Friday, June 29, 2007

Fed Up With Ann Coulter

I'll be blatantly honest from the outset here...I've never liked Ann Coulter (a fact I'm sure she'll lose quite a bit of sleep over, lol). Aside from her general abrasiveness and crass remarks, I'm even more offended by her occasional attempt at whining...not unlike her article posted today on WingNutDaily. While she was on the MSNBC show Hardball, Elizabeth Edwards called in to basically ask Ann to stop her attacks on her husband and presidential candidate, John. Here was some of what Ann had to say in her WND article today...

"For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt
a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me
for being mean to her husband.
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al
Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone
they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife
of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?"

Is anyone feeling sorry for Ann in the slightest? I'll admit that the call from Elizabeth was a bit lame and I'm disappointed that the whole ordeal was then used as a fundraising push, but Ms. Coulter has absolutely no room to whine, as she has a long history of 'being mean' herself. Her comments made on Good Morning America are what precipitated the phone call, so let's take a look at what Ann really said...

"Coulter told "Good Morning America's" Chris Cuomo: "But about the same time,
Bill Maher was not joking in saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a
terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson, if I’m gonna saying anything about
John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist
assassination plot."

So, because someone else made a's perfectly okay for her to make the same remark about another person? Way to accept personal responsibility, Ann! Now, back to the Hardball incident...

"EE: I'm calling you … in the south when we -- when someone does something
that displeases us, we wanna ask them politely to stop doing it. Uh - I'd like
to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we
certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but
uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has
said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers
our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want
to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

Ann Coulter: OK, so I made a joke -- let's see six months ago -- and as
you point out they've been raising money off of it for six months since

CM: This is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

AC: I didn't say anything about him actually either time.

EE: Ann, you know that's not true. And once more its been going on for

Now, based on the quote from the GMA interview on Monday, Ann did say something about John Edwards, and it was a profoundly offensive remark. But here's what Ann had to say today about it...

"I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the
first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of
utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America"
interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush
Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks
on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.

These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media know they are lies.
Yet they were repeated ad nauseam yesterday by the Associated Press, the AOL
pop-up window, CNN, NBC and – stunningly – the host of the lowest-rated cable
show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.

So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books:
Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."

Ummm...who's lying here? It seems Ann did make the terrorist-related comment about John Edwards, and it's on the record with ABC and the rest of the internet-connected world now. There's no getting out of it. And while she tried to point out that the Edwards campaign was using the event as a fundraising tactic, she still felt it necessary to pimp her 'five best-selling books?' I find that absolutely unbelivable.

Ann continues in her WND article, pointing out problems with John Edwards and even asserting that John Kerry was less than enthused with Edwards as a person. If she can back it all up, that's fine...I have no problem with someone expressing an opinion about someone else if it's based upon actual facts. The terrorist comment, though, was over the line in my opinion. It's the very last paragraph of her article that bothers me even more, though...

"I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings
off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement
schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only
serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich."

I have only two words for you, Ann...poor baby.

**Here are a few of Ann's other quips that make me wonder why she has the audacity to whine about being picked on...

"I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I
think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a
televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle
East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." - December
21, 2005

"Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are
calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to
boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether." -,
November 22, 2006

"(Liberals) are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's
do it. Let's repress them. ... Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First
Amendment," Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech
at the University of Florida.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler
and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians.
That's war. And this is war," Coulter wrote in a column
published by the National Review
Online on Sept. 13, 2001.

"We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter
in a Jan. 27 appearance at Philander
Smith College
in Little
, Ark., regarding Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She later
explained she was joking about the justice, whose votes have upheld Roe v. Wade,
the landmark decision legalizing abortion.

**And my favorite of all...

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard," she
said in The Washington Post
on October 16, 1998.

She should have taken her own advice.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Dems Pushing 'Fairness Doctrine' And Making a Huge Mistake

John Kerry, among other democrats, is attempting to revive a law that was suspended (but left on the books, unfortunately) in 1987 which would require equal time for opposing viewpoints on radio and television. In a report by WND, Kerry is quoted as saying...

"These are the people that wiped out … one of the most profound changes in the
balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time
requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and
squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important
transition in the imbalance of our public eye,"

What Kerry isn't telling you is that the FCC provision was suspended with the support of a Democrat-controlled Congress. He's also omitting the fact that the reason the provision was enacted in the first place was because there were, at the time, only three media networks from which a person could get information. Obviously, times have changed, and the average person has numerous sources available both in the television and radio arenas.

Here's the problem with what Kerry and other Dems are doing, though. They are attempting to get the federal government to take control of what information a person can gather from the much more modern media sources that exist now. Not only should the FCC NOT have that sort of power, but these same legislators would be screaming had the suggestion been made by a conservative legislator or organization.

Just as I suggested to Matt Barber in another post, if you don't like what you're seeing or hearing...change the channel or station. We're perfectly capable of seeking out as many differing viewpoints as we'd like, and the Dems are making a huge mistake by assuming that we can't.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Blair Wasn't Bush's 'Poodle'...He's "Much More Kind of Lofty"

I love it when I don't have to work to make a joke about the Chimperor! Here's some of what Bush had to say about outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair...

"I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle," the president said of Blair,
who has been heavily criticised in Britain for his decision to stand by the
United States first in its invasion
of Iraq
in 2003, and later in its refusal to criticise Israel for its
bombing of Lebanon last summer.
"He's bigger than that. This is just
background noise, a distraction from big things. This kind of thing is just
silly ridicule and that's how I treat it."

Okay, so Blair is bigger than a poodle? I'm just saying, lol. It gets better, though...

"Tony's great skill, and I wish I had it, is that he's very articulate. I
wish I was a better speaker. This guy (Blair) can really ... he can talk," Bush
"He's given some really good speeches here on US soil. He's a very
good writer, obviously, and he's a very good speaker too."
The president
acknowledged, however, that the pair had very different speaking styles: "He's
much more kind of lofty and eloquent than I am. I tend to be just pretty matter
of fact

I'm trying extraordinarily hard to contain my laughter here, but I think that most elementary aged kids are more articulate than the Chimperor could ever hope to be. Oh, and should be, "I wish I were a better speaker." Let' see...only about 18 more months of Dubya. Thank god!

Harry Potter Nonsense

Apparently, the folks over at WingNutDaily have found yet another reason for the impending downfall of civilization...Harry Potter. Referring to another fundie author, WND says...

"But, contends author Steve Wohlberg, what many people don't know is that
when Harry Potter and his Firebolt whoosh off the shelf, he's not alone. A
victory for Harry Potter means a victory for Wicca, a religion that practices
various forms of witchcraft."

Because so many kids (and adults who are fans of the series) have embraced witchcraft since the first installment of the story, right? Wohlberg offers this in the way of supporting that assertion...

"Wohlberg's new book "Exposing Harry Potter and Witchcraft: The Menace
Beneath the Magic," asserts that "Harry Potter" purchases are often accompanied
at the sales counter with materials on Wicca. Increasing numbers of young
readers also frequent Wicca websites, cast "Love and Money Spells," and practice "white magic."

My question, as always...where's your proof, Mr. Wohlberg? You can't make sweeping comments like these, then not give so much as a link to a study or poll which would give your argument credibility.

WND tries to bolster its own article by adding the following...

"...the Vatican's top exorcist has condemned the series as leading children
to the devil.
Rev. Gabriele Amorth said: "You start off with Harry Potter,
who comes across as a likeable wizard, but you end up with the devil. There is
no doubt that the signature of the Prince of Darkness is clearly within these

Again, that's why there's been such an upswing in Satanic rituals and ritualistic killings since the beginning of the series, right? Honestly, this same argument has been put forth with each new book and it's every bit as ridiculous this time as it has been in the past.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

AFA Responds To

**Warning...this post will be much more sarcastic than usual, LOL!

The American Family Association has posted a response to an article by, a site that debunks urban legends and general stupidity. The subject...hate crimes legislation and how it will virtually end civilization as we know it. The AFA states...

