KATHLEEN KANE, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, was in the news last week for declaring that she would not defend the 1996 state marriage law that bans same-sex unions. Kane made her announcement at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a sort of theme park for equality that is the ideal setting for prominent Democrats to accuse the nation of bigotry. Kane said she would not defend the 1996 state law in court because it was “wholly unconstitutional,” never mind that violating her oath and usurping the powers of the legislature are unconstitutional. Judging from her reported statement, Kane is not a brilliant orator. She said:

We are the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I want to start acting like that.

After the press conference, she elaborated:

First we thought that racial discrimination was OK and then we realized, no it’s not OK. Gender discrimination was OK 90 years ago and now we know that’s not OK. If we have evolved as a society with inequality and discrimination, this is just another wave toward making sure everyone is equal.

Kane is a walking argument for “gender discrimination.” An attorney general might be expected to know something about the influence of family anomalies on crime. But according to Kane, it’s perfectly okay for children to be deprived of parents and raised in an atmosphere of confusion and perversion.  Devoid of basic protective instincts, she’d impose hardship and inequalities on the young for the sake of “marriage equality.”

Kane was funded by Emily’s List in her election campaign. Another photogenic, aggressive feminist who obscures her soullessness under a thick layer of pseudo-compassion, she would be perfect for a cabinet position in a Hillary presidency. When liberated women achieve power, they actively oppose children. This is a fundamental rule of the liberal state.

— Comments —

Joe A. writes:

Our side has learned much about propaganda and effective political operations over the past few years. Many old canards have died to be replaced with techniques that actually work. Paramount to this understanding is the final comprehension that “the System” is not there for peace and justice, but rather to protect the interests of whoever controls it at any particular moment.

I throw down a challenge to the followers of this site, and anyone who is appalled by Citizen Kane’s mockery of the high office of Pennsylvania Attorney General: LET US UNITE TO HAVE HER REMOVED FROM HER OFFICE AND PROSECUTED UNDER CRIMINAL LAW UNTIL WE SEE HER IN PRISON.

Unlike many of the national issues that are difficult to affect because of their size and unclear points of responsibility, removing this Kane should be a very achievable goal. Moreover, it would provide an offensive beachhead from which to secure other bits of our legacy and heritage one piece at a time.

Since Sandy Hook’s egregious attack on our God-given right to self-defense; since Edward Snowden’s shocking revelations of long-suspected (but easily denied) total surveillance, many of us have come to understand that further preparations are useless. On the other hand, we are now identified and standing tall in our Patriotism. The late visions we’ve all endured, of armed government Storm Troopers willing to kill us to confiscate our guns, and of many lesser horrors inflicted on us without stop since The Reelection, have a way of clarifying one’s courage.

Time to put it to good use.

Who’s with me?

Laura writes:

As far as I know, no Republicans have called for her resignation. And one of the leading conservative organizations has said she wouldn’t have done a good job defending the law anyway. State officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in California and they did so with impunity.

James N. writes:

Kathleen Kane said, “…this is just another wave toward making sure everyone is equal.”

But – everyone is NOT equal. Such a thing is an impossibility.

Laura writes:

You’re talking reality. Mrs. Kane is into equality.

Donald writes:

Photogenic? Look at her posture, her eyes, and her mouth. From that photo I cannot tell if she is merely an empty shell or is occupied by an “entity.” But to my eyes she looks neither intelligent, self-possessed, free or brave.

Laura writes:

I agree with your observations of this photo. But below is the picture at her official website. She still looks vacant, but by conventional standards she is photogenic — in a television news anchor kind of way. I don’t mean that as a compliment. Does she suggest any awareness of the seriousness of her position? She does not look like an attorney general. And she isn’t one.

Joe A. writes:

Donald wonders if Kathleen Kane is occupied by an “entity.” Are you aware of the prominent trucking company owned by her husband’s family? Their large painted motto is, “Kane is Able.” ’Nuff said.

Natassia writes:

I have noticed that nearly everyone, including many conservatives, continue to call state marriage laws “gay (or same-sex) marriage bans.” But they are not bans.

We need to stop co-opting the language.

