Follow 'The Daily DOOM' on Twitter: @AoSHQDOOM.

VDH: ‘Breaking Free From the Constraints of the Founding Fathers’.

What we have here is an assault on traditional American notions of self-reliance, respect for the law, and a sense of American exceptionalism as embodied by the Constitution. It is weird, to say the least, to even hint of superior constitutional systems elsewhere, given the current chaos in South Africa, and the coming implosion of the European Union — not to mention the mess in the Middle East and Russia.

Break the buck!

[N]ote their use of the word "forced." That panic didn't force the federal government to do anything. The feds chose to intervene. But by using the word "forced," the reporters make it sound as if the regulators are trying to avoid ever being "forced" into something again.

Posted by: Monty at 04:31 AM | Comments (322)
Post contains 831 words, total size 8 kb.

I don't have anything to add to Drew's Prop 8 post. Just the note that civil unions (or more properly, as California terms them "registered domestic partnerships") were important. I mean that in the value-neutral sense. Not that they're necessarily good (or that they're necessarily bad). I mean that they're important in the legal sense.

California, through its registered domestic partnerships, grants to gay couples the rights, benefits, and burdens of marriage and withholds from them solely the term "marriage." That's key: all of the myriad incidents of marriage---adoption, legitimation, child-rearing, spousal privilege in courts, tax benefits, inheritance, etc.---are extended to gay couples, except for the actual right to the term itself. It becomes very hard for folks to defend that in court.

The U.S. Constitution permits many types of discrimination (and please note, this is a discrimination case, not a "constitutional right to marriage" case). Government itself is a form of line-drawing, and in the exercise of government distinct groups are addressed by the laws and execution of the laws. It is a constitutional minimum, however, that such line-drawing be "rational." And, as I said, it's very hard to defend a regime as legally rational in which every last incident of marriage is extended to gay couples except the word itself. That looks pretty darn irrational.

For example, the Prop 8 proponents had argued that banning gay marriage would encourage responsible biological procreation, which they said has positive outcomes for society. The court held that it wasn't rational to expect that giving gays all the incidents of marriage except the term marriage would encourage straights to raise their children in traditional marriages. California already extends child-rearing rights to gay couples and, in fact, its family laws give preference to non-biological parents who have raised a child over a biological parent who comes only late to claim the kid. Even Judge Smith, the dissenting judge, found that this purported justification didn't quite add up, given California's extension of all of the incidents of marriage to registered domestic partners.

So civil unions are the "slippery slope" that many folks said they would be. The majority judges claimed that their holding was limited to California's unique circumstance, in which gays already had the right to marry which was then taken away. But their reasoning seems to me to be easily extended to states that convey to gay couples marriage rights without the word "marriage."

One of my frequent twitter correspondents, who I believe may also be a commenter, suggested that the court's reasoning would be nullified if the government just got out of the marriage business and maybe substituted civil unions for both straight and gay couples. That's true, but exceptionally unpopular. And neither gay marriage opponents nor gay marriage supporters want to push for it---the former because it's hard to say you're "defending marriage" by pushing it out of the public sphere and the latter because they're already caricatured as "attacking marriage." So, although it's true that there would be no government discrimination in marriages if the government stopped administering marriages, I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:39 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

The State Department is cutting and running from its Iraq mega-embassy. It seems the salad bar ran out and there's no Splenda for coffee. Really. Those are their actual, ISYN, complaints. Oh, and they're limited to only six wings each on chicken wing night. Poor babies.

Google's HUD glasses are slowly creeping into reality. The nerd in me can't wait for sci-fi stuff like this to be available.

Our good friends across the pond are, apparently, too weak to fight another Libya. Another Libya!? You mean that kinetic military action that involved (almost) no boots on the ground? That one? Pikers.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

The hat-trick.

He won 40%-35% in ColoradoÂ’s caucuses and that was his least convincing win. He was 45% to Ron PaulÂ’s 27% in Minnesota and 55% to RomneyÂ’s anemic 25% in Missouri.

Romney has to realize that his strategy of never displeasing moderates comes at the cost of never pleasing the base, either.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Day 10 in the Egyptian Hostage Crisis

Or maybe just day 5 - it's hard to know exactly when to start counting.

But at this point there are at least 19 Americans being kept in Egypt by the military government on essentially made-up charges - that they spent money on organizations operating without a license. Never mind that these NGOs have been operating there for decades with official approval - that was then. But now they're being charged and prevented from leaving.

IRIÂ’s Sam LaHood, the son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, was the first of 43 names published Monday afternoon on the Arabic-language Web site by state-owned newspaper al-Ahram. Several other American and Egyptian IRI employees are also being charged.

...The list published Monday names 14 of the individuals charged in the probe as “fugitives,” suggesting several managed to leave Egypt before the government imposed a travel ban on those under investigation.

Fearing they could be arrested, at least three of the Americans under investigation have sought shelter at the U.S. Embassy.

