Traditional Marriage's Last Stand

TheWeek.com:

Genuine cultural and moral revolutions are exceedingly rare in human history, but that's precisely what all of us are living through right now on the issue of marriage. Thanks to the ruling of a U.S. District Court last Friday, Wisconsin became the 20th state (plus the District of Columbia) with legalized same-sex marriage. (The Wisconsin ruling won't be enforced until later this month.) 

The speed and accelerating pace of change has been breathtaking. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was legal in just one state (Massachusetts). By the end of 2012, seven more states had permitted homosexuals to marry. Then the flood gates opened, with eight more states flipping by the end of 2013. Wisconsin was the fourth to flip this year, with court rulings pending in seven more states. At this rate, Nate Silver's 2013 prediction — that by 2020 voters in 44 states would be willing to vote in support of same-sex marriage — may prove to be too conservative.

But that doesn't mean opponents of same-sex marriage have given up the fight. While many champions of traditional marriage have conceded their loss and fallen back to a position of defending their religious freedom to dissent from the growing social and legal consensus in favor of gay marriage, others are less conciliatory.

That's where a mysterious new website comes in.

Listing no sponsoring person or group, and claiming not to "represent the official beliefs or positions of any organization, religious or otherwise," "Discussing Marriage" compiles the most powerful arguments in favor of traditional marriage and presents them in a thoughtful, measured, visually appealing way (including ample use of slightly cheesy stock photos). On the whole, it's an impressive website. (Editor's note: Since this story was published, the site seems to have gone off-line, at least temporarily.)

But also an utterly unconvincing one. If this is where those who hope to defend traditional marriage plan to make their last stand against the surging forces of same-sex marriage, the battle is going to be a rout.

Perhaps the most notable thing about the website is how far it goes in making the case for treating opponents — including gay couples — with respect. Whereas the mainstream of the anti-gay-marriage movement has recently gathered under the banner of religious freedom, arguing that they should continue to be permitted to argue and preach that homosexual relationships are intrinsically immoral, "Discussing Marriage" takes a very different tack, asserting that the marriage debate should not "center on issues of sexual morality or the moral status of homosexual persons."

The website's authors even express regret for the "pain that they have caused" as a result of having "engaged in hurtful dialogue in the past." Of course, many gay men and women will see the very act of marshaling arguments meant to deny them the right to marry as an affront to their dignity. Still, the expression of contrition and effort to uphold a high standard of civility is admirable.

RELATED:  Ex-Gays Protecting Traditional Marriage

Someone Tell Harry Reid that the Koch Brothers Just Donated Millions to the United Negro College Fund

Here's the thing tho, why aren't conservatives talking and pushing more on all the good the Koch brothers do in general? Especially, when an a-hole like Harry Reid gets on his high horse and starts pontificating on how evil they are? I mean, not only have the evil Koch brothers donated to the UNCF, but to hospitals badly in need as well. Conservatives need to stop letting the Godless, liberal media define us and speak up more on who we really are, what we do and how conservatism benefits most Americans:

The United Negro College Fund on Friday announced a $25 million grant from the Koch brothers, the much-maligned libertarian philanthropists that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has denounced as “un-American.”

The Associated Press reports:

The UNCF, known for its iconic motto, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” is seven decades old and supports historically black colleges and universities and provides scholarships.
From the donation, $18.5 million will go toward nearly 3,000 merit-based scholarships to African-American undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral students, and $6.5 million will go toward general support for historically black colleges and universities and the UNCF.

AP’s economy editor made sure to point out how “unexpected” this was:

Unexpected donation of the day. Koch bros. giving $25mln to the United Negro College Fund. http://t.co/zLKGJg0Kee
— Tomoko A. Hosaka (@TomokoHosaka) June 6, 2014

Meanwhile, irate liberals took to Twitter to denounce the UNCF donation, just as they protested a New York City hospital for taking a $100 million donation from David Koch. It is not immediately clear why these people hate the idea of providing scholarships to African-American students.

RELATED:  Loopy liberals freak over Koch brother’s $100M hospital gift

Godless Disney World Pushes Homosexual Agenda and Celebrates 'Gay Day'

Celebrating hedonism:

A pro-family group in Florida wants to know why Disney doesn't hold its homosexual pride event after hours – the same as an annual Christian music concert.

Families are being warned to consider staying away from the Magic Kingdom in Orlando, especially Saturday, when Orlando's annual "Gay Days" includes a visit to the Disney theme park by thousands of homosexuals.

David Caton of the Florida Family Association tells OneNewsNow that homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people will be in the park for "Gay Day."