"American Family Association remains steadfast in our claim that if this
bill passes, we are confident that liberal judges will rush to make it a federal
crime to publicly criticize the homosexual lifestyle."

Well, that makes sense, right? After all, the hate crimes legislation that is already in place makes it a federal crime to use a racial slur in public, right? Absolute nonsense! It gets better, though...

"Can’t happen, you say? In Canada, one cannot legally criticize
homosexuality in public. Because of a “hate crimes” law that includes sexual
orientation, even the quoting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality can be
Because of “hate crimes” legislation in Sweden, a pastor was sentenced to
30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he said homosexuality is

Ummm, have the folks at AFA forgotten what country we live in? Beyond that, have they ignored the fact that the government system of Canada is completely different from that here in the US? And since when does Swedish legislation have any bearing on the laws of this country? That argument is tantamount to saying that since Afghan women can be stoned to death for committing adultery, the same could happen here. It's just utter nonsense! AFA continues their whining...

" is reporting that the claims of AFA Action Alert, “as well as
the Action Alert’s bulleted references to court cases, news items, and current
legislation, are gross and misleading distortions of information.”

Well, I think we've established that their little "action alert" is, in fact, grossly misleading. Keep bloviating, AFA...the rest of us with functioning brains will continue to point out your flawed arguments (and I use the term "arguments" very loosely) and will shine an enormous spotlight on your twisted facts.

Tuesday's This and That

**Paris is out of prison, and is claiming to have found God. I suppose among the many things a person could find while in prison, God is better than others, lol, but I'm not buying this...despite what Barbara Walters says. Paris got scared, and I imagine this newfound redemption may last for a week or two...we'll see.

**In case you haven't heard about it, two gay New Jersey students had their yearbook photo removed because it showed them kissing. There's been a whole bunch of hoopla over the entire censorship issue, but what I find most fascinating is that this morning, on WingNutDaily, there is a link where readers can "see the kiss." If you follow the link, you'll have to scroll down the page to find the "Photonetdaily" reference. Funny that such a bunch of homophobes would give such a link.

**That ridiculous 54 million dollar lawsuit filed over a pair of missing pants from a dry cleaner's was thrown out of court yesterday. I'm still laughing over what the presiding judge had to say about the case...

"A judge ruled Monday that no pair
of pants
is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry
's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious

She had much more to say, so give the article a read.

**God, Cheney is showing signs of "lunacy?" WND has an article up today discussing a NY Times article in which Cheney is described as...

"belligerent," "ideological" and "shadowy." Also "extralegal" and "dastardly."
And his position, writer Maureen Dowd says, is "bordering on lunacy."

With the Chimperor's behavior (see my previous posts), I say we bring in the next one in line...Speaker of the House Pelosi. I don't really like her all that much, but hell...she can't be any worse, right?

Monday, June 25, 2007

Bush's Supreme Court Rules And Consequently Violates The First Amendment

A group by the name of "Freedom From Religion Foundation," has lost its suit against the various taxpayer funded, faith-based initiatives that the Chimperor has imposed upon us since he took office. According to the Associated Press...

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a
White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and
agnostics against eight Bush administration officials including the head of the
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc.,
objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage
religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Let's just start with a little history lesson, shall we? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution covers free speech, but one other thing it covers is the establishment of a single religion. That said, Bush's faith-based initiatives are clearly in violation of this provision in our constitution. Apparently, the folks who occupy the offices of the Supreme Court have either not gotten their copy of the Constitution, or they've chosen to to ignore it. Either way, this decision flies in the face of one of the most basic foundations of this country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people of this country practicing their religions, but there is something seriously wrong with a President who tries to push fundamentalism on everyone...and handing out tax breaks for cooperating.

To the folks of Freedom From Religion Foundation, I say keep trying. I encourage everyone to donate or otherwise support their efforts.

Dear those who chastise gay existences:

**Note: This is a repost of an excellently written letter by Jeremy Hooper of Good As You.

When this writer was younger, a very important person in his life made more than a few rules and judgments that were, even looking back through adult eyes, truly unjust. Never one to hold my tongue when I feel I've been wronged or misjudged, I always challenged these unfair regulations with passionate pleas and reasoned scrutiny. More often than not, my questioning the inappropriateness of said rules would lead to one claim: That I was "defensive."
In actuality, I would've had no reason to dispute the arguments brought forth, had the offensive not been so offensive. But in order for my sparring partner to forge a claim for the upper hand, the "defensive" line was dealt out freely. And you know what? It's really quite genius (if spineless). After all, if one protests such a claim, they are only said to be defensive about being defensive. It's basically a slightly more intellectual way of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "La,la,la,la,la," as the intent of both is to shut up the other side without giving even a limited consideration that maybe, just maybe, they have some interesting and credible points to make.

My point: It is beyond weak-minded to bring forth a point of contention or debate with someone, and then turn around and call them sensitive or defensive when they have the "audacity" to challenge your claims. If you so something like condemn my life and love, I am going to call your words and actions into question. Unapologetically! Do not try and embolden your own stances by claiming that by eliciting a response, you have somehow "touched a nerve." That is a feeble tactic, which is generally used by the sorts of people who can dish it, but can't take it in return.


Jeremy Hooper Good As You

I just couldn't have said it any better!

Elizabeth Edwards Supports Gay Marriage

Finally! I was so hoping that my favorite candidate would come out (pardon the pun) and publicly support gay marriage. Okay, so it was the was his wife, but hell, it's a start. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, in its report on the Gay Pride Parade, Elizabeth Edwards said the following...

"I don't know why somebody else's marriage has anything to do with me,''
she said. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage.''

Again...FINALLY...someone in the public/political arena has taken a stand and said what we've all been saying! The only thing that still bothers me is that Edwards, himself, still has issues with gay marriage...

"But that position differs markedly from her husband, the former North
Carolina Senator. Edwards said her husband, though having a '"deeply held belief
against any form of discrimination,'' supports gay civil unions, but does not
support gay marriage."

Elizabeth maintains that her husband is feeling conflicted because the idea of gay marriage goes against his "1950s upbringing." Hopefully, she'll have some influence and he'll change his position. Only time will tell, though.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

A Little This and That...

You know that even while on vacation I had to poke fun at a few things, right? So here we go...

**Doesn't this sound like fun? Those lovable little wingnuts are having themselves a 10th anniversary cruise. Forgive me...I'm trying to contain my laughter here.

**I can't make this stuff up. Apparently, an Illinois woman's mare kicked a stallion to death. Why, you ask? (Again, I'm trying to contain my laughter) The stallion was making unwanted sexual advances. ABC News reports...

"Ruth Kay, of Bartlett, Ill., said in court papers that a stallion named
Vinny violated her mare's "personal and private space" by resting his head on
the mare's rear end, a common romantic come-on among horses.
The mare, named
Gabby, kicked Vinny, eventually killing him, according to a lawsuit filed last
year by Vinny's owner, Collette Sorensen."

I'm an animal lover, and I certainly do not relish the stallion's death and I do realize that such horses can be worth quite a bit of money...but come on! This just sounds like the judge who sued the drycleaner's for losing his pants.

**Janet Folger apparently thinks she's Reagan now, LOL. In last Tuesday's article, she twisted one of Reagan's quotes to try and give Bush a swift kick in the balls...

"Mr. President, tear down that fence!"

