The California Supreme Court told the people of California to go screw this past week by declaring same sex marriages legal according to the California constitution. Of course, the California constitution in no way makes gay marriage legal or acceptable, and this is a activist decision to be sure- some will say “but most of these judges were appointed by Republicans. Yeah, but it’s California for heaven’s sake, where you have a “Republican’ governor who embraces same sex marriage and is more liberal than some of the most liberal senators. Not even Barack Obama supports same sex marriage, so the argument that they were appointed by Republicans means nothing in the state of California.
Here is a snippet from a story on the ruling:
[California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George ] indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
Of course, there’s absolutely no sane comparsion between interracial marriage and gay marriage. Interracial marriage is as old as time. Marriage itself, as it has been defined for thousands of years is a union of one man and one woman. Despite fringe elements that participate in polygamous marriage, the clear definition has been one man and one woman. To argue that you’re somehow making a ruling that is akin to ending racism is just absurd, and it proves one thing- this is definitely an activist justice leading the court.
The biggest problem is that the people of California voted on this issue before, and they overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage. Now, a court comes along and tells the people they don’t give a damned what they think. 7 judges vs over 36 million Californians.
No doubt, there will be a ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution to clarify what the citizens already know…that only an upside down reading of the document could ever be used to claim a constitutional right for gays to marry.
UPDATE: Let’s take a second to applaud the sensible members of the CA Supreme Court (aka those who think the power should lie with the people, not appointed judges):
“A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves,” said the dissent written by Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin. [WND]
“Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right,” the opinion said.
UPDATE 2: From the ruling:
Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples,” the court said. “Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens’…”
I’m sorry, but this isn’t legal reasoning, this is personal opinion. Unions not called “marriage” between same-sex couples MAY have the effect of portraying gay citizens as second-class?! And? What other issues shall we tiptoe around in order not to offend? Since when did offending a subset of the population become a constitutional right in California?! And when the hell did it become the court’s job to ensure that marriages between gay couples isn’t seen as lesser than marriage between straight couples? Hello! 8 years ago the people of California said emphatically that their unions ARE of lesser status. ‘To hell with ballot initiatives tho- we’re the court and WE decide what ideas you live by, you mindless fools!’
This opinion is just downright offensive in it’s absurdity.
What idiots in Detroit voted this fool into office? Probably the same type of dolts that keep voting her insane husband into office…
Conyers Answers to Her Conduct
In North Carolina, according to what Fox News is report- blacks voted for Obama 91% to 6% for Clinton. In Indiana, blacks voted 92% for Obama.
I don’t know…I find these numbers troubling. If they were reversed, I think a lot of people would be upset. It just seems divisive to me. It seems that the only explanation is that black voters in NC and IN are voting for Obama based on their shared skin tone and maybe no other reason (tho, the odd thing being that Barack is half white and half black). That, in my book, is a problem. If Barack was white, would he be getting such high numbers from blacks in these primaries?
I see no way on earth that Barack would be doing as well in these two particular contests if not for the black vote swinging his way in downright ridiculous margins. Is that a problem? Is racially-based voting a bad thing? I’d argue there are many reasons to find it disturbing. It’s great to wish for a black president and all of that stuff, but it’s another thing to vote for a candidate simply because he’s black (or seen as black, as the case may be- in the end, what is “black”? what is “white”?). I just think it is, in general, a bad idea to vote for a candidate for reasons of skin tone…Did previous black candidates receive these large margins from black Americans?
What’s your opinion? Is such a large margin a good or bad thing?
DRUDGEREPORT is reporting that Gary, Indiana might suddenly flip this late vote and give it to Obama
Drudge links here- http://nwitimes.com/blogs/election/?p=47
Gary (Lake county) is right near Chicago, and there’s a large black population…it might be that it’s near Chicago which is Obama’s hometown (current home), but the racial issue has to play a part, no doubt. Right?
