Resistance has begun.

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said his office is not immediately enforcing the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage.

In a statement issued on the landmark ruling that was issued Friday (June 26) morning, Caldwell expressed disappointment in the 5-4 decision, saying it "overturns the will of the people of Louisiana."

"I am extremely disappointed by this decision. It fails to respect traditional marriage as defined by Louisiana voters, and is yet another example of the federal government intrusion into what should be a state issue," Caldwell said.

The statement says his office "has found nothing in today's decision that makes the Court's order effective immediately.

"Therefore, there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana. The Attorney General's Office will be watching for the Court to issue a mandate or order making today's decision final and effective and will issue a statement when that occurs."

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s...elated_stories


The Governor:

Less than two hours after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide, Gov. Bobby Jindal was citing the decision to try and raise money for his presidential campaign.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that," Jindal's fundraising email said, just before a link to a page where people can donate money to Jindal's presidential campaign.

"The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies," Jindal said in the email letter, "I will never stop fighting for religious liberty. Will you join me?"

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s..._story_package

...It looks as if SSM is the law of the land except perhaps in four states. Although the USSC specifically decided the status of SSM legality in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee and not of other states, some other states (Georgia and Nebraska) decided that Obergfell vs. Hodges applies to their states, too.

It looks as if 46 states accept SSM. I checked for news on the other four states, and so far I see:

Louisiana -- overt resistance
Mississippi -- a request for clarification
North Dakota -- no news yet (is there any news in North Dakota?)
Texas -- ambiguity.

This can all change quickly, but only in the favor of SSM in the other four states.

...I don't see any chance of a reversal of SSM in any state. A Constitutional amendment is (rightly) difficult to achieve. People are generally more concerned with pocket-book issues than with animus.

What is so amazing? SSM is gaining support as America becomes increasingly hostile to the most brutal and exploitative forms of perversion.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hovland sentenced a Kenmare (North Dakota) man to serve 45 years in prison, after he attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and was in possession of child pornography.

Vernon Brekhus, 36, will also be required to register as a sex offender and undergo supervised release for the rest of his life.

Federal agents learned about the abuse after an undercover detective contacted Brekhus "while working online in an area of the Internet known for incest and sexual exploitation of children."

Brekhus contacted the undercover detective to arrange a Skype video conversation. A warrant search of his residence later turned up a laptop computer, personal computer, thumb drives and other devices that contained 793 pictures and 16 videos depicting child porn.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/loca...9dbd578c6.html

Homosexuals have convinced most of us that they belong in the mainstream at the very time that child pornography gets about the same prison time (if not more) than attempted first-degree murder. Then again, there but for the grace of God go I on homosexuality, which has often been seen as a crime deserving of death or at the least mutilation of a personality. Messing with children? Unspeakable!

Oh, speaking of North Dakota --

Though no gay couples had stopped by her office as of 11 a.m. Friday, Burleigh County Recorder Debbie Kroshus said she would issue a marriage license to any who came in seeking one.

"The Supreme Court ruled," she said. "We're ready."

A ballot measure approved by 73 percent of voters in 2004 added a provision in the North Dakota Constitution declaring marriage as being between one man and one woman. The justices' 5-4 ruling on Friday means that North Dakota and a dozen other states with gay marriage bans will have to stop enforcing them.

Couples in Burleigh County will have to wait a few weeks, however, for Kroshus to perform their ceremonies. Her wedding appointment schedule is booked through July 9, she said.

Those with someone else in mind can get married any time.

"There's no waiting period in North Dakota," she said. "If they have someone to officiate the ceremony, they could get married today."

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/stat...7e4167dc1.html

Down to three.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bernie Sanders Gaining on Clinton on New Hampshire: CNN/WMUR Poll
By Greg Richter | Thursday, 25 Jun 2015 08:10 PM

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has made significant gains on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, according to the latest CNN/WMUR poll.