If you want a good laugh, give it a read

**Run! The gays have infiltrated the evangelical society! Those Concerned Women For America have their panties in a knot over the idea that "homosexual temptations" are normal. Shocking, isn't it? Better yet, one pastor is making money off the idea through his book, The Gay Gospel. Check out the article, and you'll see Matt Barber's hands all over it, LOL.

**Bloomberg breaks with the elephants and positions himself as a possible independent spoiler. It's too early to tell if he'll be the Perot or Nader of '08, but the announcement does raise a few questions...the biggest being, which party will get hurt if he runs as an independent? Ah, I suppose it'll all boil down to who the party nominees end up being...right now, it's a toss up, in my opinion.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The Terminator Will Be On Vacation Next Week

I'll be taking next week off...unless, of course, I find myself compelled to terminate someone, lol. While I'm gone, take some time to check on these things...

* Take my blog survey. You can follow the link at the top of my blog's front page, or go here. This will give me a better idea of who my readers are and where your interests lie.

* Visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and consider donating. They help protect the rights of bloggers and, by extension, the truly free press we now enjoy since the explosion of blogging.

* Help support The Terminator by either donating or simply signing my guestbook. There are several buttons there on the sidebar which will give you a chance to subscribe to this blog, rate what I've written, etc. Take a look and have some fun!

* Visit some of the blogs on my blogroll.

* Stop by the Human Rights Campaign's site and either donate or subscribe to some of their email publications. They've got alot to offer, and they'll help you stay on top of what's going on in the battle for equality.

My regular posting will resume on Monday, June 25...unless that urge to terminate strikes me sooner, that is.

General Pace Now Considered A Victim Of That Damn Homosexual Agenda

When I first heard that General Peter Pace was retiring, I wondered how long it would take for the homosexual community to be blamed. It turns out I didn't have to wait long, because One News Now is reporting that a military watchdog group has done just that. You may remember that Gen. Pace made some comments calling homosexuality immoral, and made it clear that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military, or, as Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness put it...

"General Pace made statements that were opposed by the homosexual activist
community, and that issue is why the administration chose not to fight for his
reconfirmation," says Donnelly. "The administration chose to switch rather than
fight -- and in this case, I think that is mistaken."

Ms. Donnelly couldn't be more wrong. Sure, the homosexual community was incensed over Gen. Pace's statements (I posted on them earlier), but let's consider the far more probable reasons for his replacement. First, while he's only been the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for two years, he was the deputy chief for three years preceding his appointment. This means that he has been involved at the highest level with the failed strategies employed in Iraq. Second, Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's replacement as Defense Secretary, made it known early on that Pace wasn't someone he wished to work with. Further, it's just not that unusual for a newly appointed cabinet member to want to make personnel changes.

The first reason is probably why the White House decided it didn't want to fight the upcoming reconfirmation hearings in the Senate. Since the Democrats are in control, Pace's policies and strategies regarding Iraq would most definitely make his confirmation difficult, if not impossible. That's the fight the White House wanted to avoid, because it would shine a gigantic spotlight on Bush and his underlying agenda.

The fundies are using Pace's outrageous comments as a red herring and choosing this moment to divert attention from the Chimperor's agenda. They'd much rather blather about the fictitious homosexual agenda and all the evil that it entails then face the fact that their anointed son, Bush, has royally screwed up. Ms. Donnelly can continue to point the finger at the homosexual community, but anyone with a functioning brain and the capacity for logical thought should be able to see what is really going on with this new appointment.

**Previous post on General Pace can be found here.

FRC's Latest Marriage Hoopla

You know, I'm not sure where to file this one because it's either a case of profound ignorance or a blatant attempt to sideline any further attempt at creating same sex marriage laws and upholding existing ones. The Family Research Council issued an alert entitled, "Taxation Without Representation," aimed at Massachusetts lawmakers and their scheduled vote today on whether to send an amendment to the voters. Here's a snippet of what the alert has to say...

"On Thursday, June 14, Legislators will be voting on whether to send the
amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the people of
Massachusetts. This is due to the fact that collected 170,000 signatures, the
most ever collected in state history, in support of traditional

"We encourage you and your friends to phone your state representatives and
senators today at (617) 722-2000. Your legislators must hear from you now.
Demand your right to be represented - demand your right to vote!"

Not everything that is made law is put to a public vote...that's the entire point behind electing representatives whether it's at the local, state or federal level. So the idea of equating this particular situation with taxation without representation is absurd, and every person who shows up today to protest is only going to make themselves look like ignorant fools.

Then there's the other side and another possibility for this 'alert.' Could the FRC be trying to garner support by perpetuating the notion that not being able to vote on this issue is tantamount to having a civil right revoked? It sounds like they are using the usual fear mongering tactic, however, since the Massachusetts lawmakers aren't doing anything they don't have the authority to do. Would they be equally incensed if a public vote wasn't offered on some referendum regarding a different acknowledging that the Bible is to be interpreted literally? Of course not, and they would be saying exactly what I'm saying when people expressed their outrage. This is nothing more than yet another attempt to undermine equality for the LGBT community.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Just For Fun...A Look At The Hot 100 List

Readers who frequent were asked to nominate women for their own list of 'hotties,' and while I won't make my own list of 100, I will pick my personal top 10. Consider this an open thread and comment away!

Here's my top 10...

**Celebrities, of course, real number one is another story.

10. Jordana Brewster
9. Melinda Clarke
8. Lauren Lee Smith
7. Neve Campbell
6. Kate Beckinsale
5. Mia Kirshner
4. Sarah Shahi
3. Karina Lombard
2. Paula Patton
1. Jennifer Beals

A Gay Bomb?

I picked this up from Jeremy over at Good As You, and it just puts an exclamation point on what many of the gay rights advocates have been saying about those opposed to our equality in this society. MSNBC has a video up where a supposed military plan to develop a chemical spray which would render enemy troops incapable of fighting by making them gay. You'll have to scroll down a bit to find the video listing, but it's definitely worth watching.

Jeremy had this to say about the concept as a whole, and I agree 100% with him...

"Homosexuality: Is there anything with which this country is more obsessed?
Turning people gay, speculating about who is and who is not gay, gay marriage --
Love or hate the 'moness, it's on people's minds and tongues more than just
about anything else in this world! It's just...bizarre.
Perhaps what we
really need is a bomb to force gay unfriendly people to turn their attention to
their own bodies and desires, rather than focusing so damn much on that which
they loathe, don't understand, or secretly crave! "

I couldn't have said it better. As usual, great work, Jeremy!

Same Sex Marriages Oppress Children?

You read that right folks. According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to one another through marriage will inevitably oppress any children the couple may produce by not providing them with both a mother and a father...

"Meanwhile, as homosexuals seek to claim marriage as a civil right of any
combination of people, they risk oppressing the youngest among us. One of the
primary civil rights honored by marriage is that of children to have a loving
mother and father. To deny them that benefit is not Loving at all."

Where is the outrage over heterosexual couples who end up leaving children with just one parent? If the crux of this argument is to be based on the denial of civil rights to children according to the parenting situation, then where is the outrage? The answer is that Mr. Perkins is groping for an argument against that which he loathes...plain and simple.

WND's Shapiro Misses The Point...Again

I'm going to warn all of you, first, that this wingnut article is so unhinged that it's going to take a while to wade through it bear with me, lol.

Benjamin Shapiro has written a rather lengthy diatribe that starts out calling the "American left," godless...

"There is a curious void in the modern American left. That void is the
empty spot where God should be. The American left – and the Democratic Party, as
its political representative – has worked tirelessly over the course of decades
to cast God from the public square, all the time disclaiming their mission by
invoking "tolerance" for all beliefs."

