Let's discuss last month's court decision in San Francisco.
Yeh, you know the one.
You know, the ruling in the mislocated California State Supreme Court that disregarded the will of more than 61 percent of the voters who opted in 2000 to define marriage strictly as a union between one man and one woman.
BUT
Let us discuss it politely.
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from slurs that some would see as bigoted, either in a homophobic way or a radical pro-homosexual way.
Let me clarify what REAL homophobia means by defining what homophobia IS NOT.
Homophobia IS NOT disagreeing with an activist for homosexual rights.
Homophobia IS NOT disagreeing with an activist for same sex marriage.
Homophobia IS NOT disagreeing with one's sexual preference.
Homophobia IS NOT calling homosexuality religiously immoral.
Homophobia IS NOT showing distaste for the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.
NOW
Let me clarify what a radical pro-homosexual is.
A radical pro-homosexual does not have to be homosexual: This radical uses the basic principles of Marxism to undermine a number of moral statutes and traditions in our society --- including marriage --- in the name of the homosexual. You should recall that Karl Marx initially regarded marriage as a "bourgeois" institution in his disparagement of the practise. And it is very clear that religions generally reject the idea of same sex marriage. Yet many radical homosexuals --- occasionally called homonazis or homofascists --- engage in totalitarian attitudes in effort to distort society.
The 2003 overturn of a Texas statute prohibiting sodomy is a law that a number of Americans --- myself included --- can live with --- because what you do inside the privacy of your own bedroom is your own business.
But then the radicals who pervert the cause of the homosexual as an excuse to force authoritarian measures, such as activist judges imposing same sex "marriage" upon the unwilling masses, first in Massachusetts in 2004 and now in California in 2008. The former sparked a flurry of laws and amendments to state constitutions that clearly define marriage as being the exclusive province of one man and one woman. I was a part of the 73 percent of voters in my home state of Missouri that made such an affirmative declaration myself in November 2004. And now the latter has spurred an inordinate number of people who would not ordinarily vote, or even those who were already planning not to vote, to go to the polls, and reaffirm, not only in California, but also across the nation, that marriage REALLY IS the sole province of one man and one woman.
So do I have a problem with open homosexuals? No. Absolutely not. I have stood in solidarity with an openly homosexual teen in Webb City when he tried to wear a couple of his tee shirts to school, one advertising his former high school's "Gay-Straight Alliance" and another proclaiming his pride in being homosexual. And he did not behave in any inordinate or bizarre way --- he was simply attracted to other young males.
Then Fred Phelps, the notoriously homophobic jackass excuse for a "pastor", had to butt his proboscis into the whole works. He sent five of his minions from his cult at the Westboro "Baptist" "Church" in Topeka, the Kansas state capital, to several local churches here in Joplin and then Webb City near the end of November 1994, then sent them across the street from the high school.
On one side of one street the five stood with their vicious condemnations saying things like Matthew Shepard, Six Years In Hell.
Now whether God actually sent Mr Shepard after being beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998 is His prerogative.
But the filth that comes from Mr Phelps' mouth is every bit as sinful --- maybe even more --- as the sins that befell Mr Shepard. I have seen Mr Phelps spew his irrational homophobic rhetoric in the same way that a MoveOn.org operative spews irrational partisan hatred about President George W Bush on a number of news programmes and again on Ricki Lake's show. He actually walked off the set, this on top of the usual "God Hates (EDITED)" and "I'm the (EDITED)'s friend, TURN OR BURN". Of course now we know that his minions now target the funerals of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines...and have been met by the Patriot Guard. He has been known to use gutter language, language so vulgar that even a rock singer or a longshoreman or a truck driver would blanch at his language.
The reason I joined 100 other people, many from the local homosexual community (one Black man wore a shirt reading, Let's Get One Thing Straight, I'm Not), and wound up being featured on ABC-12 and The Chart, the latter being the college newspaper at the local university, Missouri Southern State University, was I could not bear to see someone being censored in his freedom to wear a tee shirt within reason. And I did not think that the tee shirt he wore for the Gay/Straight Alliance in Fayetteville, Arkansas, nor the "I'm Gay And I'm Proud" tee shirt necessarily offended me. I had no problem speaking with the young man afterward, or even hugging him as a sign of support. If someone barges in from another community to spew such vicious crapola, what the hell are you going to do?
Now...back to the issue of same sex marriage.