Clinton leads Sanders 43 percent to 35 percent, according to the poll. But just two months ago, Clinton led the poll 51 percent to Sanders' 13 percent. But that poll also included Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who says she will not run. Warren pulled in 20 percent support in that poll.

The current poll did not include Warren as an option, likely adding to Sanders' leap.

"Hillary Clinton’s early numbers had been higher than they reasonably could have been expected to remain," University of New Hampshire political science professor Andrew Smith told WMUR. "Historically, New Hampshire has had about 40 percent of the Democratic voters be progressive voters. That has been the case going back to 1968 with Eugene McCarthy."

The poll also showed Clinton had a strong favorability rating at 74 percent (to 19 percent unfavorable) and led Sanders in several issues categories.

But she also registered as least honest in the Democratic field with 28 percent of respondents. Only 2 percent said Sanders was least honest.

Clinton "does have some difficulty with the trust issue, but the bigger problem is that she is not connecting with more of the anger, the motivated voters in the Democratic Party," Smith said.

The poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center from June 18 to 24 and included 360 likely 2016 Democratic primary voters. It has a margin of error of 5.2 percent.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ber...#ixzz3eBOlkUC2

My mother, who turns 85 next week, is in for Bernie.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And you certainly came up with quite a dent - killing the overtime exemption - brilliant! I like it!

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/30/8868899...e-minimum-wage

Four levels were proposed.

The highest, 69K is far from the 100K number I threw out. What I would prefer is the 1975 value adjusted for per capita GDP which is 81K. If we were to use GDP share as the scaling factor it would be 120K. This is typically what one uses to scale top elite income or wealth.

Chris Christie is in. Recall I have predicted he will get a rise in support while Jupiter is in his sign. Jupiter is entering Virgo in August, so that should occur fairly soon. He could jump to be one of the leaders by October, with his charisma and energy coming out. His luck could hold up long enough to win the nomination, but it runs out in Sept.2016 when Jupiter leaves his sign. I would predict that Hillary wins if Christie is nominated.

If I am wrong, and his wins, I would predict that he would be a one-termer. His chances for re-election would be slim to none. But, since the party in power is likely to win in both 2016 and 2020, that scenario would seem to defy the odds.

His luck peaks in May 2016, but he will also be very combative at that time, which he naturally is anyway. And the conflict in the Middle East, which he is attacking Obama about, will rev up to a climax at this very moment. It should be interesting to see whether his inflammatory rhetoric at this time will help or hurt him. But his luck may start to decline after this point.

I still think Bush has the best chance, with Rubio holding up the right wing as my second pick. I would put Christie and Trump as the next most-likely after them. But Christie might be the one, if the Jupiter factor turns out to "trump" his whole chart. However, his appetite for conflict may not be appealing, and the powerful right wing of his party doesn't like him. The outside chance belongs to Rand Paul, quite an opposite voice on the war score. Scott Walker will fade and die out; the other GOPPERS have little chance, and most if not all of them will be gone by this time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Chris Christie is in.

And he will be out soon enough. The reason is simple, when Bridge-gate went down, Republicans did not ride to his rescue. He is too far to the left to be a viable Republican. Last time Republicans had a choice of Romney or the clown car, that is, no choice at all. They were stuck with Romney, but they sure weren't happy about it.

This election Bush is Romney. But this time there is Walker and a plenty of generic white dudes who are all perfectly interchangeable in addition to the clown car. There is no role for Christie except maybe he is going to play the Lewis Black role, he has the yelling down.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And he will be out soon enough. The reason is simple, when Bridge-gate went down, Republicans did not ride to his rescue. He is too far to the left to be a viable Republican. Last time Republicans had a choice of Romney or the clown car, that is, no choice at all. They were stuck with Romney, but they sure weren't happy about it.

This election Bush is Romney. But this time there is Walker and a plenty of generic white dudes who are all perfectly interchangeable in addition to the clown car. There is no role for Christie except maybe he is going to play the Lewis Black role, he has the yelling down.