Right off the bat, I have to say to Mr. Shapiro that there is no "mission," and our constant mention of being tolerant of all beliefs has no underlying agenda or hidden meaning. I need to point out, also, that by making this opening statement, Mr. Shapiro has positioned himself and his cohorts as the intolerant ones attempting to force their personal belief system upon everyone else. It gets better, though, as Benjamin continues...

"Where's God in the liberal moral equation? Nowhere to be found – and with
good reason. The American left now stands for the wholesale displacement of
traditional religious morality and the utter rejection of the Divine. "We
believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion,"
atheistic commentator Christopher Hitchens writes in his new best-seller, "God
Is Not Great." Hitchens, consciously or unconsciously, speaks for the liberal

Like CWA's Matt Barber, Shapiro has embraced the, "where we go one, we go all," philosophy by essentially stating that Hitchens' book speaks for every liberal. True, some of us have either rejected the notion of "God" or have embraced another form of religion...but that is the right of every human being, is it not? His insistence that we all should embrace his idea of "traditional religious morality" is the biggest problem with these fundamental conservatives. Shapiro then refers to a Gallup poll, without giving any link or notation so readers can check the poll's validity, and expands upon the godlessness of liberals...

"A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual
activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent),
abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support
polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than
conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming. ("It is a moral issue, it is
an ethical issue," spouts Al Gore.) Liberals seem far less comfortable
discussing the moral implications of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq."

Notice Benjamin's blatant misuse of the word "support" in this paragraph. Since I can't check the poll to which he's referring, I can't make any definitive statements other than to say that I highly doubt the questions were posed in such a manner as to suggest that the person being polled "supported" any of the issues mentioned. This is simply Shapiro's attempt to link liberals to all that is evil, and I'm surprised that pedophilia wasn't mentioned. I mean, everyone knows that liberals...and homosexuals in particular...want nothing more than to engage in polygamous relationships with minors while producing illegitimate children and cloning embryos in our secret laboratories, right? As to his passing comment about Iraq (which seemed incredibly random and misplaced), I wonder if Mr. Shapiro has given any thought to the moral implication of continuing to send our troops to die in what has become the Chimperor's own quagmire and the civil war that has ensued as a result?

Ben goes on for a few more paragraphs basically continuing to link liberals to what he believes will be the downfall of civilization, while using as many five and ten dollar words as possible once again. He concludes with this...

"We have witnessed four decades of a punctuated slide down to the ant heap,
thanks to the morality of those who reject the possibility of the soul and the
righteousness of the Divine moral mission. But it is not too late. It is never
too late, as long as the Divine spark smolders in the human heart – the spark
that is always ready to burst into a renewed flame of enlightened morality. And
no amount of liberal obfuscation and atheistic bluster can extinguish that

Mr. Shapiro, the human soul will thrive whether your idea of religion and religious morality is a part of that soul or not. The cynicism and jadedness you speak of is not a result of rejecting your mores, it's a result of witnessing the infighting among religious groups, the proselytizing and the profound arrogance with which you continually beat people. Since you are so obsessed with "the Divine," allow me to remind you of a few of his words...

* "When they kept on questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them,'If
any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'"
John 8:7 (New International Version) Obviously, "He," is Jesus and he was
speaking to a group of teachers and Pharisees who intended to stone to death a
woman who had been caught in adultery.

Here's the painful truth for you, Mr.'re not a perfect person and neither am I. So when you become perfect and "without sin," then, maybe, you can tell the rest of us how we should live and what moral system we should adopt. Until then, however...try to at least pretend you're not the arrogant nutcase that you are.

UPDATE: Montgomery County MD School Board Passes New Curriculum

In a report today from the Washington Post, the Montgomery County School Board did approve the unnecessarily controversial addition to middle and high school health curriculum. The article did take a bit of a swipe at the school board...

"Much of the nation is moving toward an "abstinence-only" approach to sex
education, which emphasizes the advantages of confining sex to marriage. But
school systems in liberal communities are heading in the opposite direction,
teaching more about sexual orientation, as well as contraception and abstinence,
in what is termed "comprehensive" sex education."

I suppose the generally conservative staff of the Post sees the mere mention of the fact that people have varying sexual orientations is enough to earn the board the label of "liberal." Personally, I think the board acted responsibly in adopting this curriculum. Congratulations, Montgomery've made a huge step in the right direction.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Barber Can't Protect His Own Children?

After reading his comments today, I'm beginning to wonder if Matt Barber thinks the FCC is responsible for the moral protection of his children. Referring to a ruling yesterday by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Barber said...

"Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Policy Director for
Cultural Issues, said, “With this ruling the Second Circuit has essentially
declared a profanity free-for-all on primetime network television, a time when
children are most likely to be viewing. The court ruled that it was ‘arbitrary
and capricious’ for the FCC to restrict the ‘fleeting’ use – whatever that means
– of the harshest of expletives, including the F-word. The Fox Television
Network has said, and the court apparently agreed, that the FCC regulation,
‘serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the
First Amendment.’ So it now ‘chills artistic expression’ to place even the most
reasonable and limited of protective barriers between a four-year-old and the
F-word on daytime television? Just when you think we can’t sink any lower as a
society, we do.”

Ummm, four-year-old isn't watching this programming, and neither is my six-year-old, for that matter. If yours are, then you have far bigger issues to worry about than any court ruling. The Court was absolutely correct in upholding the First Amendment rights in this case, I believe, and it's absurd to think or assume that any Court or other federal agency should be responsible for guarding anyone's child against hearing an expletive. That's the job of the parents, and I find myself wondering...once again...if your remote control is somehow disabled or if you've forgotten how to turn the television off altogether.

The article goes on to say...

"CWA is encouraging Congress to address this issue. Networks need to be
held accountable for inappropriate language on live programming. Small children
should not be exposed to such “artistic expression” on television."

I think this one will have to fall under the, "Well, DUH," category. Of course small children shouldn't be exposed to the sort of language the CWA is so concerned about. For all the bloviating this particular organization has done about parental rights and privileges, it is astounding to me that they seem to want someone else to take the wheel on this subject. So astounding, in fact, that I wonder if CWA might not be using the idea of poor, innocent children being subjected to such foul language as a way of controlling what everyone can and can't watch. But that can't be true, can it? It's the homosexual community that is attempting to hijack American culture, right? Once again, you've been caught trying to manipulate society so that it reflects your own mores and values.

CWA needs to come clean on this and admit that their goal is to force Americans to adopt their ideals and morals. The article lists contact information on this subject, and I think we should tell them that we're not fooled by this tactic and would like them to stop constantly pointing the finger at the LGBT community for forcing or trying to implement some 'agenda.' It's obvious that CWA's agenda is being pushed here, and nothing more. Here's the contact information...

For Information Contact:Jennifer Fedor(202)

Give 'em hell!

Monday, June 11, 2007

'Pro-Homosexual Curriculum' Causes an Uproar in Maryland

The Family Research Council has issued one of their infamous action alerts pertaining to the Montgomery County School Board in Maryland and their meeting scheduled for tomorrow. The subject of this particular action alert...a vote that would approve a new sex education curriculum for middle and high school students. Here's a little of what FRC had to say...

"The Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools apparently remain determined to
spread pro-homosexual propaganda throughout the school system--ASAP. The
Montgomery County Board of Education has scheduled a vote on the final approval
of new pro-homosexual sex education curriculum for next Tuesday, June 12. The
new curriculum replaces one that was thrown out by a federal judge in 2005, but
exhibits a number of the same grave flaws, including:

Unlawful "viewpoint discrimination" which excludes all mention of the
harms of homosexual behavior and the fact that most Americans disapprove of
Omission of important data concerning the health risks of specific sexual
acts--even though a petition of 270 physicians urged it be included;
false assertion that homosexual orientation is "innate and
exclusion of "ex-gays."