I think I've heard this tune before and it sucked the first time around. Maybe we should get the yellow ribbons ready to go just in case the Egyptian military government decides to double down. And thaw out Jesse Jackson for a little diplomacy-ing just in case.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:37 PM | Comments (533)
Post contains 764 words, total size 7 kb.

Not a put-up, either. Was really reading the comments when caught. Although it was zoomed for the picture.

Thanks to @starchambermaid

Chrysler Ad Parody:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:35 PM | Comments (242)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Missouri close at 8 eastern. Minnesota starts at 8 eastern, Colorado at 9 eastern.*

The conventional wisdom is Minnesota is in play for either Santorum, Paul or Romney.

Missouri's "primary" is purely a beauty contest, they hold a caucus later on that actually awards the delegates. Newt's not on the ballot there so it's a Santorum-Romney match-up for whatever that's worth.

Colorado will be interesting. Romney won it last time but Santorum's been working hard there. Also, there was a lot of snow there today. Who is motivated to turnout?

Team Romney has been downplaying expectations saying no delegates will be awarded tonight. That's true but it was also true in Iowa and they weren't shy about praising that when they thought they won there. If Mitt loses one or two of these...things will be very interesting.

*Sorry, Minnesota starts, not closes at 8 eastern.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:59 PM | Comments (442)
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

It does seem like a very risky thing.

Wouldn't an under-staffer want the okay from his boss before executing a covert operation to pour truckfulls of guns into the hands of the Mexican cartel?

Wouldn't he need that reassurance, to avoid later prosecution?

It just doesn't seem like the sort of thing someone risks without a Cardinal Richelieu-like letter stating "The bearer of this letter has acted as he has with the the blessing of the State."

And add to that the fact that Holder does not seem inclined to hold anyone accountable.

[C]ontrary to the picture Holder has tried to paint during his congressional hearing appearances, Coulson said that “yeah, absolutely” law enforcement officials were widely aware the ATF was using gun-walking tactics in Arizona. Coulson went so far as to say he suspects Holder himself was aware of the tactic, or was willfully unaware — meaning he didn’t want to know and made sure he wasn’t informed of gun-walking.

...

And with the widespread knowledge of gun-walking among federal officials in Arizona, Coulson said there’s “no way” people in Washington, D.C., at ATF headquarters and in the Department of Justice didn’t know what was going on.

Posted by: Ace at 03:26 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Not that the media would rap them for Solyndra. But the wicked fleeth when no man pursueth.

Friday, Sept. 30: ... Awkward headlines for the White House include OMB staff warning that “bad days are coming” and senior Obama staffers Valerie Jarrett and Ron Klain discussing the concerns of a top California fundraiser who wanted the White House to reconsider President Obama’s visit to Solyndra in May 2010 because of the company’s financial troubles.

Friday, Oct. 7:...emails surfaced from DOE stimulus strategist and Obama fundraiser Steve Spinner hounding fellow DOE employees for information about the status of SolyndraÂ’s $535 million loan guarantee; this despite conflict of interest concerns over his wifeÂ’s work at a law firm that also represented the company....

Friday, Nov. 11: Obama 2008 research director Dan CarolÂ’s memo comes out showing the Oregon-based clean-energy activist urging senior White House officials to get rid of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and two of his top deputies.

Friday, Jan. 13: Another pithy email surfaces from Zichal. In this one, she writes “no es bueno” when sharing the news with fellow White House staffers that Solyndra plans to lay off 200 workers before the November 2010 midterm elections.

Friday, Feb. 3: [Biden's ex-chief of staff] asks how to get Obama and Biden more engaged with [Solyndra] on their next visit to California.

Posted by: Ace at 02:04 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

OK, so this has been brewing for a while now.

Two questions.

1) Does the Catholic church think it should have the sole legal protection from this regulation over this matter of conscience?

Because it seems to me that there may actually be a lot of other employers not officially connected to the Catholic church who feel the same way about being forced to supply abortifacients to their employees.

As well as being forced to provide something that they may not be able to afford, to people who may not even want or need it. The violations of freedom intrinsic to this bad law are many and complex. They apply to everyone, not just Catholics or even religious folk in general. And certainly the financial freedom of religious people is just as imperiled as everyone else's, even if they aren't concentrating on that right now.

We're getting outraged over one victim of one regulation inside a byzantine mess that needs to be thrown away in its entirety.

2) Did Catholic organizations support Obamacare because they either assumed or were told that they would get an exception based on their religious beliefs?

Because if that is true, then essentially they agreed to support an infringement on others' freedoms just so long as their own would be preserved. How did they think that would eventually work out?

Now, don't get me wrong; of course I am delighted that Catholics are angry with the Obama administration.

However, I'm not exactly freaking out that they didn't get what they bargained for, after they* gleefully endorsed curtailing your and my freedoms.

*The 'They' are the large Catholic organizations as well as the church hierarchy who originally overwhelmingly supported HCR. Not you, members of the laity who read this site.

Posted by: LauraW at 01:10 PM | Comments (373)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.