A ban is an official or legal prohibition. It generally results in some sort of punishment when violated, like a fine or imprisonment. There isn’t a single marriage law on the books in America that bans same-sex “marriage.” All that these laws do is clarify and define the boundaries of what a state-licensed marriage is.

Here is PA’s law: “It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth.”

At one point in America there were real bans on interracial marriages. Interracial couples who were known to be living together could be arrested (and were). But there is not a single homosexual couple today who is banned from taking vows, having a wedding, changing their last names, signing contracts, and living together. What they cannot do is seek a license from the state for their sexual relationship that grants them certain privileges.

But that is NOT a ban.

This is and always was about one thing and one thing only–the destruction of traditional marriage in order to redefine it to mean nothing and everything. It is an Orwellian goal, plain and simple.

Laura writes:

These laws do ban homosexual couples from participating in the legal institution of marriage, but you’re right, they do not ban homosexuals from formalizing their relationships or subject them to punishment so calling them “bans” is misleading. The ultimate goal is twofold: to destroy marriage and normalize homosexuality.

Alex writes:

James N. writes:

Kathleen Kane said, “…this is just another wave toward making sure everyone is equal.”

But – everyone is NOT equal. Such a thing is an impossibility.

Oh, she knows that. That’s why there needs to be government action – or, in her case, inaction – to make sure everyone is equal. Without it, people would continue to be different in everything and difficult to control. Forcing people to be equal is what she sees as her job, and it indeed is her job.

Laura writes:

Does she suggest any awareness of the seriousness of her position? She does not look like an attorney general. And she isn’t one.

You presume that the function of an attorney general is to enforce the rule of law. But the function of an attorney general, as well as of any other government official or agency in the 21st-century Western world, is to enforce equality, i.e. destruction of whites and their culture. And this is easy enough even for her to do well. That’s why these days we see so many women and minorities, sometimes quite young or not looking aware of the presumed seriousness of their positions, in high offices. Look at Barack Obama, for example.

July 15, 2013

Joe A. writes:

Just got off the phone with one Mr. McCarthy, one of the many aides to Pennsylvania’s so-called attorney general Kathleen Kane.

I told him frankly I was appalled and infuriated by Kane’s grandstanding refusal to defend a legitimate Pennsylvania law. I asked, “So how many other laws will Kane cheery pick according to her whim?” His response was instructive, “Well, I don’t know, we don’t have a list of them.”

If I might parse that reply, he seems to say Kane reserves the right of whim. He did not say this is a one-time-only event.

So I took the opening and castigated Kane – after an obligatory, face-saving out for Mr. McCarthy on the ground that he is an employee equally subject to the whims of his employer, but that Kane is my employee as a citizen and taxpayer of the Commonwealth.

I pointed out that she knew on her announcement to run for this job that it entailed the prosecution and defense of all Pennsylvania laws. “We are a nation of laws, not men. Or women,” said I.

Further, I accused her of unmitigated gall in so far as her own political candidacy was largely based on the notion that then Attorney General Corbett refused to do his job FOR POLITICAL REASONS related to attacking the Penn State football program. Paterno was a well-known Republican campaign contributor. Hypocrisy of the first degree!

Finally, I told him that I was making it my mission to see that Kane is removed from this office and prosecuted and imprisoned for this stunt, unbefitting the office itself. I told him, “I don’t care if we must reach back 500 years into the Common Law to find a means of removing her but we will.”

He thanked me for taking time to communicate my opinion. I reminded him that I appreciate that he must endure such calls, as no doubt Kane’s treachery is no personal reflection on him. He thanked me again.

This is counter-psyops in action, friends. I have planted the seeds of doubt into this young man’s mind and they will take root. He will repeat this call, or at least its message, with his parents, his girlfriend, and the rest of his office today and in the coming weeks.

TOO MANY CONSERVATIVES ARE CONTENT TO SIT ON THEIR BEHINDS, “EXPLAINING” HOW SOME ACT OR ANOTHER WILL NEVER WORK – YET THESE PHONIES NEVER ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.

Call the AG. Call your state reps. Call your neighbors. Call your ministers. Get the idea across the Kathleen Kane violated a deep social trust for cheap political purposes and she must pay with her career (just as Paterno paid with his reputation).

ACT. ACT. ACT. ACT. ACT!

ACT NOW.

Please follow and like us: