National Review Has Notorious RBG Sadz: She Totally Destroys The Rule Of Law

Check out this closing paragraph:

“The Notorious R.B.G.” is not the beneficiary of a grand expansion of imagination, a leap to a higher plane of Being. She is the result of an ideology of womanhood that has been militantly enforced on American politics and culture over the past half-century, not by latter-day Susan B. Anthonys but by knockoff Betty Friedans. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s own service has been to impose that ideology on the law not from a seat in the legislature, but from her perch on the judges’ bench. By doing so, she has helped to legitimize the reduction of the Constitution and the entire judicial apparatus to an instrument for political gain, and to enshrine a vision of modern womanhood that cheerfully eviscerates any woman who believes otherwise. The Left thinks that is something to be celebrated?

Good grief.

Maggie Gallagher Vs Frank Bruni

"This week, Frank Bruni, fresh from asserting with approval that Mitchell Gold wants to make Christians take homosexuality off their sin list, decides to attack the Catholic Church for committing the primal sin of patriarchy. 'Catholicism Undervalues Women.' The pope is always a man! Listen, I get that growing up gay in the South was no picnic. I get that many people probably did and said mean things they should not have. But this is no longer about civility, or tolerance; it is about telling other people what their religion should be. If you do not believe in our God, Frank, of course you have a hard time understanding the holy war you are picking.

"Yes, you are a lovable human being, with rights, with feelings to be respected. We don’t have to agree to love or respect one another. So why pick on Catholics? Orthodox Jews, black Pentecostals, the LDS church, Southern Baptists, most versions of Islam, also have all-male clergies. What is it about Catholicism that inspires such rudeness in the New York Times? Oh, I know. Something to do with 2,000 years of hanging onto the teachings of Christ: We are born male and female. Our bodies have a meaning; they are not machines we occupy. Sexual desire was given to us for a purpose; we are to direct it, not let it rule us." - Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review.

Seen At CPAC 2015

National Review Attacks "Self-Deluded" Frank Bruni On Religious Liberty Column

"Frank Bruni writes that many Americans wrongly treat him as a threat to religious liberty because he is gay. The trouble is that he is a threat to religious liberty. It’s not because he’s gay. It’s because he is one of those contemporary liberals who has a conception of religious liberty that is illiberal and narrow, especially compared to the historic American practice. His op-ed makes the point abundantly clear, even as he insists that taking a broader view of religious freedom is a sign of 'extremism.' Bruni should just say that our country and its Constitution are too protective of religious freedom and need to be changed accordingly. I don’t think he would have a good case, but he would have a more candid, or at least less self-deluded, one." - Ramesh Ponnuru, in a National Review response to yesterday's New York Times op-ed by Bruni.

National Review Slams Ben Carson For Hawking Quack Cures For Everything

The right-wing National Review today slammed potential 2016 presidential candidate and Tea Party darling Ben Carson for hawking a line of so-called "glyconutrients" whose maker claims will cure cancer, heart disease, autism, and pretty much everything else.

In 2007, three years after Carson’s first dealings with Mannatech, Texas attorney general Greg Abbott sued the company and Caster, charging them with orchestrating an unlawful marketing scheme that exaggerated their products’ health benefits. The original petition in that case paints an ugly picture of Mannatech’s marketing practices. It charges that the company offered testimonials from individuals claiming that they’d used Mannatech products to overcome serious diseases and ailments, including autism, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and life-threatening heart conditions. Separately, the suit alleges that the company sold a CD entitled “Back from the Brink” that “provided example after example of how ‘glyconutrients’ (i.e., Mannatech’s products) cured, treated, or mitigated diseases including but not limited to toxic shock syndrome, heart failure, asthma, arthritis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder, and lung inflammation.”

According to one investigative report, sales reps for Mannatech even claimed that their product could cure AIDS. Hit the link - it's quite the story and possibly spells the end of the Carson 2016 nonsense.