The concept of allowing Paul to marry his boyfriend Todd or Rosie to marry her girlfriend Melinda is a truly abominable idea indeed, for we see how such radical Marxist concepts were tried in the 1960s and 1970s and subsequently proven failures. Yet the Establishment Media continue forcing the concept upon the masses with phony push-polling with inordinately small samples taken primarily in Democrat-dominant area codes like 201, 202, 203, 206, 212, 213, 303, 310, 312, 408, 415, 561, 617, 718, 917, and 978, suggesting (falsely) that a "majority" of Americans support the idea of same sex marriage.
But the reality is these Establishment Media outlets, like CBS News, invariably ignore area codes throughout the rest of America, like 775 and 559 and 661 and 928 and 940 and 405 and 918 and 417 and 712 and 812. Or at the most, they will ask about party affiliation then thank them for their participation and hang up, or even cut off a poll subject if the person being push-polled gives answers that the push-poller does not like. I studied that phenomenon back in 1992 when I was in college --- no Internet, just whatever I could find in the newspapers up and down the Golden State --- and realised just how biased the polls really were. I even wrote a report for my communications instructor at the end of that semester. The name? "POLLITICS". And that was NOT a typo: I meant to add an extra L in "pollitics"...the practise of using media polls to define government policy. I watched the Establishment Media use push polling and pollitics to select William Jefferson Clinton president TWICE.
But the reality remains that Americans, whilst extremely tolerant of homosexuals, are unwilling to let such a fundamental institution like marriage get altered in such a dangerous way. It could lead to a slippery slope, as there is already talk of legalising polygamy, and from there we can go to bestiality and even pederasty. We risk opening the door to paedophiles kidnapping their prey then drugging them and coercing them into a "marriage". That would be the bottom of our slippery slope and perhaps the collapse of our society.
But then again, the impetus has been taken by the voters of the state of California --- a majority of whom favour an amendment restricting marriage to the dominion of one man and one woman. And even a large number of leftists have condemned the concept of allowing same sex marriage. And now some folks are questioning the privacy of sexual behaviour.
What you are going to see as a result is so many Californians --- and Americans too --- are going to go to the polls in numbers not seen in recent years --- and so many people are going to vote in favour of this amendment that the radicals will be forced to step off their Marxist ways. Furthermore, this ruling by itself violates the Tenth Amendment rights of the people to exercise the powers not specifically granted to the federal government or the individual states.
In addition we will see ordinary Americans' concerns as a whole further affirmed regarding marriage, that marriage is the sole dominion of one man and one woman. And the radicals may have no choice but to honour that reality, lest they face an attorney general that seek to prosecute them under the Racketeer and Influence Controlled Organisation (RICO) Act.
There is no question that there will be a state of limbo in the number of same sex marriages performed under the lapse between the date the court ruling takes effect (barring further intervention from more sensible government agencies) and the date that this bill will pass. It could even have a knock-on effect that would hurt not only Democrat Presidential nominee Barack Obama but also a number of Democrat House Representatives, State Senators, and State Assemblypersons in California. In case you are wondering, United States Senator Barbara Boxer will face re-election in 2010 (failing a recall between now and then) and her colleague Dianne Feinstein will face re-election in 2012 (also barring a recall).
This inordinately sticky issue is going to continue to plague us until we the people finally put the brakes on same sex marriage for once and for all --- whether by state constitutional amendments in all 50 states, or by an amendment of the United States Constitution.
Has the law prohibiting same sex marriage in Missouri led to more "hate crimes"? No, because that is the problem of irresponsible people.
And irresponsible people on the bench are just as guilty. They need to be removed or at least marginalised, so that they understand why we the people don't want tradition messed with.
We have basically come to the end of the primary season with brutal deabtes and campaigns on both sides of the aisle.
Democrat Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York have held their debates and thir scathing campaigns, occasionally targeting potential Republican opponents like John McCain, the Arizona senator who ran away with the nomination even as more conservative-friendly candidates like Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee Senator, and Tom Tancredo, the Colorado US House Representative all dropped out.
Barack Obama has just overcome a rough primary season in a close battle for the Democrat Party nomination.
The Illinois junior senator has had to deal with close battle after close battle in primary after primary against the New York state junior senator, Hillary Clinton, who had indicated her willingness to fight all the way to the convention in Denver.
Though it would appear that the Democrat establishment had favoured Obama to win Pennsylvania, Clinton scored a major upset. Wonder if his infamous retort about "Bitter Americans clinging to their guns" had something to do with that. My bet is it was A factor, not THE factor.