UPDATE: I looked into numbers from past elections. Jesse Jackson, according to the info. I found- won 11 states in the 1988 Democratic primary. That’s amazing considering most Americans, I think we can safely say, would argue that Jackson has done nothing significant in terms of public service and has, in my eyes and the eyes of many Americans, a race-baiting hustler who has made tens of millions on the backs of those he demands become permanent victims of all sorts of imagined sleights against them. If Jackson can win 11 states and 94% of the black vote in some of these contests, doesn’t that say pretty all we need to know? Won’t a large chunk of black Americans vote for any candidate with a high enough level of melanin as to where we see that person as “black” no matter what that person’s record is?
Chris Wallace did a good job of thrashing Howard Dean today on Fox News Sunday over the DNC’s dishonest attack ads against Senator McCain. Dean, being the lying scumbag he is replied with even more lies, stuttering, stammering his ways through his scripted BS reply. Wallace kept on him tho, making sure the Fox viewers knew the truth- that Howard Dean is a lying whimpering fool and his attack ads against McCain are wholly inaccurate.
Stay classy Democrats. Seriously…you’d have to be literally insane to support this man as chairman. What dishonest scumbag tactics he’s using, then when called on it he lies again, refuses to back what his ads said, then claims FactCheck.org is somehow not truthful! Amazing.
This guy is truly a sad human being. What goes around comes around is all I can say.
Barack Obama Speech as Portrayed by Eddie Murphy
The Distinguished Gentleman is a fantastic movie…probably my favorite Eddy Murphy movie ever. It does sound a lot like Barack.
Below, you will see a video of Barack along with other candidates saying the very same thing he’s saying. Really well put togther video that shows how easy people are fooled (or bamboozled, as it were).
Barack isn’t like all the other politicians…except that he’s worse. He repeats the same tired lines given to him by his strategists AND spends decades sitting in a racist anti-American church while pretending his character is superior to all.
Frank Rich. The not-so-loveable nutjob liberal at the NY Times is at it again. He’s claiming a double standard on the whole Rev Wright issue…why? Well McCain was endored by Pastor John Hagee. McCain never attended Hagee’s church, he wasn’t married by Hagee, and he had no children baptised by Hagee. He never had Hagee on his campaign staff, and he’s never claim Hagee as a mentor or advisor in any capacity.
Rich tries to rebuff that argument by saying that the McCain campaign actively went out to get Hagee’s endorsement. I don’t know if that’s true, and knowing Rich’s track record with the truth and his outright hatred of anything right of far left, I have a hard time believeing it. Either way- apples and oranges, even if Rich wants to claim it’s not.
The worst part? Rich turns the Wright thing into a racial issue, claiming that white candidates are given special treatment over black candidates. He writes that if we’re to judge black preachers and the associations with black candidates, we should do the same with white candidates and preachers. Okay? There is absolutely NO comparison here.
McCain may have spent a half hour with Hagee- and he never endorsed any controversial statements. He never defended any statements made by Hagee, and he never approved of Hagee’s belief in the sense that he sat in his church for 20 years week after week with no problem. Obama, on the other hand, did ALL of these things and more. He initially defended Wright, until the political pressure became too great and he had no choice but to distance himself from the man. Even after knowing the terrible things Wright said, Obama proclaimed he could no more disown the man than he could his white grandmother or black Americans as a whole!
Rich’s arguments then turn downright insane:
There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.
A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”
An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.
The Republicans are guilty of de facto apartheid?!?! Frank, buddy, seriously? Are you off your meds again? There are no black senators? Why is this Frank? Is it GOP racism? Is it apartheid from this dastardly Republicans? Or is it maybe what Clarence Thomas once said about blacks and the Democratic party:
But I know that the vote of 9 out of 10 black Americans for the Democratic Party or for leftist kinds of policies just is not reflective of their opinions.
