« Copenhagen Doomsday Countdown | Main | Dorian Obama »

New York Times appalled by California's show of democracy. Laments that the Lords of Government simply can't raise taxes over the objections of the peasants.

How do these morons at the NY Slimes think New York voters would vote on taxes if they were given a chance? Makes you wonder how they ever got a job.

Older news - No wonder MSM journos never bother checking their facts, two web searches produce as much CO2 as boiling a cup of tea

This I am sure we can all agree on. Today, we saw the dueling speeches of President Obama and fmr. VP Cheney. Fox,ABC,and CBS accompanied Cheney's speech with images of 9/11. This is uncalled for, and fearmongering on the part of your so-called "liberal media". Any decent human remembers the horror of that day.While most of you and myself share different opinions, I am not scared and I assume none of you are either.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905210038

Wouldn't the "altered state" of a liberal be saneness?

Remeber in THE WIZARD OF OZ what happened to DORTHY,THE SCARECROW,THE TIN WOODSMAN and THE COWARDLY LION and TOT when they ran through the POPPYFIELD yes THEY FELL ASLEEP

Obama's grand plan to stop terrorists hating America because of Bush's horrific violations of detainees' human rights?

Civil incarceration without trial or legal recourse, something that Bush shied away from.

Hope! Change! Restoring America's tarnished image among the international community!

It is disturbing that Cheney has become linked to BO.

In 2001, the Bush administration was suddenly tasked with preventing another terrorist attack - like or worse than that of 9-11.
By "tasked" I mean not just constitutionally, but morally obligated to defend the country. House Democrats were confused at the time of the 9-11 attacks, needed and had indeed asked to be led.
But now, that the terrorists have been confined (for the moment) liberals could care less about 9-11. (If on their radar at all, 9-11 is usually referred to as a "tragedy" as if it were a naturally-occurring tornado that incidentally killed 3,000 people rather than a result of mindless murder).



But after watching men and women jump to their deaths to avoid being burned alive, Bush et al, to their credit, did what any decent leadership should have done.

Facts are clear; Bush won thrice: Right after 9-11 the terrorists were immediately routed to Afganistan. There were no further 9-11's. Saddam Husssein was neutralized.
But in not finding a modern nuclear weapons facility in Iraq, liberals discovered an opportunity (yet another) to counter-attack their own country.

The efforts of the Bush administration should now be recognized and duly applauded. But the liberal media, democrats and other low-lifes have successfully thwarted that recognition. Now as they attempt to dismantle the work done by the Bush administration, it is clear that BO and his cadre of opportunistic narcissists have no real concern or understanding of the obligations and necessity of the war fought and won by Cheney and the Bush administration.

Ultimately however, Bush and Cheney will prevail as American heroes in the history books and BO and his sycophants will become a grease-spot on an index page.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at May 21, 2009 2:12 PM

On a related note:

Sacramento Bee runs scathing editorial about how its readers (supposedly) voted on California propositions, then says 'oh wait sorry we didn't mean that' and replaces it with another one praising the democratic process.

America 2016 II: Disarmament?

Here’s a mouthful: The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Items.

Politicos get turned on by long titles such as that one which refers to a treaty never ratified by the United States Senate and which more commonly goes by its Spanish acronym, CIFTA. If you haven’t heard about it, you will soon enough since President Obama is now pushing it as is Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana.

It’s no surprise Obama is on board but Lugar, the most senior Republican in the Senate, is a major shocker.

CIFTA fits very nicely with Obama’s obsession with internationalism. (See “America in 2016,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1022, which discusses the un-American scheme for the ”use of international law in interpreting the Constitution of the United States.”)

The seventy-seven year old Dick Lugar, however, is generally considered a pretty conservative guy so his support for a treaty for which there is very little enthusiasm in the Senate is indeed a surprise. The CIFTA treaty has been gathering dust there for 12 years ever since Bill Clinton proposed it but made little effort to get it ratified.

I can’t figure why a conservative Republican would advocate for a treaty which, among other features, would provide all available United States’ governmental information on every gun owner in the country to bureaucrats in foreign nations.