My, my...where to begin? First, I had to suppress a chuckle at the use of the phrase, "grave flaws," because it's just a ridiculous overstatement...but I digress. But let's take a look at their specific gripes.

"Unlawful "viewpoint discrimination" which excludes all mention of the
harms of homosexual behavior and the fact that most Americans disapprove of

Notice, firstly, that their is no mention to any polls or studies to back up their contention that most Americans are wallowing in disapproval. Aside from that, with all the discussion about the Chimperor's nominee for Surgeon General and his assertion that homosexual behavior is harmful, I find it convenient for FRC to mention this as a reason for opposing the district's curriculum. Further, there are many heterosexual behaviors that are harmful...yet I don't hear anyone from the various fundie camps screaming about that.

"Omission of important data concerning the health risks of specific sexual
acts--even though a petition of 270 physicians urged it be included"

How many physicians do you think there are in this country? A petition garnering the endorsement of 270 doctors is laughable. Aside from that, what business is it of anyone what goes on in a private citizen's bedroom? This point of theirs is absurd.

"The false assertion that homosexual orientation is "innate
Discriminatory exclusion of "ex-gays."

Again with the whole "false assertion" nonsense, I see. A person's sexual orientation is innate and, more than that, a part of their identity. The entire "ex-gay" movement is another issue entirely that would need another post, but I'll say that if you look into what these people are'll come to the conclusion that it boils down to people choosing to ignore their identity and nothing more.

So, the FRC doesn't want middle and high school kids to have this basic understanding about homosexuality, nor do they want them to feel safe enough to discuss their own sexuality. They've issued this alert, and I think it's only appropriate to issue one myself. Here's the email address provided by the FRC...

Send in your own message, telling them that this curriculum is not only necessary, but it's also not the portrait of doom that the FRC would like for everyone to believe it is. Kids have to understand the truth about homosexuals to avoid the types of hate crimes and ostracization that occurs in schools today. It's as simple as that, and I applaud the Montgomery County school board for having the guts attempt to go forward with implementing this curriculum.

**If you'd like another, more detailed, look at the proposed curriculum (albeit from a rather negative standpoint), take a look at this site.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Friday's This and That

Consider this an open thread and add your thoughts...

* Bush was confined to his hotel room due to a stomach illness according to an AP report . Maybe he didn't want to continue the family tradition of vomiting then passing out in front of foreign leaders, but at least German Chancellor Merkel won't have to worry about being groped...for today, that is, lol.

* Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council has come up with another reason to be against same sex marriage, and you won't believe it. It seems Tony is all upset about homosexual partners sharing a common, married name...

"Now, state leaders are hoping to elevate the status of these relationships
by making it easier to "appear" married. As Assemblyman Van Tran (R) told
reporters, "Name change is a big, symbolic, important step for marrying a man
and a woman... It's one of the longest held traditions for the woman to take the
name of her husband's family... I just don't see any hard, compelling reason to
change that." Liberal activists certainly do. It puts them one step closer to
making traditional marriage completely irrelevant."

The state in question is California, by the way, and did anyone else miss that day of homosexual orientation? I didn't realize that wanting to share your partner's name, taking on that additional identity made any one else's marriage irrelevant. If I could just get my hands on a copy of that damn agenda of ours...

* Matt Barber's television remote must be broken too, since he has decided to complain about the language on various tv programs. Matt specifically mentions award broadcasts which are, for the most part, live...a fact that is usually made very clear in the advertisements before each show. My solution is the same as it was in my earlier post...change the channel if you don't like it, Matt.

Scarborough Said Something Stupid...Nothing More

Joe Scarborough's stupid remark about Fred Thompson's wife working a "pole" has become the topic of discussion over at CWA. According to Wendy Wright...

“Joe Scarborough’s banter reduces an accomplished and respectable woman to
a ‘bimbo’ and reflects attempts to mainstream porn into every day culture.
Pornography shapes people’s view of women – and not just the women in the
pictures – as objects to be used for sexual pleasure. The proliferation of
pornography and strip clubs does have an effect. It results in men viewing women
as sexual objects instead of capable and intelligent human beings. Mainstream
culture, from TV to clothes, has become saturated not with flirtatious sex, but
crass, debasing, dehumanizing porn that encourages judging women by porn
“Scarborough’s comments reflect and reinforce the normalization
of porn. Scarborough owes Mrs. Thompson an apology.”

Wendy's right...Mr. Scarborough said something really, really stupid, and if I were Fred Thompson, I'd want a private word or two with him for saying what he did. But once again, CWA has taken what was an admittedly asinine thing to say and turned it into something else. In this case, Scarborough's comments are proof positive that the whole of society has become obsessed with porn.

If we were to follow this rather jagged line of logic, the derogatory comments made by actor Isaiah Washington of Grey's Anatomy would be proof positive of society's acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. What? You mean that doesn't make any sense either? I didn't think I remembered CWA taking that stance when members of the homosexual community were defamed, but you can't blame a girl for trying! You might need to go back to the drawing board on this one Wendy, because we're not buying it!

Pharmacist's Refusing To Do Their Jobs?

A young woman, facing the very real possibility that she might have become pregnant following her previous night's activity, goes to her pharmacy to get the morning after pill. She didn't intend to get pregnant, and doesn't want to have to face the decision about abortion later, so she thinks she's doing the responsible thing, by preventing this possible pregnancy. Little does she know that the pharmacist has his/her own moral objection to the idea of the morning after pill (MAP), and refuses to make it available. Would that outrage you? It outrages me too, but not the Concerned Women for America. Wendy Wright, who seems to be on a roll today, had this to say about proposed legislation which would fine pharmacists who refuse to make the MAP available...

“Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines. The FDA has
been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes
in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients’
lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns.
Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their
ethical duty.”
“This punitive bill would bankrupt pharmacists for doing what
they believe protects people from harm. We need pharmacists with strong
convictions about protecting life and health, but this bill would drive people
with such convictions out of the pharmaceutical profession – which would be
detrimental to all patients.”
“This bill is promoted by ardent abortion
activists yet it would criminalize ‘Freedom of choice’ by forcing people to act
against their beliefs.”

So, would the story be the same if it were the drug Vioxx or any of the other recalled pharmaceuticals? If a pharmacist who had learned of problems with a prescription medication took it upon himself/herself to refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions, we would be hearing the exact opposite from Ms. Wright and her cohorts. There would be a massive uproar over pharmacists deciding that they know better than a patient's physician. Neither scenario should happen, because pharmacists are supposed to fill legitimate prescriptions and provide FDA approved remedies of all types...period. Ms. Wright should think about that before she goes to her pharmacist with a prescription from her doctor.

So...Gumbel Can't Express His Opinion?

I just love it when fundies get all upset about having one of their own spoken to in a derogatory manner, and I can't believe this story is still around. Back in June of 2000, Bryant Gumbel referred to fundie maniac Robert Knight , who now heads the Media Research Council, as a "fucking idiot." Granted, Gumbel brought some of this on himself when he bragged about the comment while filling in on the Regis and Kelly Show yesterday, but I am just amazed at the double standard...

