Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledging to oppose same-sex marriage and advance a constitutional marriage amendment.

Perry joins front-runner and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in signing the pledge promising to defend traditional marriage.

The pledge lists five commitments concerning the natural understanding and legal definition of marriage.

The first commitment is to support passage of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That position marks a change for Perry, who previously said that the legal definition of marriage is the states’ prerogative, while also opposing having one state’s definition imposed on another state.

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me,” Perry told an audience in Aspen, Colorado on July 22.

“That is their call," said Perry. "If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

Days later Perry further clarified his stance, saying that he opposed re-defining marriage and reiterating that the right way to protect marriage was at the state level.

“[I]t’s fine with me that the state is using their sovereign right to decide an issue,” Perry told the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in a July 28 interview.

“Again, my comment reflects my recognition that marriage and most issues of the family historically have been decided by the people at the state and local level," said Perry. "That is absolutely the state of law under our constitution.”

However, in the same interview, Perry also said that he opposed allowing “liberal special interests” and “activist judges” to impose a definition of marriage on the states, broaching the possibility of using a constitutional amendment to define it.

“[T]hat is the reason that the federal marriage amendment is being offered, it’s that small group of activist judges, and frankly a small handful, if you will, of states, and liberal special interest groups that intend on a redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of us, which I adamantly oppose," he said.

Perry said that using a constitutional amendment to define marriage would protect states like Texas from having marriage defined for them.

“Indeed, to not pass the federal marriage amendment would impinge on Texas and other states not to have marriage forced upon us by these activist judges and special interest groups," he said.

Read more at CNSNews.com.

Leave it to Thom Hartmann, the liberal radio host, to assert that conservative Republicans are un-American, because apparently, unless you love Big Government, you're not very American. He not only said that on Monday's show. He asserted that if there were such a thing as a "sentient deity" he would be urgently send us the message "Stop pumping carbon into your atmosphere!"

Is it any wonder they can't make liberal radio a ratings smash? Here's the "powerful strain of anti-Americanism" rant:

HARTMANN: There is a powerful strain of anti-Americanism that disguises itself as the Republican party and the so-called conservative movement that I think would horrify moderate conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower and even serious conservatives like Barry Goldwater, who actually believed that government can be and should be a force for good…[Neither] of them would have gone so far as Reagan did and say [that] the government is not the solution; the government is the problem.

Ronald Reagan, spokesman for a "powerful strain of anti-Americanism"? That certainly sounds like it's twisted backwards and upside down.

A few minutes later, Hartmann played a clip of Michele Bachmann's joke about the recent earthquake and hurricane being a message from God to get our house in order, which obviously upsets liberals who don't really believe in God.

Hartmann complained:  "For the record, I don't think that this is God trying to tell us anything other than, assuming that there is an individual, sentient deity who is actively and aggressively trying to send us messages, the message would be, 'Stop pumping carbon into your atmosphere!'

When one of the nation's most liberal papers thinks the nation's most liberal cable news network is too biased, the owners of said network should sit up and take notice.

Consider what Alessandra Stanley wrote about MSNBC at the New York Times Tuesday:

The Rev. Al Sharpton began his new career as an official MSNBC talk show host on Monday by telling viewers not to expect James Brown.

“I’m not going to be a robotic host reading the teleprompter like a robot,” he said. “Nor am I going to come in here and do the James Brown and do the ‘electric slide’ to prove to you that I’m not stiff,” he added, waving his arms in a rough approximation of a dance move. “I’m going to say what I mean and mean what I say.”

And that may be the problem with Mr. Sharpton’s cable news pulpit: what he means to say is in lockstep with every other MSNBC evening program, making the stretch between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. a nonstop lecture on liberal values and what is wrong with the Republican Party.

I very much understand if you're checking that link to verify this was indeed a Times article. I checked it thrice – be my guest.

But Stanley wasn't finished with her critique of this farce of a so-called "news network":

[I]n the evening at least, MSNBC is less a news provider than a carousel of liberal opinion — potential conflicts of interest are swept aside in the swirl of excitable guests.

Unfortunately, so is conflict. There is almost no real debate on any of these evening shows: a conservative is brought on and put on the spot, then in a different segment two people who agree with the host on a given issue answer the host’s questions, usually, with words like “you’re so right.”

That bears repeating: "MSNBC is less a news provider than a carousel of liberal opinion."