Catch the video on the subject with CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who says, “We’re fools” to buy into this farcical treaty, here: http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/blog/?p=594. Dobbs added that “We will have only ourselves to blame” if the Senate ratifies it.

Speaking of fools, the far left wing The Nation . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/)

World's largest carbon emitter adopts hard line on carbon emissions (for others) ahead of climate talks.

Gee is it just me or is it something of a coincidence that the world's largest emitter - which also just so happens to be a socialist country - not only escapes scot free from the economic controls placed on capitalist economies, but is viewed by the enviro-tard left as a more legitimate voice in climate talks than said capitalist economies?

It's almost like the environmental movement is just a trojan horse for a socialist agenda or something.. nah, that's crazy!

RE: Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at May 21, 2009 7:31 PM

"....This is uncalled for, and fearmongering on the part of your so-called "liberal media". Any decent human remembers the horror of that day. While most of you and myself share different opinions, I am not scared and I assume none of you are either."

You're right about that.....except I don't think it's "fear-mongering" at all.....it's just hype. The Liberal Media (and I don't put scare quotes around it like you do) couldn't care less about 9/11, the lessons we should take from it, and why it should be remembered. To them it's just a bunch of horrific images they occasionally trot out for dramatic effect.

I woulda got that damned guy Obama. Er.. I mean Osama... But I was REAL busy in the oval office bathroom whacking-off in the sink after Monica smoked my crooked member.

He-he

But I feel your pain! He-he.

An altered state of awareness equals, death.
It is hopefull that the major woman actor in this travesty holds her hands to her head in horror.
Yes, lady, dissidence - death.
Welcome to the entirely new, United States of silly Non-United and, silly States of ,silly America.
Haha!

Silllly America!!!!
signed,
Kim Jong Il

Collection of Obama-loving TIME magazine covers

Even Dem Senate aren't willing to support Obama's suicidal Gitmo closure

Did anyone notice lbv-rocks calling for purges? Just a joke I suppose. A joke about me and people like me being killed in some kind of religious rite. Ha.

Here is something that says the phrase "the sanctity of marriage" was created in 2004. I'm skeptical of course but there is some interesting, and falsifiable data about the history of marriage.

(Article for the Huffington Post — November 2nd, 2008)

Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)
http://www.jeffgoode.com/politicalsatire/traditionalmarriage.htm

About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.

This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.

Over a summer of research, I learned a lot of surprising facts about the history of marriage and weddings, but by far the most shocking discovery of all was that the tradition of marriage-as-we-know-it simply did not exist in those days. Almost everything we have come to associate with marriage and weddings - the white dress, the holy vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed - dates back a mere 50 or 100 years at the most. In many cases less.

And the handful of traditions that do go back farther than that are, frankly, horrifying. The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the bride's body as she left the ceremony in order to "loosen her up" for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize. Savvy brides got in the habit of carrying extra garters in their bodice to throw to the male guests in hopes of escaping the ceremony with some shred of modesty intact!

It turns out that marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at it's most civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at it's worst. That's why you'll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible, or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly recently, there was nothing religious about it.

You will of course find plenty of biblical bigamy, practiced by even the most godly of heroes - Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon - because that's what marriage was in those days. Even in more enlightened New Testament times, the only wedding worth mentioning (the one at Cana) is notable only for the miraculous amount of wine consumed.

In the 21st Century, we've heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004. Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the "sanctity of marriage" before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state. The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent. And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself. Unfortunately, God is still pretty new to the whole marriage game (or he might have made an honest woman out of the Virgin Mary, am I right? Try the veal!)

The truth is that marriage has always been more a secular tradition rather than a religious one. Up until the early Renaissance, in fact, couples were traditionally married on the church's front doorstep, because wedding ceremonies were considered too vulgar to be performed inside the building: After all, there was implied sex in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on the premises.

But as times changed, ideas and attitudes about marriage also changed. So when people became religious, matrimony became holy. When people became nudists, clothing became optional. And so on throughout history.