It’s common knowledge that blacks have become wed to the Democratic party, and often times at their peril. Is it the strategy of the GOP to keep blacks out somehow, as Rich implies…or are blacks, as Thomas seems to think- voting for Democrats because they wrongly feel that’s the party that has their interest at heart? Rich calls McCains trips to the 9th ward in New Orleans “about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy”. Funny- he doesn’t seem to think that Obama’s initial defense and subsequent attacks on his pastor of 20 years wasn’t self-interested politics. Odd, that double standard that Rich claims in this lame article.
He ends by bringing up hispanics and saying that it’s understandable that they’re not clinging to the Republican party- another fact that most surely has less to do with their self interests and more with the media climate that can often portray one side as good for a particular group and the other as a bad idea for that particular subset of the populace.
And of course- it’s all hypocrisy for Rich. Sitting in the pew for 20 years, embracing the man as your spiritual mentor, and all the rest…that’s somehow equal to McCain being endorsed by a man he probably doesn’t even know. And to top it all of- Obama has received kid glove coverage from the media thus far. After his speech on Wright the other day, many in the media proclaimed, despite his sudden flip-flop (first defending Wright then attacking him), wasn’t self-interested political gesturing, but rather a closure on the subject, a brilliant coup de grace on the part of Obama…ending the Wright matter altogether. Off limits from this point on, some demanded.
Nonsense. The issue is still there, as it should be. He still hasn’t answered as to how he supposedly never heard any of the crazy stuff from a man he spent 20 years with, or how Wright’s core values of racism and anti-Americanism somehow mysteriously went unnoticed to the Obamas for two whole decades.
Rich has an agenda to keep. Far left politics from top to bottom…common sense and logical comparisons be damned.
Amazing. I wonder if these people just write whatever fantasies they invent in their heads, or if they’re clueless and actually believe the bile they spew.
Zachary Roth writes for Columbia Journalism Review with the headline: “Rod Parsley’s Free Pass
Jeremiah Wright gets torched, while McCain’s “spiritual adviser” offends with impunity”. Now, maybe he didn’t write the headline- that sort of thing happens all the time in print, no idea what the situation is here though.
No matter- whoever wrote the headline was dishonest. Notice it says McCain’s “spiritual adviser”, yet if you read the article, you will only see “spiritual adviser” used once- it’s the term that OBAMA used in regards to his relationship with his racist, anti-American Rev Wright. NOWHERE else in the article does the term “spiritual adviser” exist. So, whoever wrote the headline is either 1) blind or 2) a dishonest fool.
The point of the article is to claim that McCain has been given a pass on his relationship with Rod Parsley, a pastor of a megachurch in Ohio. One major problem though- McCain is not a member of Parsley’s church and has never met the man until 3 weeks ago. He called Parsley a “spritiual guide” to many people, but never claimed he was a guide to McCain himself in any manner. Obama, remember, chose the church and attended for over 20 years under Wright…Wright baptised his children and married Barack and Michelle. He sat in the pews week after week listening to a man whose core values are racist, hateful, and anti-American.
This is a lame-brained attempt at equating McCain meeting a man for 20 mins and Barack being spiritual guided by a man for 20 years. Yes, this argument is just plain stupid and doesn’t even come close to matching reality.
In the aricle, he says:
Parsley has his own history of controversial statements. As David Corn reported this week for Mother Jones, Parsley has called for Christians to wage war against the “false religion” of Islam, in order to destroy it. He does not distinguish between Islamic extremists and ordinary Muslims. “What some call ‘extremists’ are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam,” he has written.
And it’s not just Muslims he’s got it in for. Last year, Parsley’s organization called for people who commit adultery to be prosecuted, and in January he compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis.
This itself is just odd. I’m really not even sure why he’s trying to paint McCain is some sort of extremist based on these two items. They’re, in all truthfulness, not all that radical for most Americans, and surely not for most conservative Christians (which Parsley is).