"Concerning Mr. Gumbel's recent remarks, MRC President Brent Bozell
commented: "Bryant Gumbel is a crude, left-wing reporter who has now confirmed
what we documented and CBS denied for seven years-CBS claimed 'it is unclear
what the comment was'-and for which Mr. Gumbel refused to apologize. Mr.
Gumbel's words and lack of decency and decorum, then and now and as confirmed on
the broadcast today, show that he is grossly biased and sees absolutely nothing
wrong in smearing people he disagrees with politically as blankety-blank

Wow, I wonder what Mr. Bozell would say about comments directed at the LGBT community by various fundies and wingnuts? I sincerely doubt we'd hear him questioning the decency or decorum of Peter LaBarbera, Janet Folger or Matt Barber regarding any of their comments toward LGBT individuals. But then again, I'm probably confusing the issue far too much with fact.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Westboro's Shirley Phelps Roper Gets Arrested

I was wondering how long it would take for something like this to happen. Since the members of Westboro Baptist, especially Shirley (daughter of church leader Fred Phelps), almost always involve their children in the various protests they conduct, it was only a matter of time...

"Shirley Phelps-Roper, 49, of Topeka, Kan., was arrested on suspicion of
contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

I think "suspicion" is putting it mildly, but here's what her son was seen doing during a protest in Nebraska...

"Phelps-Roper acknowledged that she allowed her 10-year-old son, Jonah, to
stand on the flag — an action that she says is protected by the U.S.

Honestly, she's right...that action, I believe, does fall under the free speech allowances of the Constitution, but does anyone really think a 10 year old child needs to be involved in such demonstrations? It's one thing for an adult to stomp on the U.S. flag in protest, but to involve a child in such behavior (and this is just one example of how the children of church members have been involved) is unconscionable. Shirley is out on bond and is, of course, going to battle the charges against her...

"Phelps-Roper said church members have protested at more than 280 military
funerals in 43 states since June 15, 2005, and that Tuesday marked her church’s
first arrest at a funeral."

I say it's about time someone was arrested. Not for protesting, as that is their right, but for involving their children in these protests. I refuse to give Westboro a link, but you can Google them and find their site. Take a look at some of what their children have been involved in and tell me if you don't think it's abusive. I don't throw that word around lightly, but to have your child hold signs and say hateful things to people is abusive. I hope this isn't the last arrest, and I hope it leads to the end of Westboro youth participating in their parents' protests.

Are Your Remote Controls Broken?

I suppose there's been a conspiracy surrounding the television remote controls of all WingNuts...they're suddenly not functioning! Quick...someone alert the conspiracy police and stop the madness! What? You mean there's nothing wrong with their remote controls at all? Well, to read this morning's article, you'd think that the liberals of the world had snuck in and disabled them...

"A new decision from a federal appeals court in New York has tossed out a
rule by the Federal Communications Commission that cracked down
on "fleeting expletives" on television airwaves, and a media monitor says it's
another setback in the battle for clean entertainment.
"Vulgarity has
literally exploded," Robert Peters, chief of Morality in Media, told WND."

Perhaps it's not the remote controls that are the problem...perhaps it's those sneaking liberals coming in and holding guns to the heads of innocent fundies, forcing them to watch programs they don't find appropriate because of those damn "fleeting expletives." No? Ah, so these fundies are scanning the networks and deliberately inflicting this offensiveness on themselves? Come on your own article and pay attention...

"The networks were pleased with the ruling. "Viewers should be allowed to
determine for themselves and their families … what is appropriate viewing for
their home," said Scott Grogin, a spokesman from Fox."

Pick up your remote and change the channel if you find yourself offended by the program you're watching, but don't try to tell me or anyone else what should or shouldn't be aired.

Wow...could this be yet another example of the fundies trying to force their ideals on the rest of society? And here I thought that it was that ever elusive homosexual agenda that was pushing wholistic changes on society. What was I thinking? Nice try, WND, but once again you've been caught.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Wednesday's This and That...

Feel free to add to this and give me your thoughts.

* The G-8 summit is beginning today in Germany, and aside from the usual protests, I sincerely hope the Chimperor keeps his hands to himself this time. You'll remember the less than appropriate and impromptu backrub he gave to the German Chancellor at an earlier G-8 meeting...hopefully Chancellor Merkel has brought extra security this time, LOL.

* I suppose I should give CWA some credit for allowing a woman to write this very brief account of the NH Civil Unions Bill, rather than letting Matt Barber hog all the press as usual, lol, but what Heather Hogue wrote was rather weak. Her headline suggests that the NH bill, "targets marriage," but she makes no attempt to show how, exactly, the bill compromises any heterosexual marriages...a problem most fundies have when they try to attack these civil union and same sex marriage laws.

* The American Family Association is all upset about commercials being run by Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Since I don't have either of these restaurants in my area, I had to follow the link (provided by the AFA, by the way) to see what they were referring to as, "sleazy." To the AFA I say...if you don't like it, turn the channel!

Another Day...Another Dose of Matt Barber Ridiculousness

I have run across a few truly pitiful arguments, but this one from Matt Barber of Concerned Women For America is by far one of the worst. In addressing the eHarmony lawsuit, Barber opens with the following...

"Luigi is living the American dream. He’s finally saved up enough money to
come to America — the land of freedom and opportunity — to pursue his lifelong
goal of owning and operating his own pizzeria. Based on his grandmother’s old
family recipe, his pizza pie quickly becomes known as the best in town.
Bruce is hungry. As he strolls down the boulevard, he decides he’s got a
taste for Chinese food. Bruce walks past three Chinese restaurants and goes into
Luigi’s. Bruce has seen too many episodes of The Sopranos, so he doesn’t like Italians.
“I’ll have an order of Egg Foo Yung,” Bruce says to Luigi. “Egg Foo who?” Luigi
replies. Bruce promptly sues Luigi for unspecified damages, seeking an
injunction to force him to add Egg Foo Yung to his menu."

Um...what the hell is Matt talking about here? I suppose I can loosely see the point he's trying to make...Bruce sues Luigi because he doesn't offer the food he wants to order. But how, exactly, is that the same or even close to the same as an organization refusing to acknowledge the dating needs of an entire segment of the population? I've established in an earlier post that I don't agree with the suits being filed against eHarmony, but as I read on, I discovered that Matt is talking less about the actual lawsuits and more about this continual insistence that homosexuals hate Christians. He says as much in his subheadline...

"They don’t like hearing the Good News that a Redeemer loves them so much
He offers us freedom from our sin."

He adds to that in a subsequent paragraph...

"Just as Bruce doesn’t like Italians, many on the left don’t like
Christians. They don’t like that Christians believe that there are clear lines
of demarcation between right and wrong. They don’t like that both the Bible and
natural law unequivocally condemn homosexual behaviors as immoral and
disordered. They don’t like hearing the Good News that a Redeemer loves them so
much He offers us freedom from our sin. And for that reason, they don’t like Dr.
Neil Clark Warren, and they don’t like eHarmony. Oh, and the fact that Dr. Warren is a
Christian with ties to Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family — well, that just drives
‘em plain batty."

And there we have it, folks. Barber spouts the same nonsense we've heard time and time again and reinforces the idea that homosexuals must...simply must...conform to his idea of what Christianity is. In an age where the various factions of Baptists alone can't agree on some of the most basic tenants of their faith, I find it humorous that Mr. Barber seems to have all the spiritual answers a person might need. He'd probably be shocked to know that there are many homosexuals who are Christians...believing they too are God's creation and, in acknowledging their belief that God makes no mistakes, practice their Christianity without any reservations. Since that entire idea would clash with his entire belief system, I would bet that he'd come out with an attack on them as well...despite their shared Christianity.

We really don't care who Dr. Warren's friends are...even if one happens to be another individual with whom we disagree. But the difference between Barber and his cohorts and us is that we aren't trying to change who they are or deny them any of the freedoms they currently enjoy. Please, feel free to disagree, Matt...but don't try to force us to conform to your idea of Christianity.