"The event is very offensive," says Caton. "They wear t-shirts that promote the homosexual lifestyle. Some of them are pretty rude and crude."

Disney has allowed the annual event for many years but has pointed out in the past that it does not sponsor it.

Caton says the presence of so many homosexuals makes people uncomfortable, especially if they have children, and many families leave when they discover what their children are being exposed to.

In a recent story on "Gay Day," OneNewsNow noted that a homosexual once warned families to stay away due to the vulgarity on display at the Disney park.

Caton considers it strange that the park is open to homosexuals for the day when it is shut down at night for a Christian concert and another night for high school seniors.

Caton was referring to the annual "Night of Joy," which is September 5 and 6 at Magic Kingdom Park. The event requires a second ticket to attend.

Since Disney will not require "Gay Day" to be held after hours, Caton concludes that the park wants "Gay Day" to "impact the social arena," noting that Disney has stated its goal is to influence children via its theme park.

As it had done in the past, Florida Family Association has hired planes to fly in the area with banners alerting people that the park will be crowded with homosexuals.

RELATED:  Utah cop refuses to work at gay pride parade

5 High Crimes And Misdemeanors For Which Barack Obama Deserves To Be Impeached

Townhall.com:

Barack Obama's tenure in the White House has been one of the low points in the history of our republic. It may seem melodramatic to compare the damage Barack Obama is doing to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the White House being burned during the war of 1812, but in a sense he's worse than any of those calamities because he's a purely self-inflicted wound. It's not a sneak attack from the Japanese laying us low this time; it's the man our nation willingly chose to lead us not once, but twice. 

It's bad enough that Barack Obama is not qualified or competent to handle a job like the presidency, as his performance has proven again and again. Not only has he ridden the economy so deep into the ground that the percentage of Americans not working is at a 36 year high, he's piled on so much debt in such a short period that the destruction of our economy via bankruptcy and/or runaway inflation may be inevitable at this point. 

Worse yet, Barack Obama has taken the position that he can rewrite any law he chooses, any way he chooses, for any reason he chooses. In other words, although Obama is not a dictator, he IS CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE DICTATORIAL POWERS for himself. This is extraordinarily dangerous to our republic. As Congressman Trey Gowdy has pointed out, if Obama claims he has the power to change Obamacare or illegal immigration law at his whim, why couldn't he do the same with election law? In other words, Obama has no more right to give illegal aliens work permits or delay congressionally mandated parts of Obamacare than he does to ban handguns by decree or reduce the number of electoral votes in Republican leaning states. That's why it's so incredibly dangerous to allow Obama to be "above the law." It's because the abuses committed tomorrow by Obama or even future Presidents are likely to build upon the ones that we're allowing to go unchallenged today. 

The best way to check Barack Obama's power would be to impeach him. Despite the fact that Obama is much more deserving of impeachment than Clinton (perjury) or Andrew Johnson (who violated the Tenure of Office Act), it's unlikely that Obama will be impeached. Unfortunately, even if Republicans take back the Senate in 2014, there won't be enough votes in the upper chamber to get rid of Barack Obama. That's tragic, because for the good of the country, Barack Obama deserves to be driven from office in disgrace. 

1) For Illegally Changing Obamacare: It doesn't matter if the Affordable Care Act is called "Obamacare;" Barack Obama doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the law. Changes to the law have to be made by Congress and then signed into law by the President. Barack Obama has broken the law repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral changes to the law. Saying, "The Republicans won't work with us," or more disturbingly, "It's politically convenient," is not an excuse for overriding the Constitution of the United States. 

2) Engaging In An Illegal War In Libya: While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to declare war. In the modern era, that has just meant an authorization of force from Congress, which Obama did not pursue. Additionally, we've tended to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt when American lives are at stake. However, in Libya, Obama didn't seek the permission of Congress and we had no national security interest in Libya. In other words, Obama's real justification for bombing that country and overthrowing its government was that HE FELT LIKE IT. Using the exact same precedent, the next President could bomb Mexico or Cuba without Congressional authorization. Incidentally, bombing either of those nations would probably make more sense than bombing Libya, although that's not saying much since our intervention there has been a complete disaster. 

3) Lying To Sell Obamacare To The American People: When Barack Obama told the public if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan, he was lying. When he told Americans if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor, he knew it wasn't so. When he told Americans Obamacare would cut costs by $2,500 for the average family, he was deliberately misleading the public. For a President of the United States to PERSONALLY spend months telling deliberate falsehoods to the American people in order to convince them to support something as massive as a government takeover of the health care system is beyond the pale. If the willful lies Barack Obama told to sell Obamacare don't merit impeachment, then there are no lies that a President could tell to the American people big enough to merit impeachment. 