1) Most Christians believe that islam is a false religion. ANYTHING outside of Christianity is a false religion (thus, an evil practice). This isn’t extremism, this is Jesus Christ himself speaking. It’s the most important commandment in the OT- to have no other Gods before the true God. God, in the OT and NT destroys people for worshipping false Gods and makes it clear that he will not tolerate such practices in general. How is this extremist?? Parsley wants to destroy islam? islam was founded by a mass murderer- I’m sorry, but let’s stop using kid gloves when we speak of the religion. It would be the goal of most conservative Christians to wage a mental battle against false religions. That’s what the Bible teaches!
2) Parsley compared Planned Parenthood to the nazis. And? This is common thought among many conservatives. How many people did the nazis kill? How many babies have Planned Parenthood killed? Do the math folks, the nazis have lower figures. Isn’t that enough for an equivocation, if you believe that an aborted baby is a life taken? I’m not sure how that’s so radical or extreme.
Seems like a lot of grasping at straws to try to make McCain look bad and make Obama look not so far out there. No matter, the headline/article combination is dishonest overall, and even if this preacher was a nutcase, there’s no comparison. 20 mins and 20 years- apples and oranges.
The RNC has demanded stations stop running the new DNC ad that distorts what John McCain truly said in regards to how long we could possibly be in Iraq. The DNC as is a complete distortion of what McCain said- there goal was to twist what he said, lying in the process, to make him look bad. I posted about this the other day and thouroughly ripped the ad apart.
Howard Dean, though, when asked about the ad said this:
Democratic Party chief Howard Dean said “there’s nothing false” about the ad.
“We deliberately used John McCain’s words. This isn’t some ominous consultant’s voice from Washington. This is John McCain’s own words. And we’ve been very upfront about everything that he’s said.”
As I clearly pointed out in my last post on this issue, Dean did NOT let McCain speak for himself…the DNC edited the context ouf of the ad without telling us the video was edited. They also stated in text on screen the exact opposite of what McCain specifically said.
Contact Howard Dean and tell him to stop lying about what McCain said. This is the only contact information I found for Mr. Dean at the DNC website…just fill out the form and ask them to live up to their promise of an honest campaign by immediately removing the dishonest McCain attack ad.
Dean claimed the DNC would run a clean, honest, and honorable campaign. He’s already broken that promise, and the general election campaign hasn’t even begun. Enough is enough Mr. Dean- pull the dishonest ad now.
After watching the videos of Rev. Wright speak today and over the weekend, I have to ask myself- is Barack Obama a racist?
Wright is, no doubt, a racist who hates the USA. You can deny that, but you’re either lying to us or you’re lying to yourself, because there’s too much video evidence out there to prove Wright is an America-hating racist.
Barack calls Wright his spiritual advisor and mentor for 20 years. Out of all the churches in Chicago, Obama was attracted to Wright’s Trinity Baptist, and continued there for 20 years. He let the racist radical marry him and his wife, he let the raving lunatic baptize his children. He wrote a book and mentioned Wright numerous times and even named the book after one of Wright’s radical sermons!
If one has very close, almost family-like ties, to a racist…is that person also a racist in any way? I’d say, yes, probably so. Non-racists usually shy away from racists, out of disgust for the racism if nothing else. Yet Obama stuck around for 20 years.
How could Barack sit in the pews week after week if he doesn’t share any of Wright’s basic views (basic views that are wholly racist, wholly radical, and wholly anti-American)?? If one doesn’t believe in the basic principles of a church, they tend to leave. Why stay if you’re against the basic ideas preached? There’s no logical reason to stay in the pews Sunday after Sunday after Sunday for 2 whole decades.
I see no other logical explanation. It seems that Barack Obama, supported by millions of Americans, is, himself, a racist. If he’s not and he holds no racist views, then explain why the 20 year relationship with a man who is not only a racist, but is also completely out of his mind crazy.
Howard Dean promised that the campaign this year would be honest and honorable. Funny, considering the DNC (which he runs) has a new attack ad on McCain that is so dishonest, no one should even bother taking any part of it seriosly.
