We live in a democratic society, and that means that we can put certain issues and people to a vote and let the majority rule. However, there are certain rights that no majority percentage can vote away: the right to worship, the right to speedy trial, and the right to speak and express oneself freely are some examples. However, residents of the city of Los Angeles may soon get a chance to weigh in on whether or not adult film actors have the right to decide for themselves: condoms or no condoms.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has advocated for the enforcement of condom mandates in the adult film industry for many years. Their most recent tactic is to put their mandate to a vote. By the end of November, AHF had enough signatures (15% of the voters in the previous mayoral election) to get the Initiative on the ballot. This means that come June 2012, LA residents might be able to vote on whether or not to tie porn production permits to the mandatory usage of “barrier protection,” like condoms in the film’s production.

However, there’s a big problem with the Initiative: prohibiting films that refuse to use condoms is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. While the U.S. is a democracy, we’re a constitutional democracy, which means individuals have a number of rights that are protected, regardless of the number of people who vote to abridge them. For example, 99% of a town may vote to make it lawful to imprison the 1% of the population without a trial. The measure might pass, but it would not be lawful as it would violate the constitutional right to a trial. In this case, the condom mandate would abridge free speech by prohibiting adult films that refuse to utilize some form of barrier-protection. (more…)

Weiner-mania: if the story weren’t so infuriating and sad – and such a damning commentary on our society – it would be laughable. Alas, here we stand at a moment in time when a sitting US congressman – a newly married, sitting US congressman – felt it was “okay” to take pictures of his erect penis and send them – unsolicited – to much younger females. And if that weren’t bad enough, we are led to believe that it is appropriate to have a “discussion” as to whether this idiot should resign or not. Of course he should resign! To believe otherwise is to engage in moral relativism and – contrary to what the Progressive Movement believes – that is a bad thing.

All one has to do to divine whether Congressman Weiner’s actions were as unacceptable as I feel they were, is to consider this singular point. If your daughter was to receive an unsolicited photograph of an erect penis from a man more than twice her age, a photo accompanied by salacious and suggestive comments, would that be acceptable to you? If you say yes then you have some terribly troubling issues that you should seek help with immediately.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Weiner has both an ego and a low self-esteem problem. Obviously (and I am not a psycho-therapist, just a witness of the human condition), Mr. Weiner craves attention and validation. I find it ironic, yet disturbingly appropriate, that Mr. Weiner has chosen a profession that thrives on opinion polling. In the end, however, these personal foibles are owned by Mr. Weiner. But where they affect his personal life – and the lives of those related to him in both familial and professional manners, they also affect the lives of those who depend on Congress to do right by the electorate; the citizenry. To this end, We the People should also hold accountable those who elected Mr. Weiner to office.

Two moments in time lead me to insist that the country hold the voters of New York’s 9th District accountable for their vote to place Mr. Weiner in a position of power: the 17th Amendment and advancing federalism.

(more…)

At the same time Gallup has released numbers that Americans believe the country’s moral outlook is bleak, another D.C. type has been taken down by sex — or, more accurately, the hypocrisy of having sex when running on moral rectitude. The Washington Examiner’s inimitable Nate Beeler has a humorous cartoon running right now:

Of course, the seemingly endless cavalcade of polticians caught in flagrante delecto isn’t the capital’s only love affair with cross-dressing politics in tones of morality. It’s almost always the moralists who will try to ruin the lives of others by claims of moral failure, right before their own lingerie-covered skeletons come tumbling out of the closet.

This is especially a concern for advocates of limited government, and it forces a tough moment to recognize that we have to defend our values through logic, rather than through the law. Many in Washington love to demand government that is just small enough to fit under the doorway of our bedrooms. Take, for instance, the Department of Justice prosecution persecution in D.C. this summer against a mainstream pornographer. Reason has the story:

(more…)

Scott Baker from Breitbart-TV.com and Co-Host of ‘The B-Cast‘ submitted a shocking report to Gateway Pundit blog back on December 4, 2009. The report detailed the reading list promoted to 7-12 grade students by Kevin Jennings’ GLSEN organization. This material has not been reported in detail at Big Government website. Remember as you read this that Kevin Jennings is today the nation’s Safe Schools Czar.

—-Warning on Content—–

(more…)