But then again, Mr Obama's constant pushing of the slogan, CHANGE!, has caused a growing number of Americans to voice suspicions, to the point where his ideas are now being so closely scrutinised, that his campaign have now launched a website condemning so-called "smears".
His thin experience is not helping matters any either. Then there are the statements of his wife, Michelle, who has claimed only when her husband started performing well in primaries and debates that she was proud to be an American for the first time in her life, amongst a number of controversial statements.
Then there are the associations with outright terrorists like former Weatherman William Ayres, who has publicly wished that he and his cohorts had set off even more bombs.
Of course we cannot forget his aims to talk with Iranian despot Makhmud Ahmadinejad regarding Iraq nor his aims to meet with Cuban leader Raul Castro.
Then there are his deficiencies in domestic policy. What more can you say about a Senator who promises to raise Social Security taxes, proposes some $800bn in new programmes, and propose passing the illegal alien-appeasing "DREAM" Act that was ultimately defeated last October --- and would prove to be nothing but a costly nightmare if ever implemented?
His tax-and-spend policies along with his other left-of-centre and authoritarian policies clearly have hurt and will continue to hurt Barack Obama's reputation with the American people, in ways even his racist former pastor Jeremiah Wright never could.
Of course his character has been called into question. He is basically Hillary Clinton minus the shrillness. He is basically a poorly performing car with a new paint job. Even his morals are being challenged.
Clearly Mr Obama's naivete and ignorance of reality coupled with his irrational idealism stand to become his undoing. He has an uphill battle, and a very steep uphill battle at that, in order to get to the White House. Hopefully most people who choose not to vote for Mr Obama, or even those who DO vote FOR Mr Obama for that matter, do so on substantive issues and not just petty issues like his name or the so-called need for "change".
When was the last time a presidential candidate had it so lucky?
The Arizona senator has been thrust into incredible fortune in recent weeks. His potential Democrat opponents have battered themselves to bloody pulps during their respective campaigns. And now Mr Obama, the winner, is already facing substantive resistance from the supporters of his rival, Hillary Clinton. A number of these supporters have touched bases with Mr McCain's campaign.
Conventional wisdom in the Establishment Media had held that Hillary Clinton would be the candidate to beat. Evidently Mr Obama derailled that plan. That does not mean that Mrs Clinton could still undermine Mr Obama's campaign.
But Mr McCain is in such a lucky position most folks cannot fathom it. This is a position that has been located on only three occasions in the past 72 years --- and only one of those in politics.
Mr McCain is luckier than not only Ringo Starr, when he became the Beatles' drummer shortly before the Fab Four began having their long string of hits and the explosive start to their international careers in circa 1964, but also Ann Curless, when she joined the vocal group Exposé, shortly before they began having THEIR OWN explosive impact on the Top 40 charts in 1987, becoming the first rock group ever to score four Top 10 singles from a debut CD...ironically signed to the same label where the model-like blonde had previously applied for an internship whilst studying in the University of Miami's music marketing programme!
And then there is the big political history lesson, going back to 1936, when Kansas Senator Alf Landon lost by such a humiliating margin to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that Mr Landon garnered only EIGHT --- that's 8 --- electoral votes, to Mr Roosevelt's 520.
But this time round, Mr McCain could be this year's Mr Roosevelt in that regard. This time, it is the REPUBLICANS who stand to make big gains.
Yet Mr McCain is saying and doing things that are making it hard for conservatives to support him, like the people who consistently demand enforcement be the first priority of any policy regarding illegal immigration. Then there are his concessions to radicals who use Marxism in the name of the environment. And whilst his positions are indeed a bit more moderate, caution MUST be exercised, and balance needs to be obtained, and the way we GET that kind of balance is we ELECT conservative Republicans to Congress.
And that end may be easier to obtain than we may think: We are facing an out-of-control tax-and-spend Democrat Congress who refuse to let us drill, harvest, and refine our own oil, who seek to point fingers away from themselves over "filibusters" regarding the American people standing up to the radical aims of the Media's Congress, who seek to steal what little power we have left.
Yet for as much as Mr McCain seeks to appeal to Democrats and independents, he holds a number of positions concurring with conservative positions supporting an unborn baby's right to live, the protection of real marriage, and gun owners' rights. He even supports clamping down on spending, such as the recent subsidy-laden farm bill.
Mr McCain ALSO supports letting the private sector handle health care. Those positions WILL help him --- and the party --- somewhat.