This from the New York Times.

Maybe the folks at Comcast, General Electric, and NBC should sit up and take notice that even one of the most liberal publications on the planet finds this cable network to be too biased.

Is it possible any of these people actually care?

The plot thickens.

On Sunday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted that "GOP politicians aren't welcome in this year's Labor Day parade" in Wausau, Wisconsin, because, according to the Marathon County Central Labor Council, which until today apparently thought it was the only sponsor of said parade, "organizers choose not to invite elected officials who have openly attacked worker's rights."

The Labor Council found out today from Wausau Mayor Jim Tipple that they are not the parade's only sponsor, as a video replay of a local station's news segment at Breitbart (HT to NB commenter "DaChew") informs us (transcript follows the jump; bolds are mine throughout):

---

… Wausau's mayor is now calling on Labor Day parade organizers to let Republicans participate.

We first broke the news last week that Marathon County labor leaders had decided not to include the GOP in this year's parade.

Well now Mayor Jim Tipple says the city is a cosponsor of the parade because it pays the insurance premium, builds a stage and provides city services during the parade for free.

Tipple released a statement this afternoon saying, quote: "The banning of a political party at any event co-sponsored by the city is against public policy and not in the best interest of all the citizens … we encourage the event organizer to invite all interested parties, or reimburse the city for other costs."

Reuters also has coverage containing additional items of interest, and a "clever" instance of bias by omission:

… The move in Wausau, Wisconsin, came after a county labor official said last week that Republican politicians were not welcome at the event due to their party's stance against collective bargaining when state lawmakers voted to curtail it earlier this year.

Wausau Mayor Jim Tipple told Reuters on Tuesday that the decision to exclude elected Republicans "flies in the face of public policy."

"This is not a political rally, it's a parade, for God's sake," Tipple said, noting that taxpayer money is used by the city to pay for staging the event. Tipple's office is nonpartisan, and he claims no affiliation with either political party.

He said the annual cost of the parade, including insurance, setting up and taking down a stage, and police personnel, runs anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 each year.

… (Marathon County Labor Council President Randy) Radtke told WAOW-TV in Wausau that the labor council stood by its decision to ban Republicans. Tipple said he had not been told if the labor council planned to pay the costs.

Note that the first Reuters paragraph leaves readers who might somehow be unaware of the Badger State's dramatics earlier this year (the engaged readers who come here might be surprised at how many people are indeed unaware) with the impression that GOP lawmakers curtailed collective bargaining rights for all unionized workers in the state. The item finally makes it clear that the legislation affected only public-sector employees in Paragraph 7 of 10. I wonder why (no, not really)?

Here's more from WLS in Chicago, with some Associated Press input:

Mayor Jim Tipple told WLS Radio's Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft show that the city provides an insurance premium, a stage setup and police traffic control for the parade. Tipple says the city will require the Labor Council to reimburse the city for those expenses if its decision isn't reversed.

"They will underwrite the cost of the parade that we normally would do for them. If that happens, the parade will still go on. They have the permit that was issued by the city. That'll happen," Tipple said.

Should the Labor Council continue to refuse to reverse their decision, Tipple said he wouldn't be surprised if the parade was boycotted. Tipple says if someone wished, they could throw a parade that was inclusive of Republicans.

Unsolicited financial advice to Mayor Tipple: Don't let a GOP-forbidding parade start without a 100% upfront payment.

Also, an unsolicited observation: It seems that if Mayor Tipple intends to continue to have the city co-sponsor the parade if the union doesn't change its stance, he will no longer be as "nonpartisan" as he claims to be, even if the union reimburses the city's costs. I would certainly expect that at a minimum he won't ride in the parade as he has done in previous years (as seen in the video).

Parting question: Will the Labor Council give in, or will there be a MoveOn.org fundraiser to keep the rascally Republicans off the parade route on Labor Day?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

On Tuesday's Morning Edition, NPR's Julie Rovner promoted the supposed benefits of ObamaCare, and played up a recent poll which found that "about a third of those without health insurance think the law will help them, and that's because only about half know that it includes key provisions that will make insurance more available and affordable."

The sole source for the correspondent's report was an August 2011 tracking poll conducted by the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation. Rovner played three sound bites from Drew Altman, who works for the foundation, and none from opponents of ObamaCare. In his first clip, Altman highlighted how a majority of people surveyed for the poll agree that "it [ObamaCare] really does help the uninsured. Thirty-two million uninsured people will get coverage."