And the wonderful thing about the institution of marriage - the reason it has remained strong and relevant through thousands of years of ever-changing times - is its unique ability to change with those times.

Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because, seriously, that chicken dance is not in the Bible.)

Thus, in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it pedophilia.

For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the last century or so, we've finally seen the triumph of this new-fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship between two consenting adults.

Followers of the Mormon faith can tell you that the traditions of their forefathers included a devout belief that polygamy was appropriate and sanctified. But modern Mormons generally don't support that vision of happiness for their daughters.

And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to prevent those newfound relationships.

Always marriage has triumphed by becoming a timely celebration of our society, rather than a backlash against it. It's strange, then, to see "tradition" used as a weapon against change, when change is the source of all its greatest traditions. Just ask the white dress:

In 1840, Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert wearing a beautiful white lace dress - in defiance of tradition - in order to promote the sale of English lace! The image was so powerful that practically overnight the white wedding gown became de rigueur for the well-heeled bride. And then it became de rigueur for every bride.

By the dawn of the 20th Century, the white dress had also inexplicably come to symbolize chastity. (Even though blue was traditionally the color of virginity - "something borrowed, something blue...")

And the new equation of white with virginity eventually achieved such a rigid orthodoxy that older readers may remember a time when wedding guests who happened to know that the bride was not perfectly pure would have felt a moral obligation to demand that she change into something off-white before walking down the aisle.

Fortunately, as cultural norms eased during the Sexual Revolution, a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy took hold where all brides were required to wear white regardless of their virtue and the less said about it the better.

In recent years, as a generation of divorcees have remarried and a generation of young people have entered wedlock with some degree of "experience", the pretense of a connection between literal virginity and the bridal gown has become entirely obsolete. A colorful journey for a custom which has always seemed iron clad, even as it was evolving over time.

And not all traditions have to do with changing sexual standards. The long-time custom of pelting the newlyweds with birdseed did not exist before the 1970s when animal-lovers realized that songbirds were bloating on dried rice that they found on the ground after the former custom.

Economic times have caused families to rethink the age-old convention of the bride's father paying for the entire ceremony - a last vestige of the days of dowries when a young man had to be bribed to take a free-loading daughter off her parents' hands - that well-established custom has gradually given way to a more humane approach to sharing the financial burden.

Even religious traditions of marriage have experienced constant metamorphosis over the years. As more interfaith couples have wed, we have seen the emergence of multi-disciplinary ceremonies where couples have chosen not to follow the out-dated tradition of rejecting one or both of their faiths as a prerequisite of holy matrimony.

One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which would have been unthinkable just a generation before.

But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.

Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding, nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they didn't include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each make of it. And that's the way it always should be.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.

Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?

* The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
* Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
* Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
* Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
* Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or hispanics?
* Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?

No, the truth of the matter is, that we're trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it "was and always has been" during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s - just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). ...Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.

But there's something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as "the way God intended it."

schwarzenegger the rino, plans to eliminate all welfare programs!

Another amusing video mocking Hope and Change, sci-fi style

he did it! obambino has his own tele station/program check the logo!

Newsweek cuts it's circulation by HALF, and (Newsweek Editor) Jon Meacham wants us to believe it's a great thing for them:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/05/18/newsweek-editor-woo-hoo-our-magazine-circulation-being-cut-half

Cave ahht... you know, seriously, you're wasting moments of your life expecting to find anything worthwhile in huffpo? Especially when they rely on Google?

Do a Yahoo search for "sanctity of marriage"...

I dare ya...

First result: An excerpt from Chauncy Giles' The Sanctity of Marriage, American New-Church Tract and Publication Society, 1904 (copyright 1896)

Today, we saw the dueling speeches of President Obama and fmr. VP Cheney. Fox,ABC,and CBS accompanied Cheney's speech with images of 9/11. This is uncalled for, and fearmongering on the part of your so-called "liberal media". Any decent human remembers the horror of that day.

Au contraire, Grand Wizard Wellstone, it was entirely called for, if for no other reason than to remind the cognitively challenged of what Americans (and perhaps some liberals too) are trying to avoid.

Obama dollars complete with ACORN logo