The ad shows John McCain standing with a mic listening to a question from a member of a crowd in Derry, NH. The man asking the questions starts out by telling Senator McCain: “I wanna say at the outset that I’m not going to be voting for you, I’m going to be voting in the Democatic primary in order to defeat the senator from New York. Who I refer to as Joe Lieberman Democrat.” Lieberman is sitting on the stage as McCain stands and walks around, so the guy asking the question is just acting like a child to begin with to attack Lieberman by attacking Clinton and comparing the two. It’s okay to be critical, but it seemed as if his goal was just to be childish.
This pretext isn’t mentioned in the DNC ad, but it’s nice to have that background info.
The ad itself does have the question about Bush and staying in Iraq for 50 years.
The text to the left of McCain says “Senator McCain” and under it we see the text of the question being asked (we hear the question as well), the question is:
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years”
We then see McCain reply “maybe a hundred.” Text to the left says “100 years in Iraq.”
Then, the video freezes and the text saying 100 years in Iraq slowly starts to come toward us, getting closer and larger. The video then restarts, but there’s a noticeble edit. There is clearly some video taken out. We then see McCain say, “that’d be fine with me.” So, to watch this ad, you’d think McCain had said (50 years?) “Maybe a hundred. That’d be fine with me.”
Most Americans will see the ad and not bother to find the full video, but I’ll do it for you to show the DNC is lying and distorting what McCain truly said.
This is the video that has the full back and forth between McCain and the questioner.
What McCain actually says is this:
“Maybe a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day”
I have put in bold the part of the reply that the DNC edited out. That section edited out clearly changes the meaning of what McCain is saying. Changing the meaning without telling us they edited his reply. In other words- Howard Dean and the DNC are lying.
Worse yet- the DNC ad follows “That’d be fine with me” with video of explosions and carnage in Iraq and the text “5 years” followed by onscreen text saying “$500 billion” and “Over 4,000 dead.” They then repeat the question asked in NH. Then the snippet of McCain simply saying “maybe a hundred.” The voiceover says:
“If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?”
Clearly, this ad is a lie and a disgusting attack on McCain by taking his words, editing them, leaving out the context in order to make him say something he never said and doesn’t truly believe. Furthermore, the voiceover at the end is complete dishonesty, as it comes directly after the video of carnage in Iraq and the text saying 4.000 dead. McCain is NOT more of the same in Iraq, and he’s definitely not saying that in this video clip. He specifically said “That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”
No two ways about it- Howard Dean and the DNC are lying once again about John McCain. Will Obama denounce this ad as he denounced the NC GOP ad with videos of Rev Wrights (video clips, I might add, were NOT edited in any manner to distort what he was truly saying as this DNC ad does with McCain). Or can we expect politics as usual from Obama, tho he claims to repudiate the usual tactics?
I will end by mentioning the NY Times covering this ad. They were dishonest themselves, as their online blog post about this reads (in part):
“In the commercial, Mr. McCain’s words speak for themselves, not misstated as they have been on the campaign trail as though he called for 100 years of war. In the initial exchange with voter Dave Tiffany, and in subsequent interviews, Mr. McCain made it clear he was not talking about extended combat, but about the fact that he wouldn’t mind maintaining a presence in Iraq to assist with stability. (He likened it to the continuing presence of troops in South Korea or Bosnia.)”
How Times writer Kate Phillips can say that with a straight face is beyond what I can comprehend. She’s being dishonest when she says McCain’s words speak for themselves. There’s not a bit of truthfulness to that claim. A major clarifying statement was edited out of his reply, AND the video and text are in opposition with what he said about there not being Americans harmed, injured, killed, etc. And when you leave the clarification on South Korea, Japan, Bosnia, etc. out you’re completely distorting what McCain said. Leave it to the Times to claim that a dishonest attack ad twisting McCain’s words allowed McCain’s words to speak for themselves.
Dishonesty from Dean and the DNC…dishonesty from the Democratic Party’s biggest cheerleader, the NY Times. What a winning combination for America.