Call It What You Want...Edwards Is Telling The Truth

WingNut writer, Benjamin Shapiro, has written a rather wordy condemnation of John Edwards and the comments he made during Sunday night's debate. Shapiro referred to Edwards, in the text of his headline, as a, "slimy demagogue," and tries to solidify his position by addressing the comments Edwards made concerning the war in Iraq...

"But it was John Edwards, outflanking Obama, who provided the most
memorable moment of the evening, summing up nearly six years of liberal thought
with a single paragraph:
"[W]hat this global war on terror bumper sticker –
political slogan, that's all it is, it's all it's ever been – was intended to do
was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in
Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture. None of those things
are OK. They are not the United States of America."

Call Edwards what you like, but he was the only one who had the temerity to speak the truth on the subject of Bush's war and the atrocities that have resulted from his blatant stubbornness. What originally was, I believe, a concerted effort to bring those responsible for the attacks on our homeland to justice has become a quagmire, perpetuated by suppositions and outright lies told by the Chimperor and other members of his administration. Shapiro continues...

"Of course, Edwards' aphoristic denunciation is itself paradigmatic
bumper-sticker politics. His strategy is sloganeering. And sadly enough, his
pithy shallowness mirrors the Democratic base far more than Clinton's newfound
moderation or Obama's faux profundity. If everyone who slaps a "War Is Not The
Answer" sticker on their Prius votes for Edwards, the charlatan from North Carolina could breeze to the
Democratic nomination."

Was Mr. Shapiro trying to win some contest for using as many "five and ten dollar words" as possible? Or, was his word choice simply a distraction from the "pithy" argument he was making? The latter is most likely true, because what Shapiro said was simply ignorant. Edwards likened the war to a bumper-sticker slogan, but he never created a slogan or in any way suggested that he even needed a slogan. Frankly, Mr. Shapiro missed the point entirely.

Here, Shapiro shows that he knows very little about those who support Edwards...all the while using his dictionary to try and prove otherwise...

"By contrast, Edwards' supporters are the true blue, the loyal foundation.
They are the disappointed Deaniacs and Ned Lamont backers. They are the "Bush
Lied, Kids Died" contingent, the "No War For Oil" crowd. They are the Michael
Moore followers, the Al Gore worshippers. They are the vapid but solid core of a
radical party – a party that has risen to power by obfuscating its radicalism
and opening its arms to Americans disaffected with President Bush."

Anyone who talks with an Edwards supporter, something Shapiro probably neglected to do, would know that Al Gore is the absolute last person we want to see in the White House. Anytime the idea that Gore should make another run comes up, the response from Edwards supporters has been the same..."Please don't." My other problem with this paragraph is Shapiro's assertion that questioning the motives of our president and pointing out the problems with the way in which our president conducts war operations automatically wins us the label of, "a radical party." It's the duty of Americans to bring forth such questions, and part of what being a responsible citizen means. There's absolutely nothing radical about it...plain and simple. The fact that more and more Americans are realizing the depth of the Bush administration's deception is simply a sign that the citizenry is paying attention.

Shapiro and others who share his obvious distaste for the truth can, and probably will, continue to denigrate Edwards for his unwavering stance on this particular issue. Hopefully, Americans will continue to recognize that Edwards is simply telling the truth.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Family Research Council Chimes In On NH Civil Unions

I suppose that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has decided that if he and his organization continue to insist that homosexuality is a choice and ignore all evidence to the contrary, he'll wake up one day and find that his fight against civil rights for LGBT individuals has succeeded. Fortunately for the residents of New Hampshire, Mr. Perkins' disillusioned ideas haven't gotten a foothold...something that has Tony confused about the civil rights aspect of this newly signed law...

"Homosexuals have experienced disapproval, but they have not endured
centuries of violence, abuse, segregation, and slavery. Unlike ethnicity,
homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in
homosexual behavior or not to participate. An African-American cannot choose to
participate in having black skin; they are born with it. Lynch's suggestion that
homosexuals who want to marry are oppressed or victims of discrimination is
simply outrageous. No person is being denied the right to marry. They are
simply asked to meet the core requirement (since civilization began) that both
genders be present. "

I'll grant him the fact that segregation and slavery haven't been issues with which homosexuals have been faced, but violence and abuse have most certainly been predominant issues. Anyone remember the Nazi concentration camps? While the Jews were certainly the largest group incarcerated and murdered, homosexuals were also persecuted and even had their own emblem placed on their camp uniforms...a pink triangle. That's just one example, but any attempt at researching history will reveal other examples of persecution. I realize that Mr. Perkins is sticking firmly to his contention that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but his assertion that civilization has ordained this as some sort of "core requirement" smacks of the same, "the sky is falling," fear mongering we've heard so much of.

Simply put, no one is out to somehow annul or otherwise diminish any heterosexual marriages, and refusing homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage is discrimination. There's just no other way to look at it.

Unhinged Janet Folger Reaches a New Maturity Low

If it's Tuesday, then it means there will be another in a long list of idiotic rants from the completely unhinged and bigoted Janet Folger of Faith2Action, posted on WingNutDaily. Today's tirade reaches a new low in the maturity department, though, as Janet puts the opponents of eHarmony in her crosshairs...

"I'm suing gayHarmony for discrimination.
That's right. Because without
having checked, I'm certain there isn't a single homosexual site or publication
that offers what I'm looking for:
A heterosexual pro-life Christian who
likes long walks on the beach and wants to help fight unequal justice mandated
in the speech-restricting "hate crimes" bill.
Those bigoted heterophobes.
Before you call the thought police, I don't really think the homosexual
publications should be forced to cater to me. But unfortunately, that tolerance
is not reciprocated. Lesbian Linda Carlson of San Francisco is suing eHarmony
because she can't find a date. They don't offer a category for "lesbian bullies
seeking women," so she wants to bully eHarmony until they do."

Here's where I am forced to switch to speaking directly to Ms. Folger.

If Ms. Carlson is dubbed a bully by you for suing eHarmony, then what, exactly, would that make you, Janet? And before you launch into a grand tirade, no doubt fueled by a wealth of righteous indignation, remember you opened the door. I realize that your statement was most likely tongue-in-cheek, but if you're going to wage a campaign against hate speech, you might want to consider avoiding referring to those whom you oppose as 'bullies.'

Further, your indirect, although not overlooked, connection between homosexuals and pedophiles is something with which I take exception. This assertion made by you and your other fundie comrades is, to use a term you might recognize from one of your other rants, "the real hate speech." Contrary to the fictional homosexual agenda you and your buddies cling to, we are not out to act inappropriately with a child or make any attempt to convert them. Nor do we have any interest in converting or otherwise enticing you to become a lesbian. Since it's long been maintained that a person's sexual orientation is a biological identity and not something we woke up one day a decided to 'be,' these constant assertions only serve to make you look foolish.

Personally, I don't agree with Ms. Carlson's decision to sue, and I prefer to look at eHarmony's decision to discriminate as an opportunity for other sites to blossom. By the same token, however, I can't agree with anyone's attempt to distort or in any way silence the voice of another...something you, Ms. Folger, are guilty of on a regular basis. You can feel free to disagree with the way a person lives their life, and you are welcome to shout about your objections as loudly as you wish...just as I and others like me are as free to do the same. That's what free speech is all about. The difference between you and me, Janet, is that while I don't expect you to agree with me, you all but demand that I change my identity...just because you say so. That, Ms. Folger, is something I cannot quietly ignore, for it marks the difference between the free speech rights you claim to fight for and the hate speech you so vehemently abhor.

So, Janet, try to grow up a little before next Tuesday's article...please.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Dems Battle In Second Debate...More Monkeys?

My personal favorite amongst a less than stellar group of candidates on both sides of the political aisle, John Edwards, got in a few excellent jabs on Hilary and Obama last night. Unfortunately, after reviewing the answers to the questions posed last night and watching video of the debate, I fear there are quite a few monkeys on the Democratic side of the aisle as well.