Quote Of The Day - Hadley Arkes

"In the aftermath of the decision in the Sixth Circuit, some have been inhaling the heady fumes arising from Judge Sutton’s dramatic break, and they seem earnestly to be cultivating the hope that Justice Kennedy might indeed be cajoled and persuaded. But we would waste the gift that Judge Sutton gave us if we diverted ourselves at this moment with that kind of illusion. Justice Kennedy will not be cajoled even by these overdone gestures to placate him. What Judge Sutton has given us is a decision that breaks the momentum of the other side. It conveys, with a jolt, that this issue of marriage and the law has not really been 'settled.' Not yet. Judge Sutton, as I say, has bought us time. But time for what? The decision in DeBoer has opened up the possibility for something serious to be done on the political side. This is the moment for Congress to put its hand in, as it did with real effect 18 years ago with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And as in 1996 we will have again, come January, a Congress containing, in its governing majority, the men and women willing to act on the matter of marriage." - Self-proclaimed "DOMA architect" Hadley Arkes, writing for the National Review.

RELATED: In the above-linked post, Arkes dismisses Sen. Ted Cruz' vow to implement a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. According the Arkes, the anti-gay way forward lies in the House bill introduced in January by Rep. Randy Weber, which would limit federal recognition of any same-sex marriage to the state in which it was conducted. As of today, that nearly year-old bill remains mired in committee and only 25% of sitting House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. I pointed that out in the comments of Arkes' post and my response was promptly deleted. Snork!

Maggie Gallagher Has The Vatican Sadz

"I hope to respond intellectually to the synod report. Tears right now are streaming from my face, and it is not about objections to welcoming gay people. There is something more profoundly at stake for me. Is this me? In the corner?" - Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review. Her link goes to REM's Losing My Religion, which commenters are quick to point out is a gay man's song about unrequited love. (Tipped by JMG reader Thomas)

National Review Writer Kevin Williamson: Hang Women Who Have Abortions

After Twitter users questioned whether he was serious, Williamson responded, "Yes, I believe that the law should treat abortion like any other homicide." I last reported on this fuckweasel when the National Review published his vicious attack on transgender Americans.

UPDATE: Williamson has won a Twitter honor.

#AssholeOfTheDay: Kevin D. Williamson is "pro-life" except when it comes to punishing women http://t.co/xYxHR7gfF9 pic.twitter.com/dDLl1trdCP
— Some Asshole (@assholeofday) September 30, 2014

National Review Attacks Trans People

"Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, [Laverne] 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." - Kevin Williamson, writing for the National Review.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board at the National Review:

GOProud is the most conservative gay group of note (perhaps the only gay group rightly called conservative), and that conservatism extends to its circumspection about many planks of the so-called gay-rights agenda. Its participation in past CPACs caused only mild disquiet (indeed, much of the scattered criticism of GOProud’s inclusion at the conference was shouted down by other attendees) and was probably salubrious on net. Conservative opinion on the intersection of homosexuality and politics is not monolithic, especially among the college-aged set that makes up the better part of CPAC attendees. And a gathering that hopes to speak for the conservative movement will be better equipped to do so if it represents the overlapping gamut of views included in it.

HomoQuotable - Doug Mainwaring

"For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together, but it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom. I don't want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing. Somebody needs to stand up for the rights and needs of children in an age when the selfishness of adults seems to be trumping those rights." - Homocon writer Doug Mainwaring, speaking on a National Review panel which also featured Maggie Gallagher and discredited "family researcher" Mark Regenerus.  Mainwaring is the co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots.

Editorial Of The Day

From the National Review:

The irreducible challenge the Second Amendment poses to gun restrictionists is that it does not bestow upon the people a right they previously lacked. It proscribes the government from infringing upon a right the people already have. It is not that the people are allowed to arm. It is that the government is disallowed to disarm them.

The practical consequence of living for nearly two and a half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns, in which 47 percent of families — and nearly as many Democrats as Republicans — own guns, and in which the dissent over the sacrosanctity of gun rights is heard largely because of the overrepresentation in the media of the coastal, urban Left.

Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutional process. But the guns of America aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and generic calls to “do something” — even insofar as doing something is desirable — must reckon with this fact.

In other words: "Tough shit that all those kids got killed."