That said, he still has a lot of fences to mend with the conservative majority. Though his efforts to slam the door shut on corruption are impressive --- he must also address other components of his personality, such as the apparent alienation of religious conservatives by slamming the influential pastor The Rev James Dobson as well as other influential pastors like The Rev John Hagee and The Rev Rod Parsley. He needs to reconsider his eagerness to appease the illegal aliens invading the United States. His amnesty bill's (which he cowrote with the now-ailing Senator Edward M Kennedy, D-MA) resounding defeat is a clear example of his disconnect from reality on that issue. And he is lacking on this issue if his consideration of a pro-illegal alien gang bent on stealing a number of American states from the United States is any indicator.
But then again, his contrarian approach may well be helping him anyway, as large numbers of Independents and even disaffected Democrats rush to his side. And Mr Obama may be doing inordinate self-damage by pronouncing his eagerness to meet with Iran and Syria and even North Korea.
The same clearly cannot be said for Mr McCain.
Mr McCain believes in completing the war on terror, as he repeatedly points out the number of instances where American troops are still in place decades after wars in Germany and Korea...and acknowledges that truly effective efforts against terrorism will most likely require decades of involvement. He has also drawn brickbat over his remarks. He has even been the target of a New York Times smear. Welcome to the real world, Macca.
Macca clearly has a fairly cushy ride. Ringo will smack himself on the head, V8-advert style, saying, "DAMN! Where the BLOODY HELL was THAT kind of luck back in '63?" And Ann will shake her head, asking, "Where in the hell was MY stroke of THAT kind of luck back in '86?" Alright, you two, knock it off, there's a long flight ahead. Let me put that Three Stooges DVD in the player for youse... ;-)
That said, Macca MUST also make SOME sort of effort toward healing the rift he has gouged against conservatives. Those efforts will go a long way toward resolving the problems he has within the community. However, we the people MUST do a little waking up ourselves and understand that distrust of our politicians is not only acceptable but in fact required to some extent. As in the words of Former Hewlett Packard Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina, Mr John McCain appears to be "perfect enough".
I am about to prove why if MSNBC presenter Keith Olbermann's crazy on-air antics are patently offensive.
And we have to start with his irrational partisan hatred.
Take, for instance, his nightly screeds about "The Worst Person In The World". At first people thought it was cute, yet as he kept pushing them for shock value, his show turned out to be increasingly infantile.
One prime example of that was his --- and MSNBC colleague Dan Abrams' --- persistent hate screeds against Attorney General Michael Mukasey during his confirmation hearings because he had yet to declare "waterboarding" torture.
And that is just ONE example of Mr Olbermann's crudity on the air, passing for "news".
There are a number of other examples of his own irrational partisanism, further undermining his own integrity.
And then there is his accusation of real talk radio host Rush Limbaugh for allegedly inciting a riot --- because of the success of Mr Limbaugh's own "Operation Chaos". Mr Olbermann's hate campaign against Mr Limbaugh continues with the former's relishing of the concept of the latter being dumped from the air simply because the latter is telling the truth and the former hates it, in the wake of the Don Imus controversy.
Mr Olbermann has also uttered statements that 50 years ago could have gotten him arrested for treason and sedition, such as accusing the Joint Chiefs of Staff of "faking" a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident with Iran. For more information about the Gulf of Tonkin click here.
And of course with that kind of irrational partisanism comes Bush-bashing, such as this example where Mr Olbermann branded the President a "fascist" then accused him of engaging in "terrorism". He further accused the President of acceding to "war profiteers" by allegedly extending the war. Mr Olbermann even teamed with frequent guest John Dean in one noted example calling for the "impeachment" of certain Bush cabinet members. He habitually calls for cutting and running for Iraq, ignoring the great successes of the mission at hand.
And how about that crown jewel? Yes, you know the one, where Mr Olbermann tells the President to "shut the hell up"!
What an absolute psychopath.
This fool even owes the State of New York more than $2000 --- and is embroiled in a dispute over that. But there is more substance than that.
Where Keith Olbermann stands is not only that he has a serious case of irrational partisan hatred, but he may have enough lack of common sense to use restraint. Maybe he might even have a mental disorder...we don't know.