Edwards went on the offensive early, attacking Clinton and Obama on their votes in the senate, supporting additional funding for the war in Iraq but without a timetable for troop withdrawal...

"They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote, but
there is a difference between leadership and legislating," Edwards said.
"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were
going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted. They
were among the last people to vote."

Both Senators shot back, of course, and I was disappointed that Edwards didn't fully articulate the meaning of his statement about the war on terror becoming a bumper sticker slogan. He repeated the phrase three times, but never really brought his point home. The war in Iraq, dubbed the "war on terror" by the Bush administration, is no longer a war on terror...plain and simple. It's that fact that Edwards is trying to bring to the forefront with his bumper sticker reference. Unfortunately, the other candidates appear to be inclined to continue funding the war under the guise of supporting our troops and getting them what they need. What Edwards has maintained, and what I think keeps getting lost in all these war funding debates, is that the best way to protect our troops is to get them the hell out of the middle of another country's civil war and bring them home.

Honestly, until the other candidates are willing to have a serious discussion on the issues of war funding, gay rights and human rights in general, we'll continue to see nothing but more politically minded monkeys standing on the debate stages.

LaBabs Whines...Again

Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable for Peter LaBarbera to spout as much hate as he wants, but not so acceptable for anyone to call him on it. Since it's short and ridiculous, lol, I've pasted the entire article below...

"By Peter LaBarbera
It looks like Wayne (”Anything But Straight”) Besen
has been taking his hate pill again. Besen, who is out to
prove, with Stalinesque zeal, that no homosexual can change – has
written another diatribe
against me and Americans For Truth
Just as night follows day, we
could have predicted that Wayne and his fellow “gay” comrades, including
the folks at Box Turtle
(who alternate between high-minded critiques of pro-family research
and mean-spirited name-calling), would ridicule — not the men at
International Mr. Leather who were engaging in vile (”pig sex”) orgies at
Chicago’s Palmer House Hilton Hotel; not the “leather”
vendors hawking twisted porn videos including those featuring “fisting” and
“water sports”
– but yours truly, for exposing these
We’ll have more on Wayne and friends later, but for now, check
out his angry blog entry
following our feeble attempt to shine the light of
truth on the sadistic goings-on at IML. Oh, we almost forgot: “Porno Pete” is
Wayne’s nickname for me because, you see, the fact that I expose “gay” extremism
makes me, well …. a secret gay (make that a secret “leatherman”). I suppose
according to that logic, Simon Wiesenthal was a covert Nazi and Mother
Teresa made hidden donations to Planned Parenthood."

Again with the International Mr. Leather convention? And with even more details than last time. Actually, Babs, your nickname "Porno Pete" is not because you expose such's because you seem so utterly fascinated with them. The reference has nothing to do with whether or not you're secretly gay (honestly, we don't care, Babs), and everything to do with your seeming so preoccupied with the bedroom activities of others. Really, Pete...if you're going to rant and rave and go into such detail (something you won't see on sites such as Box Turtle Bulletin, Pam's House Blend, etc) you have to expect some backlash. By the way, pointing out what you've said and posted doesn't automatically equal "hate speech," Pete, but your likening the words of your opponents to that of Stalin shows your own level of hate.

Ellen Ratner's GOP Summary

Every once in a while, WingNutDaily allows someone with somewhat different mores to have a spot on their website. Although buried about 3 pages into today's content, Ellen Ratner's "Liberal and Proud" post is dead on in explaining the biggest problem with the GOP and in suggesting who the nominee should be. In a brief, but telling history of the GOP, Ratner says...

"The Republicans' base used to be made up of pretty centrist Americans.
Their core values could be boiled down to three words – less, less, more – less
government, less taxes and more prosperity. The three words today are "no, no,
no." No abortion, no gay rights and no immigrants; or perhaps, no, no, no, mo,
as in more guns or more bombing. The problem is "no, no, no" isn't very
inspiring. Who wants to invest in no, no and no? This is why Republicans are in
a cash-crunch for the first time in recent memory."

Exactly...despite the fear mongering and constant battling against the rights of others (the very thing they are so afraid of facing), it seems the public has managed to see through the GOP smokescreen, leaving "recovering republicans" wondering who to support. Ratner refers to John McCain and Mitt Romney as, "the waffle brothers," and rightly so. These two have switched positions on so many issues that it's getting too difficult to keep up with where, exactly, they stand on any given day. Fred Thompson is described as someone who will force a Perot type situation, bringing Michael Bloomberg in as an independent...which, in my opinion, would be a bad thing should Hilary or Obama (or the still talked about combo ticket) be the Democrat's offering. If McCain and Romney are "the waffle brothers," then Hilary and Obama are the double talking duo. Their positions on issues of gay rights, Iraq, etc. are about as clear as the water in the Hudson River. What is Ratner's suggestion for the Republicans left wondering whom to support?

"Giuliani is the only candidate who has a chance. Republicans are fools if
they don't nominate him."

I think that's excellent advise, honestly. Should Edwards be unable to gain the Democratic nomination, and Hilary or Obama be the nominee, I would imagine that many Democrats may switch sides and vote for Giuliani. Sometimes an election comes down to choosing the lesser of the two evils. I fear that the 2008 election will become just that.

Friday, June 01, 2007

LaBarbera Way Too Interested in Mr. Leather

Once again, Babs over at Americans For Truth seems to be completely fascinated by the goings on at the International Mr. Leather convention held in Chicago. In a two-part post, no less, Peter LaBarbera goes to great lengths in denouncing the convention...

"Rather than honoring the spirit of the parade by paying tribute to our
troops, veterans and past generations of American fighting men, the Chicago
Theater’s management opted instead to welcome one of the most purely evil
perversion-fests ever invented by mankind. International Mr. Leather
(IML) serves as an annual excuse for “leathermen” — mostly homosexual men
but some “straight” SM couples — to engage in vile orgies that would make Sodom
blush. For our pictorial story about the sadistic “Mr. Leather” gatherings
this year and last year at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, click HERE (WARNING:
disturbing images)."

Babs goes on to share some of those "disturbing images," but it only made me wonder why the detailed and very obvious fascination over the event? I don't think that anyone was in his bedroom forcing any of these behaviors on him or his wife, nor am I aware of any innocent Chicago citizens being forced to participate in any of the convention's events. I suppose either Babs had too much time on his hands, or he had other *ahem* reasons for dwelling on the subject as much as he did.

**Note...AFT puts these posts on the same page as other, more recent posts, so you may need to scroll down to find the two posts to which I'm specifically referring.

Pastor Known For Protests Denied Permission to March in Chicago Pride Parade

I need to create a new file, and this will be the first story to fit into it...the "Well, DUH!" file. A Chicago pastor, Ruben Israel (leader of the Street Preachers group), who was denied permission to march in the June 24th Pride Parade has become the subject of an idiotic WingNut article. Israel says...

"I see this as nothing but hypocrisy," said Ruben
who has been at the Chicago
for seven previous years, protesting the homosexual lifestyle choice
from the sidewalks."

Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing the hypocrisy displayed here by the pastor? If any gay rights advocacy group wanted to participate in an event held by a religious organization that was fundamentally opposed to homosexual rights, do you think that they'd be allowed access? I seriously doubt it, and Mr. Israel just makes himself look ridiculous by trying to get into the very event he spent the last seven years protesting. For all his whining and fear mongering about losing his right to free speech (comments which can be read in the rest of the article), I imagine he'll still be on the sidelines protesting as he has for the last seven years...unimpeded, I might add. Loss of free speech, give me a break.