After noting that according to the poll, "only about half know that it includes key provisions that will make insurance more available and affordable," the NPR journalist played a second sound bite from Altman, who attributed the low numbers to the opponents of the liberal legislation, and added that it could also be explained by the fact that the law hasn't fully gone into effect yet:

ROVNER: One conclusion, he [Altman] says, is that the law's supporters have let opponents define the law on their terms.

ALTMAN: That's why it became, in the minds of many, a government takeover.

ROVNER: But Altman thinks there's something else. The uninsured, like everyone else outside of Washington, have so far experienced the health law as little more than a political debate.

One detail from the poll that both Rovner and Altman omitted during the segment is how more people are opposed to ObamaCare (44%) than support it (39%), and that "six in ten Democrats have a favorable view of the law (the lowest support among Democrats since the law's passage)."

The NPR correspondent has consistently given biased coverage on health care issues. In March 2011, Rovner played up the "benefits" of ObamaCare. The following month, she slanted towards proponents of federal funding of contraceptives. Just over a month ago, the journalist spun the debate over a propose mandate for private insurance companies to cover birth control as being between "women's health groups" and "conservatives."

The full transcript of Julie Rovner's report from Tuesday's Morning Edition:

STEVE INSKEEP: And now let's look at a new study of the government's health overhaul. NPR's Julie Rovner reports that many of the people most likely to be helped by it don't know it.

JULIE ROVNER: When it comes to last year's huge health law, there's not much that people agree on, but there is one thing, says Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

DREW ALTMAN, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION: And that's that it really does help the uninsured. Thirty-two million uninsured people will get coverage.

ROVNER: But the latest monthly tracking poll by Altman's foundation finds that only about a third of those without health insurance think the law will help them, and that's because only about half know that it includes key provisions that will make insurance more available and affordable- things like new tax credits and a huge expansion of the Medicaid program for able-bodied adults. One conclusion, he says, is that the law's supporters have let opponents define the law on their terms.

ALTMAN: That's why it became, in the minds of many, a government takeover.

ROVNER: But Altman thinks there's something else. The uninsured, like everyone else outside of Washington, have so far experienced the health law as little more than a political debate.

ALTMAN: And what it means is this will be real for people when it's real, which is mostly in 2014.

ROVNER: Because that's when most of the new benefits for those without insurance take effect. Until then, the law is just so many words on paper, and so much political hot air. Julie Rovner, NPR News, Washington.

"Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson has been reassigned to a lesser post in the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for Arizona was also pushed out Tuesday as fallout from Operation Fast and Furious reached new heights," Fox News's William LaJeunesse reported earlier today.

"U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones will replace Melson," LaJeunesse added.

For the fully story, click here.

As the 2012 presidential race gears up, leftist Christophobes are showing some signs of hysteria — or political opportunism; it's sometimes difficult to tell.

The New York Times' executive editor, Bill Keller, in a piece in The New York Times Magazine, argues that presidential candidates should be asked tough questions about their faith. Keller wants to know whether a candidate will place "fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon … or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country" and "whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history." He wants to make sure "religious doctrine" does not become "an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises." His colleague, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, followed up with a hit piece on "Republicans Against Science."

Keller is insatiably curious about whether Rick Perry subscribes to beliefs of certain pastors who endorse him and about Michele Bachmann's "mentors who preach the literal 'inerrancy' of the Bible, who warn Christians to be suspicious of ideas that come from non-Christians, who believe homosexuality is an 'abomination,' who portray the pre-Civil War South as a pretty nice place for slaves and who advocate 'Dominionism,' the view that Christians and only Christians should preside over earthly institutions."

It doesn't bother me if the media vet presidential candidates on their religious beliefs and associations, provided equal scrutiny is applied to all of them, including closet secularists. One's worldview invariably informs his political views, and information about those worldviews can't hurt.

But Keller's concern isn't with the religious beliefs of all candidates, only Christians, and not all Christians, just those who take the Bible seriously. He doesn't seem to have any problem with the religious beliefs of non-Christians or about charlatans who opportunistically pass themselves off as Christians. Wouldn't an objective reporter have as much interest in someone fraudulently proclaiming a certain faith as he does in one who sincerely professes a faith he finds repugnant?