I think the clown car is getting overloaded. Christie will cut into Trump's fans who want an entertaining loudmouth.

I've been thinking today ...

If it should happen that Hillary ultimately runs against Jeb Bush, I think I'll just pick up my camping gear and move off into the middle of a little-used wilderness area someplace and become a hermit. I just don't think I could tolerate a year of that. Shit, we might as well have a king. It might even be better.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think the clown car is getting overloaded. Christie will cut into Trump's fans who want an entertaining loudmouth.

Is that what Trump is doing? I was trying to figure out the madness behind his madness. I've long thought the racist element of Nixon's Southern Strategy still in play, but you'd want to be a touch subtle in how you play it.

If you want real reforms and America to once again have a real purpose to positively influence the world, implement restorationism, vote restorationist when the time comes.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If you want real reforms and America to once again have a real purpose to positively influence the world, implement restorationism, vote restorationist when the time comes.

Just out of idle silly curiosity, who is the Restoree candidate for US President?

Originally Posted by TnT

Shit, we might as well have a king. It might even be better.

Any monarch we would have would be one with constitutionally-limited powers. We actually have a constitutional monarch who is elected to as fixed term, and restricted to just two terms. We just call our monarch a president.

In all likelihood we will see the wife of William VII, the potential Hillary I, duke it out against the son of George V and brother of George VI, who if elected will become John VI.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Any monarch we would have would be one with constitutionally-limited powers. We actually have a constitutional monarch who is elected to as fixed term, and restricted to just two terms. We just call our monarch a president.

In all likelihood we will see the wife of William VII, the potential Hillary I, duke it out against the son of George V and brother of George VI, who if elected will become John VI.

The Right likely sees Hillary Clinton as the new Evita Peron.

Can anyone see Christie being the Republican Jimmy Carter if elected?

They're alike politically, but polar opposites in their personality. Both "moderate" figures relative to the positions of the activist base of their Parties at the time, both governors of States which traditionally had been solid for their Party but which were very quickly slipping away, etc. Of course, personally, Christie has little in common with Carter's demure, humble persona (in private, Carter was an egotist).

If this era rhymes with the post-Watergate period in any meaningful sense, I can see Christie being elected by an extremely narrow margin, 1976 style, proving completely incapable of working with his majority Party in office, and getting annihilated by an older progressive Prophet in 2020.

It'd make sense: Carter (Artist) : Reagan (Civic) :: Christie (Nomad) : Warren? (Prophet)

This would make the Congressional classes of 2010 and especially 2014 basically Watergate babies, and as such irrelevant.

It's one of my favored end-games for this Saeculum. I think it's plausible.

(For this to work, admittedly, we have to fudge Carter into being a Silent-analogue. He isn't far from it either temporally or in his public personality.)

Quinnipiac: Bernie Sanders Surges in Iowa Against Clinton
Image: Quinnipiac: Bernie Sanders Surges in Iowa Against Clinton (Jim Young/Reuters)
By Melissa Clyne | Thursday, 02 Jul 2015 08:33 AM

On the heels of drawing a record crowd to a Wisconsin campaign rally and a New Hampshire poll showing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders catching up to Hillary Clinton in the Granite State, a new poll shows Sanders has more than doubled his support among likely Democratic caucus voters in Iowa.

According to the independent Quinnipiac University survey, Sanders trails Clinton by 52-33 percent margin in the Hawkeye State. But the numbers show a meteoric rise for Sanders, who in May received just 15 percent support of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers to the former secretary of state’s 60 percent.

"Secretary Hillary Clinton should not be biting her fingernails over her situation in the Iowa caucus, but her lead is slipping and Sen. Bernie Sanders is making progress against her," according to Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Her 52 percent score among likely caucus-goers is still OK, but this is the first time she has been below 60 percent in Quinnipiac University's Iowa survey."

