Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs may be singing a new tune on immigration, however, he’s sticking to his guns when it comes to defending his demand for evidence of President Obama’s birthplace. In a recent interview with Esquire magazine, Dobbs lashed out against the “extreme Left” for attacking what he continues to view as a perfectly reasonable request:

I ask a question, and I am attacked from the extreme Left as a quote-unquote birther. I mean, what the hell is that? When you can create a controversy by asking what seems to me still a perfectly commonsense question? It has been used in the extreme Left to create a toxicity that is just unbelievable.

This past summer, Dobbs didn’t just question President Obama’s citizenship and promoted the bizarre right-wing “birther” theory, he also insinuated that Obama might be an undocumented immigrant. Many have speculated that Dobbs left CNN in part because his support of the “birther” movement incited conflict between himself and CNN’s leadership.

However, in the weeks preceding his departure, Dobbs claimed that the White House was conspiring with a number of groups, including ThinkProgress, to wage “insidious and sordid attacks” against him with the goal of intimidating him and his former network. After leaving CNN, he also blamed the “far left” for characterizing him as an “enemy of Latinos.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

The historic federal trial challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans commenced in California today, focusing on Proposition 8, which state voters approved last year. David Boies and former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who argued opposite each other in the Bush v. Gore case, are now arguing together on behalf of the two couples who wished to be married but were denied marriage licenses because of Prop. 8. In his opening statement, Olson, President Bush’s former Solicitor General, went right after common right-wing arguments against marriage equality:

And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.

Today in Newsweek, Olson makes the “conservative case for gay marriage,” stating that “same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize” and saying that arguments against same-sex marriage are “superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.”

Today, Tucker Carlson launched his new much-hyped conservative website, The Daily Caller. One of the most prominent features is a column by Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash. The “Ask Matt Labash” column is supposed to be a funny “conversation.” Highlights from this week include jokes about how getting a traffic ticket is like being raped and Rachel Maddow is “the sexiest man alive”:

For those unfamiliar with me from my day job at The Weekly Standard, I’ll give you a capsule bio by way of introduction: I have the gift of wisdom. Does that sound arrogant? I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t choose wisdom. It chose me. If I had my druthers, I’d have chosen another gift, perhaps the untold riches of Lil’ Wayne, whose teeth are made of actual diamonds, or to be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow. [...]

Pick three government programs you would eliminate. Why?
–AJ

2. Legalized rape. What’s that you say? Rape isn’t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. Forget for a second that in one-fourth of all automated ticket cases, the ticketed car owner wasn’t the one actually driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction (what other crime-fighting technology do we consider reliable that nabs the wrong person 25 percent of the time?) Just as heinous is that every year, more and more municipal governments pretend that they plant these all-seeing menaces in the interest of “safety.” Yet every year, their revenues tend to increase from the very same technology. Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you’re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.