One thing is for certain: Mr Olbermann clearly cannot be trusted for serious commentary, given his pathetic diatribes. It is no wonder Laura Ingraham has launched a campaign to have him released from MSNBC. Another real talk radio host, Mark Levin, has taken to calling him "Keith Overbite". I personally call him "Keith AllBullMan" myself, and on occasion I will say something else instead of "Bull" in Mr Olbermann's name. But then again it is a moot point as Mr Olbermann has clearly struck out as a political commentator. People are tuning him out and watching Bill O'Reilly and the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. It is a sad sign of the way the Establishment Media work when they are willing to excoriate the conservative majority in this country then ignore problems with the more liberal minority. Mr Olbermann definitely qualifies.
Why couldn't he simply leave well enough alone and stay at ESPN?
Should MoveOn.org Be Shut Down Under The Racketeer and Influence Corrupt Organisation (RICO) Act?
It all started 10 years ago, when the Establishment Media's unelected puppet, William Jefferson Clinton, received some support from a group of cronies upset about accusations of his sexual improprieties in the Oval Office, whinging and moaning for the country to "move on".
And thus began MoveOn.org.
In the next few years, the Establishment Media would go on to eagerly promote everything coming from that kook fringe leftist outfit, like it was the Word of God, or their idea of the same thereof.
And one of their primary supporters earned his billions by breaking the British pound sterling and the Malaysian ringgit and is now trying to break the American dollar and the American political system.
Enter George Soros, who has actively funded left-of-centre outfits designed to undermine the great American republic with the billions he has earned, personally contributing $2,5m to MoveOn himself. Why would he come to the United States to become successful in business only to use that money to undermine the very country that gave him the greatest freedom?
DOUBLE STANDARD ON FREE SPEECH
MoveOn.org have claimed to be supportive of the First Amendment...then turned around and hassled a CafePress merchant simply for satirising their logo and selling merchandise with that emblem. This is on top of their infantile temper tantrum to Google regarding the adverts for wares satirising their organisation simply because the vendor wanted to raise money for the troops so he could donate to a charity.
Sorry, MoveOn, but it's called
F-R-E-E-D-O-M O-F S-P-E-E-C-H
That vendor was completely within his rights to satirise MoveOn's logo. As a matter of fact, that sort of thing is protected by the First Amendment --- and a number of very famous cases have confirmed that reality, one involving Hustler Magazine Inc who parodied the late Rev Jerry Falwell and the other in which rap maestro Luther Campbell prevailed over Acuff-Rose Music Inc in a suit over Mr Campbell's satire of the late Roy Orbison's classic "Oh! Pretty woman".
Therefore MoveOn are way out of bounds in that case.
And for Google to kowtow to such a patently anti-American, anti-freedom organisation, is the height of hypocrisy. Sounds like Google have some issues with regard to their motto to do no evil, eh?
GENERAL PETRAEUS VERSUS GENERALLY BETRAYING US
MoveOn made a spectacular misfire last summer when they branded General David Petraeus with that infamous advert about "General Betray Us", subsequently exposing them for the appeasement-minded attitudes they hold against the war on terror. They have even gone as far as to deny the realities on the ground as explained by Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C Crocker who disseminated an impressive array of realities about the war being a work in progress.
Fifty years ago MoveOn would have been broken in a government raid and placed in a brig or in Alcatraz...or even shipped out of the country. As important as freedom of speech is...we must acknowledge the grave threat that MoveOn pose to America and to American freedoms.
Sadly they have been allowed to overrun the Democrat Party, to the point where they boldly claim ownership of the party, and now the Democrats in the Media's Congress are under the MoveOn thumb. They have even claimed that the United States would affirmatively attack Iran.
And all this from a group that claim to "Support the troops" then turn around and defame them. Go figure.
Now one must ask specifically WHAT portion of the Racketeer and Influence Corrupt Organisation (RICO) Act would apply to the activities of MoveOn.org.
Let us start with Section 1951 of the RICO Act, which specifically prohibits "Interference with commerce by threats or violence", and clearly with the intimidation exercised by MoveOn against the aforementioned merchant, they have committed a federal offence. There may be enough right there to bust MoveOn under the RICO Act. That said, they cannot be broken under the RICO Act alone, as an attorney general like Michael Mukasey would need to pursue remedies under the Federal Election Code. Then there might be a stronger case. And there is a good prospect of success in breaking this patently anti-American, treasonous outfit.
Then maybe we could bring an end to this monstrosity of an outfit...and enable the Democrat Party to heal itself.
CURRENTLY LISTENING TO:
Satisfied, By Taylor Dayne, Released 02.2008
Posts