Sanders has "more than doubled his showing and at 33 percent he certainly can't be ignored, especially with seven months until the actual voting," Brown added, noting that Iowa Democratic caucus voters are generally considered more liberal than those at primaries in most other states.

The most liberal Democratic caucus voters in Iowa support Sanders over Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 43 percent, according to the Quinnipiac survey. But Clinton bests Sanders among self-described "somewhat liberal" (54 percent-36 percent) and "moderate" or "conservative" Democrats (60 percent-17 percent).

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley received 3 percent and former Virginia Sen. James Webb got 1 percent. Five percent were undecided.

Clinton scored an 85-10 percent favorability rating, with 75-18 percent of voters saying she’s honest and trustworthy.

Sanders received a 66-8 percent favorability rating, with 71-5 percent finding him to be honest and trustworthy.

Sanders is a registered independent who caucuses with the Democrats, but he describes himself as a democratic socialist.

His appearances in the Hawkeye State have far exceeded the campaign’s expectations.

"We have the rule of half that we teach our organizers: if 20 people say they’re going to show up, it’ll be 10," Pete D’Alessandro, the state coordinator for Sanders' Iowa operation, told Time. "But at Sen. Sanders' events, we’ve been consistently over 100 percent of our RSVPs. Until it doesn’t happen, we feel confident our turnout is going to be higher."

Sanders, Time reports, has received campaign contributions from more than 200,000 people and he’s increasingly drawing sizable crowds, such as at New York’s LGBT Pride Parade on Sunday and at Wednesday’s 10,000-person audience in Madison, Wisconsin. That trend is continuing in Iowa.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bern...#ixzz3ekzPUayN

Originally Posted by TnT

I've been thinking today ...

If it should happen that Hillary ultimately runs against Jeb Bush, I think I'll just pick up my camping gear and move off into the middle of a little-used wilderness area someplace and become a hermit. I just don't think I could tolerate a year of that. Shit, we might as well have a king. It might even be better.

I'm looking forward to a Hillary presidency. Not with any great expectations, of course

But if Bush wins, let me know if you have any recommendations about where to hermit up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm looking forward to a Hillary presidency. Not with any great expectations, of course

But if Bush wins, let me know if you have any recommendations about where to hermit up.

Hillary personifies some of the worst aspects of our political system and our political culture. If this country really had fair elections a restorationist-type candidate would be elected and their administration would personify the best of the American spirit.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Hillary personifies some of the worst aspects of our political system and our political culture. If this country really had fair elections a restorationist-type candidate would be elected and their administration would personify the best of the American spirit.

Again, who is the Restoree candidate for president? What magnificent manly man lives up to your standard of barbarism? Who would have nuked the Middle East after 911?

I do not know, what I do know is that no boomer candidate would fit the bill. Government's purpose is to be the expression of the will of the people; it is not supposed to carry out policy without any regard for what the people support. Baby boomers by shoving down feminist and anti-masculine doctrines down the populace's throats have betrayed the trust of the American people. Islamics are barbarians who must be cowed, they can only be cowed by measures they understand, savage and barbaric ones. An America that successfully suppresses the Islamist threat would also gain prestige and respect by our peer competitors such as Russia and china once again.

In other words, there is no restorationist candidate to vote for.

Maybe Chris Christie comes closest? or Marco Rubio? Maybe Marco, yeah, except he does not really cut that masculine a figure.

Funny how some connections can happen while I'm looking on the web. The most famous Christies before Chris were Julie, whom I saw in a movie called "Darling," and Lou Christie, who co-wrote and sang "Lightnin' Strikes" in 1965-66. The wikipedia article on the song says it was the basis for a satirical song "The right-wing's striking again" performed by Capitol Steps. That's Mr. William Strauss. Well, speaking of Chris Christie, that's kinda relevant. William Strauss, where are you when we need ya?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightnin'_Strikes
https://youtu.be/P4-nCfoIIEQ

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In other words, there is no restorationist candidate to vote for.