Did President Obama, for example, subscribe to the noxious political and religious beliefs of his pastor Jeremiah Wright? If not, why did he attend church there for 20 years and have his children baptized in that church? If so, shouldn't Keller's leftist ilk have followed up on why Obama agrees with Wright? Is it merely accidental that Keller's candidate-faith anxiety is centered on conservative Christian candidates Bachmann and Perry?

Kellerian leftists shudder at the prospect of "irrational" and "reality-challenged" conservative Christians who question leftist dogma on global warming and evolution and who, they ludicrously believe, would turn America into a Christian theocracy. They want them nowhere near the seats of governmental power.

But what's irrational is their fear that Christians are enemies of religious liberty and advocates of theocracy. Never mind the strong Christian influence on America's founding. Never mind that most of America's presidents have been professing Christians. Liberty has no greater ally than believing Christians of all stripes.

If reality is their concern, why don't these leftists, instead of focusing on fantastic fears that a certain type of Christian president might shut down religious liberty, turn their attention to a president who is shutting down the economy? That's reality. Why don't they inquire into the realism of Barack Obama and his team of economic advisers, what's left of them, stubbornly clinging to an economic agenda that is manifestly destroying our economy and bankrupting our nation? Why don't they question the stability and rationality of a president who won't take responsibility for his policies, continues to scapegoat his predecessor and is preparing yet another speech, even as we speak, to promote the very same reckless spending policies that have driven this nation into a financial ditch?

I doubt that Keller is much interested in the answers to the questions he demands be raised of Perry and Bachmann. He thinks he already knows the answers but wants to incite fear in us about them. He seems more interested in smearing certain candidates with the slanderous innuendo of his questions, such as the preposterous ones designed to suggest that certain candidates are theocrats who believe Southern slavery was a good thing.

The reality is that throughout our history, the halls of American government have teemed with Bible-believing Christians, and they've never pushed for theocracy. Ironically, it is leftists who are far likelier to use the power of government to selectively suppress political and religious liberties. They are the ones behind the Fairness Doctrine, network neutrality rules, campus speech codes and preventing certain ideas from being presented, alongside all others, in public classrooms.

Once again, our leftist friends are projecting. They are the ones showing their religious bigotry and proselytizing us to adopt their secularist worldview.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Loyal readers know that I have been calling attention to a range of Second Amendment issues in the past week. In last week's column here, I wrote about the scandals and illegitimate regulations emanating from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In another outlet, I documented the threat to our rights that is posed by the United Nations' proposed arms trade treaty.

In response, I have heard from many readers who are understandably outraged. They want our federal law enforcement agencies to respect the law, not break it. They want our negotiators at the U.N. to protect our unique constitutional rights, not surrender them to some Utopian vision of global harmony. With apologies to the late Bill Buckley, my readers feel powerless to climb athwart the federal leviathan and yell "stop."

Those two issues are just the tip of the iceberg. Two landmark Second Amendment cases recently were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The first established that the Second Amendment indeed does provide an individual right to keep and bear arms and a restraint against the federal government. The second case applied that finding to state and local governments, as well. Both cases invalidated Draconian handgun bans. Both were decided by the razor-thin majority of 5-4. But neither case established a precise boundary of regulation that the court might find acceptable.

Now lawsuits have been filed across the country seeking to invalidate long-standing state and local restrictions. The National Rifle Association is coordinating a nationwide legal strategy to fulfill the promise of the recent Supreme Court decisions. These cases are bubbling up in different federal circuits, testing different limitations. Some of the cases are filed by choice; some are by necessity. They are all expensive, and they are all important. The court inevitably will accept one or more of these cases once a split between circuits becomes established. That much is virtually certain.

But it's unknown what that court will look like. Will it be the same 5-4 majority that finally has recognized our fundamental Second Amendment rights, or will it be a new majority, perhaps 5-4 the other way, seeking to not only uphold state and local gun restrictions but also effectively reverse the two recent decisions with death by a thousand cuts?

That question will be answered by President Barack Obama, with the advice and consent of the Senate. We are one heartbeat away from giving that decision to this president. We are one election away from virtually guaranteeing that the next president will answer that question, whoever that may be. And we are one election away from making sure that there are enough pro-gun senators to give him the right advice, if not consent.

So, what do we do? As I tell my readers, we all have the power to remedy these issues and more through a singular action. But we do not hold it as individuals; it only will work if we use it collectively. That simple action is to register to vote and then cast an informed ballot.

