, at an accounting firm. When you're in the business of telling stories, lacking diversity means you're limited in the sorts of stories you can tell—or even think of telling. A newsroom filled with white guys simply lacks the same imagination as one with people from an array of backgrounds. One editor I spoke with stressed that they "choose staff for what they can bring to the magazine, first and foremost," but lacking diversity is actually a prime indicator that you're failing to attract the top talent.
A large part of the problem is simply that no one is keeping track. Unlike the National Association of News Editors, the American Society of Magazine Editors does not track the number of minorities among magazine staff.

Most of the editors I spoke with conceded up front that their record of hiring and retaining people of color was poor, but few knew the number off-hand. Most, however, knew their VIDA score—and remember answering for it. Since it launched in 2009, the organization VIDA: Women in Literary Arts has tallied the number of women on staff and in the pages of literary publications each year, releasing its counts in January. The organization's name-and-shame strategy has been highly successful.

"When VIDA publishes those numbers, it rattles around your head," says Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic. 

 

"When VIDA publishes those numbers, it rattles around your head," says Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic. "It’s a form of shaming I think is actually fairly effective." Foer, who returned to helm the magazine in 2012 after leaving the post in 2010, says after the most recent VIDA count, he and his staff began keeping tabs on the number of male and female bylines in each issue and established a goal they want to reach before next year's numbers come out. Other publications—including the Prospect—have made inroads on the problem after the VIDA counts. "Having analytics and goals and knowing that it’ll just be embarrassing if you don’t do better next year is a pretty strong guarantee that things will be better," Foer says. In my survey, the center-left New Republic scored higher on the racial and ethnic-diversity scale than the rest of its more progressive counterparts save Mother Jones, with 12.5 percent of staff members hailing from minority groups.

RELATED:  The White World of Sports Journalism

Rep. Trey Gowdy: Dems Have ‘Selective Amnesia’ about Fundraising off of Tragedies

Mediaite.com:

On Fox News Sunday, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the newly appointed chair of the House’s Benghazi select committee, accused Democrats of having “selective amnesia” when it cam to fundraising off of tragedies, arguing they had no problem raising funds from everything from Hurricane Katrina to Sandy Hook.


Gowdy got in a bit of a pickle earlier this week, when he told a Morning Joe panel that the GOP should not fundraise off the new Benghazi investigation at the literal moment that the NRCC was doing just that. Since then, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has refused to denounce his caucus’ fundraising efforts.

Gowdy repeated his desire that the GOP not fundraise off the investigation, but said that the Democrats had no room to criticize. 

“They raised money on Sandy Hook,” he listed. “They raised money on Katrina. They raised money on Iraq and Afghanistan. So for me, I will not raise money on Benghazi, just like I never raised money using crime victims when I was a prosecutor, and I’ve asked my colleagues to follow suit. But it would be helpful if our colleagues on other side of the aisle did not have selective amnesia when it comes to what’s appropriate to raise money off of and what is not.”

RELATED:  Benghazi Investigation Already Tearing Apart the Democratic Party