Maybe Chris Christie comes closest? or Marco Rubio?

No, it's Jeb Bush.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...erican_Century.

Originally Posted by teh wiki

Signatories to Statement of Principles

Elliott Abrams[5] Gary Bauer[5] William J. Bennett[5] John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[5] Dick Cheney[5] Eliot A. Cohen[5] Midge Decter[5] Paula Dobriansky[5] Steve Forbes[5] Aaron Friedberg[5] Francis Fukuyama[5] Frank Gaffney[5] Fred C. Ikle[5]

Donald Kagan[5] Zalmay Khalilzad[5] I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[5] Norman Podhoretz[5] J. Danforth Quayle[5] Peter W. Rodman[5] Stephen P. Rosen[5] Henry S. Rowen[5] Donald Rumsfeld[5] Vin Weber[5] George Weigel[5] Paul Wolfowitz[5]

Swami Rags predicts a tsunami of self writing political ads about the Shrub-PNAC association.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Can anyone see Christie being the Republican Jimmy Carter if elected?

Maybe not. Carter followed one of the most troubled Presidential terms ever by defeating an incumbent who had never been elected even to the Vice Presidency, Gerald Ford having never participated in a statewide election. Ford had never been in one of the usual penultimate offices preceding the Vice-Presidency -- Governor or Senator. Ford had never had a Cabinet post or been a big-city mayor. (By the way, mayors of giant cities often have profound experience as managers, should we ever have one as a Presidential or VP nominee). Carter barely defeated Ford in 1976 only to have some problems and run into the political buzz-saw that was Ronald Reagan.

They're alike politically, but polar opposites in their personality. Both "moderate" figures relative to the positions of the activist base of their Parties at the time, both governors of States which traditionally had been solid for their Party but which were very quickly slipping away, etc. Of course, personally, Christie has little in common with Carter's demure, humble persona (in private, Carter was an egotist).

The slip-away of Georgia from the Democrats is much less profound (and likely more reversible) than the slip-away of New Jersey from the Republican Party.

If this era rhymes with the post-Watergate period in any meaningful sense, I can see Christie being elected by an extremely narrow margin, 1976 style, proving completely incapable of working with his majority Party in office, and getting annihilated by an older progressive Prophet in 2020.

He would most likely face a mixed Congress (D Senate, R House) in 2017 and 2018. Getting 'annihilated' by a Prophet in 2020 would require some severe disasters or the perception of such.

(For this to work, admittedly, we have to fudge Carter into being a Silent-analogue. He isn't far from it either temporally or in his public personality.)

Jimmy Carter is the closest President that we have had to a Silent.

But the Gray Champion has arrived - in the person of Jim "Eliab"* Webb!

*Because "Surely the Lord's anointed is here before us" (1 Samuel 16:6)

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I do not know, what I do know is that no boomer candidate would fit the bill. Government's purpose is to be the expression of the will of the people; it is not supposed to carry out policy without any regard for what the people support. Baby boomers by shoving down feminist and anti-masculine doctrines down the populace's throats have betrayed the trust of the American people. Islamics are barbarians who must be cowed, they can only be cowed by measures they understand, savage and barbaric ones. An America that successfully suppresses the Islamist threat would also gain prestige and respect by our peer competitors such as Russia and china once again.

Pure, addle-brained Utopianism. Utopian-ists are the most dangerous folks around if they ever get any power. Their model of civilization is always unworkable, usually modeled around one or two fantasy dimensions, and totally ignores most other natural human characteristics.

CH, you'd be better off designing a computer game. Your model might actually work there.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But the Gray Champion has arrived - in the person of Jim "Eliab"* Webb!

*Because "Surely the Lord's anointed is here before us" (1 Samuel 16:6)

2 words- Rebel Flag

Just a reminder, everyone:




Draw whatever conclusions you wish about anyone that you can imagine running for President.

(In 2006, the economy had yet to melt down, and the Second Gulf War was still more nusiance than quagmire).