Too many gun owners and hunters aren't registered to vote. I know you're out there, and I've heard all the excuses. That's all they are, and they're not worth the paper to print them. We stand one short year away from the high campaign season in which voters will select our next president, 33 senators and all 435 members of the House. The Senate could change leadership with a swing of just four seats. And this could be another presidential election decided by a scant few hundred votes in a single key state. I've identified nine key states that will be important in both the presidential and senatorial elections. As honorary chairman of the NRA's "Trigger The Vote" voter registration campaign, I will be doing everything in my power to identify, locate and register gun owners and hunters in these states. No, I won't tell you which states they are, because I don't want you to think your state isn't important. It is; they all are. And every election matters, for all the reasons laid out above.

If you're not registered to vote, then just do it. Visit our website, at http://www.TriggerTheVote.org, for all the information you need to fill out the form, print it and put it in the mail. It's just that simple. And if you are registered to vote already, then find someone who isn't. Show him this article. Tell him that I know he's not registered to vote — and I'm not happy about it.

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook's "Official Chuck Norris Page." He blogs at http://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

As NewsBusters reported Monday, American media almost completely ignored a report that Warren "Raise My Taxes" Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting with the IRS for almost a decade over taxes it owes.

On Tuesday, the organization digging into Berkshire Hathaway's numbers, Americans for Limited Government, estimated the total could be as much as $1 billion:

Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty.  Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.

According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities.  They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”

Is Syria next on Obama’s intervention list? New York Times reporters Helene Cooper and Steven Lee Myers speculate in Monday’s “U.S. Tactics in Libya May Be a Model for Other Efforts.”

The text box works in a typical crack at Bush administration foreign policy: “Using force when justified but not going it alone.”  The implication, common in the pages of the Times, is that Bush somehow went it alone in the invasion of Iraq. For the record, the United States actually led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq (35 countries joined the fight in Afghanistan).

The Times’s coverage of Obama’s bombing of pro-government forces in Libya in support of the "rebels" has been muted if not sympathetic, even blaming “compassion fatigue” for America’s low support for the intervention. Cooper and Myers themselves made no mention Monday of Obama’s failure to ask Congress to authorize the war under the War Powers Act, or the prospect of a man who campaigned for president on an anti-war platform going to war.

It would be premature to call the war in Libya a complete success for United States interests. But the arrival of victorious rebels on the shores of Tripoli last week gave President Obama’s senior advisers a chance to claim a key victory for an Obama doctrine for the Middle East that had been roundly criticized in recent months as leading from behind.

Administration officials say that even though the NATO intervention in Libya, emphasizing airstrikes to protect civilians, cannot be applied uniformly in other hotspots like Syria, the conflict may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened.

….

And so, with Libya, the United States used its might — providing crucial cruise missiles, aircraft, bombs, intelligence and even military personnel — but it did so as part of the larger NATO coalition, led by the French and the British and including Arab nations.

And it did so only after a United Nations Security Council resolution authorized the kind of multilateral approach that had been viewed with disdain by Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

In fact, American officials argued, the Libya strategy worked in large part because it was perceived as an international effort against a brutal dictator and “not a U.S. go-it-alone approach,” as one senior administration official put it.

So, is Syria next for the suddenly war-mongering president? The Times reporters certainly didn’t seem too horrified by the prospect, strangely accepting of the possibility that the anti-war Obama might apply the Libyan invasion template to Syria:

But the very fact that the administration has joined with the same allies that it banded with on Libya to call for Mr. Assad to go and to impose penalties on his regime could take the United States one step closer to applying the Libya model toward Syria. While military intervention in Syria is highly unlikely, administration officials say that the coordinated approach to calling for Mr. Assad’s ouster and imposing financial penalties on the Syrian government show that they are already applying the Obama doctrine there.

And things could always escalate. “There’s no appetite to engage in military action in Syria,” Mr. Malley of the International Crisis Group said. But, he added, “If 30,000 people were killed there, that would be a different story.”

By contrast, columnist Maureen Dowd had to be revived after learning from Cheney's autobiography that the vice president (or as she affectionately calls him, “Darth Vader,”) wanted to strike a nuclear reactor in Syria. Dowd also said with class: “Having lost the power to heedlessly bomb the world, Cheney has turned his attention to heedlessly bombing old colleagues.”