4) Violating Immigration Law And Illegally Implementing The DREAM ACT: Simply put, Barack Obama has ceased to enforce most immigration law. As Senator Jeff Sessions has noted, “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” In other words, we've already stopped deporting anyone other than SOME hardcore criminals and gang members. Additionally, when the DREAM ACT didn't make it through Congress, Obama simply implemented it ANYWAY. Not only is he explicitly telling illegal aliens they can stay in the United States, he's illegally giving them work permits that he has zero right to offer. Even if Congress is too split on the issue to unify and put a stop to what Obama's doing, that doesn't change the fact that it’s flatly illegal. If this is allowed to stand, tell me ANY LAW on the books that the President is obligated to enforce? 

5) Releasing 5 Taliban Terrorists In Exchange For Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Barack Obama was legally required to alert Congress 30 days before he released terrorists from Gitmo. Not only did he fail to do so, but more seriously he released five high level terrorists who he knew were likely to help kill Americans in the future. One of the terrorists has ALREADY SAID he intends to go back to Afghanistan to fight America. Barack Obama spent a lot of time bragging about getting Bin Laden, but he just released five Bin Ladens back into the world and a lot of Americans who didn't desert their country are likely to die because of it. 

RELATED: Limbaugh: Despite Obama’s ‘Lawlessness,’ ‘You Can’t Impeach the First Black President’

Barack Obama Admits To Releasing 5 Taliban Terrorists Who Could Come Back And Kill Us

Mediaite.com:

The New York Daily News, in a scathing editorial published on Wednesday, chastised President Barack Obama and his administration for agreeing to the prisoner swap in which five Taliban prisoners were released from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for captive Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. President Obama “betrayed the highest obligation of his office,” The Daily News editorial read, “safeguarding national security.”


The Daily News accused the president of knowing that the dangerous prisoners he released are free now to move about as they please in Qatar and will likely return to terror. The editorial went on to say that the Rose Garden address in which Obama stood by the Bergdahl family to announce the captive soldier’s release was “a cynical act of theater.”

Worse, Obama ran roughshod over the law requiring 30 days’ notice to Congress of a Gitmo release — and, reported Time, “dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on top secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men.”

The Daily News concluded by scolding the president for claiming that these forms of prisoner swaps are common as conflicts are wound down. 

“In other words, he wants out so badly that he accepted the Taliban’s terms, regardless of the threat to American security,” the editorial concluded. “He is surrendering without honor.”

RELATED:  Why Team Obama Was Blindsided by the Bergdahl Backlash

"Establishment" GOP Takes Tougher Stance Towards Tea Party

When it comes to winning the job on dividing and conquering Republicans, liberals must laugh till they sleep:

That 2014 has been the year that the establishment struck back — preparing and financing its candidates with a new determination and focus — is evident in its success.

That may prove to have been the easy part. Republicans on both sides of the internal divide are now looking at the impact the primary season will have on politics and governance as the party seeks to build on its House majority and take control of the Senate this year and win back the White House in 2016.

Emboldened by their success, establishment Republicans are using tough language about the party’s more conservative groups. They are suggesting that the federal government shutdown last fall — led by hard-liners like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas — and this year’s primary results have staggered the organizations claiming the Tea Party mantle.

“This is a bunch of out-of-state political gunslingers who have crowned themselves as the leaders of Tea Party Republicanism and are raising money in the name of a more conservative party and spending it all attacking Republicans,” former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi said in an interview at the meeting here.

“If in 2016 we don’t have these people raising millions of Republican dollars and using it to attack Republicans, then we’ll be stronger against the Democrats for president and for keeping the House and for hopefully keeping the Senate,” said Mr. Barbour, who was one of the few speakers at the meeting to urge party unity.

The most significant effect of the party turnabout could take place well before 2016, though. If Republicans now in office conclude that Tea Party pressure is no longer a political threat, they may be more willing to face down the right on issues like an overhaul of immigration laws.

“If the threats are toothless, then the scorecards are meaningless,” said Mr. Barbour, referring to the closely watched voter guides issued by many conservative groups.

Scott Reed, a political strategist for the newly aggressive U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such ratings now amount to “hollow threats” and that the success of the party’s mainstream wing would give Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio some room to maneuver in the House.

“If Speaker Boehner increases his margins, he’ll have a more manageable caucus, and governing will be back front and center,” Mr. Reed said.

RELATED: Dr. Ben Carson Has Some Advice for Conservatives: ‘We Can Be Purists and Never Get Into Office, or We Can Be Pragmatic’

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