National Review Alters DNC Photo

The cover of the latest issue of the right-wing National Review features an altered DNC photo to make it appear that delegates are waving "abortion" signs. In fact, the signs read "Forward." After complaints, the National Review issued a response:

The image used on the cover and the contents page of the October 1, 2012, issue of National Review, in both the print and various digital editions, was altered by National Review. It is not the original photograph as provided by Reuters/Newscom, and therefore should not have been attributed to this organization, nor attributed to the photographer.

Headline Of The Day

For once I can't entirely disagree with the National Review. While my "hotel" isn't nearly as bad as the one they describe, it's certainly quite shabby.

National Review Slams Romney's Homocon

From the right wing National Review:

Grenell’s being openly gay is, in itself, of no consequence for his service in the Romney campaign. Nor is the fact that he supports same-sex marriage — if, that is, we were assured that this view would have no influence on American foreign policy. But Grenell has made a particular crusade of the marriage issue, with a kind of unhinged devotion that suggests a man with questionable judgment. And when the Obama State Department is already moving to elevate the gay-rights agenda to a higher plane than religious freedom in the foreign policy of the United States, it is reasonable to wonder whether Grenell, after taking such a prominent place in the Romney campaign’s foreign-policy shop, would be in line for an influential State posting where he could pursue his passion for that same agenda.

Slaggie Responds To NOM Scandal: MEH

Slaggie Gilamonster ignores the firestorm that has erupted across the internet to single out Buzzfeed, which actually links and credits the source of her shame, HRC Exposed.

The Boldest NOM Lie Yet?

Today NOM's Thomas Peters published a celebratory column in the National Review which declared their victory in thwarting New York marriage. Even though the battle rages on and there hasn't been a vote yet. National Review has since yanked the column and replaced it with something (slightly) less lie-filled. Who's the editor at that joint?

The National Review On Marriage

The editorial board of the wingnut National Review posted a lengthy essay on same-sex marriage today. Here's a tired, cliched excerpt:

Same-sex marriage would introduce a new, less justifiable distinction into the law. This new version of marriage would exclude pairs of people who qualify for it in every way except for their lack of a sexual relationship. Elderly brothers who take care of each other; two friends who share a house and bills and even help raise a child after one loses a spouse: Why shouldn’t their relationships, too, be recognized by the government? The traditional conception of marriage holds that however valuable those relationships may be, the fact that they are not oriented toward procreation makes them non-marital. (Note that this is true even if those relationships involve caring for children: We do not treat a grandmother and widowed daughter raising a child together as married because their relationship is not part of an institution oriented toward procreation.) On what possible basis can the revisionists’ conception of marriage justify discriminating against couples simply because they do not have sex?

Mrs. Raman Srivastav just tweeted: "This is the single best piece I've read on the subject."

National Review: Palin For RNC Chairman

The National Review thinks Sarah Palin would be a great replacement for Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

This is a job for Sarah Palin. Palin would be a much better RNC chairman than presidential candidate or freelance kingmaker. She'd raise tons of money and help recruit good candidates, i.e., she'd excel at doing the things Steele should have been doing instead of appointing himself Republican pundit-at-large. A Chairman Palin would help set the right tone for the Republican party without having to get herself entangled in the minutiae of policy-development, which has not been her forte. Sure, she'd be polarizing, but so is Barack Obama, and these are polarized times

I endorse this idea!

HomoQuotable - Andrew Sullivan

"Try never mentioning your spouse, your family, your home, your girlfriend or boyfriend to anyone you know or work with - just for one day. Take that photo off your desk at work, change the pronoun you use for your spouse to the opposite gender, guard everything you might say or do so that no one could know you're straight, shut the door in your office if you have a personal conversation if it might come up. Try it. Now imagine doing it for a lifetime. It's crippling; it warps your mind; it destroys your self-esteem. These men and women are voluntarily risking their lives to defend us. And we are demanding they live lives like this in order to do so. Yes, Admiral Mullen. It is about integrity. It's also about a minimum of human respect." - Andrew Sullivan, responding to the National Review's Rich Lowry.