From Euripides

There you stand, in an elevator or in line at the post office, when a liberal decides to strike up a conversation with you. During the conversation, you hear some familiar words that refer to ideas like rights and freedom, but in context, they don't seem to make any sense to you. Never fear! I've compiled for you, gentle conservative, a list of the most frequently used terms in liberalspeak with their definitions. Learn these few terms and you will be on the path to understanding what your liberal friends are talking about.

I hope you find this list useful and a means of coming to greater understanding of the liberal left.

Abortion: The absolutely fundamental right of every women to choose. This right is the only one guaranteeing equality of the sexes and must be preserved at all costs. See Rights.

ACORN: A poor, benighted charitable agency that got mercilessly attacked by right wing nut jobs.

Anti-American: Anyone who doesn't agree with the current liberalized system of government. This includes anyone who agrees with capitalism, limited government and many democratic principles. See Mob.

Barack Obama: The only president who has ever had the capacity to selflessly change America into a Utopian state. If Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the mob would only leave him alone, he could finally work out the solution to governmental perfection. See Glenn Beck. See Rush Limbaugh. See Mob.

Bible: An ancient document that has absolutely no connection with modern reality, especially morals and legal codes. See Religion.

Bill of Rights: An unknown and forgotten list of ideas which have no relationship to the modern vision of rights and freedoms. The Bill of Rights only gets in the way of such things as denegrating religion, gun control, and creating a statist federal government. The Bill of Rights, like other ancient documents such as the Bible, no longer serve any useful purpose. See Bible. See Constitution. See Rights.

Birthers: Uneducated idiots who will stop at nothing to attack Barack Obama. See Barack Obama.

Climate Change: The idea that if you rename something and broaden its definition to be all inclusive, despite any relation to reality, you can still tax it. See Global Warming. See Taxes.

Constitution: An old and outdated document that might have been good for something except for the enshrined dogmas of a past generation. It now has little relevance to a modern, sophisticated way of governing. See Rights.

Entitlements: See Rights.

Equality: The idea that individual rights must be suppressed and submit to the group mind. Anyone who disagrees with the correct group is considered anti-American or racist. See Anti-American. See Racist.

Fairness Doctrine: The idea that some media have an unfair advantage over other media because it is Anti-American. See Anti-American. See Glenn Beck. See Rush Limbaugh.

Feminist: Anyone who agrees that abortion is the absolutely fundamental right of every women to choose. Anyone, including women in power, who do not subscribe to absolute fundamental right of abortion are not considered feminists. See Abortion.

Fox News: A radical, right-wing media outlet, no better than the worst, hack blogging. No one worth knowing actually watches Fox, and those who do drink deeply of the Fox Kool-Aid. See Free Press. See News.

Freedom: The right to do what liberals want, when and where they want, with no regard to the rights of others, even to disagree. See Free Speech.

Free Press: The government subsidizing of media such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but not such media as Fox News. See Anti-American. See Fox News. See News.

Free Speech: The right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to intimidate anyone who disagrees with liberal doctrine. See Bill of Rights. See Politically Correct.

Gays: A group of people who self-identify according sexual preference, who only want to be treated as equals and to have their rights. See Equality. See LGBTQQ. See Marriage. See Rights.

Glenn Beck: Satan or the Great Evil One. See Anti-American. See Fairness Doctrine. See Rush Limbaugh.

Global Warming: The idea that a good crisis is worth all the taxes in the world. See Climate Change.  See Taxes.

Government: The only institution that can properly run a modern state. The more government, the better. Despite fear mongers, the American government can never turn against its people as long as liberals are in charge.

Greed: A human vice that occurs when they form corporations, but not, for example, when they are elected as a liberal to government office. Corporate owners are always greedy. Liberal politicians are always altruistic, working for the good of all people.

Hate Crimes: The idea that crimes committed against individuals of protected classes are more heinous than the same crimes committed against conservatives.

Healthcare: The government regulation and control of health-related industries such as insurance companies. See Government. See Greed.

 LGBTQQ: A community of gays and others who self-identify as protected class citizens to gain equality and rights. See Equality. See Gays. See Protected Class. See Rights.

Marriage: The union of any two people for the purposes of gaining equal rights and protected class status.  See Equality. See Gay. See Protected Class. See Rights.

Mob: Anyone who disagrees with modern liberalism and dares to speak up in a public forum. Most recently applied to those who spoke against healthcare. See Healthcare. See Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

News: Anything said or implied by any news media except Fox News. For example, Balloon Boy and the death of Michael Jackson were news. The downfall of ACORN was not. See ACORN. See Fox News. See Free Press.

Politically Correct: A misnomer from the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit the only, true way for all Americans to think. See Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Protected Class: The concept that some people are born more equal under the law than others, because they believe in liberal doctrine and self-identify with a liberal group. See Equality.

Racism: Attacks on anyone who identifies with any special interest group or liberal belief, regardless of race, considered properly in favor with liberal doctrine. See Anti-American.

Religion: The freedom to believe in some sky-daddy, as long as such belief never enters into the public arena in any way, shape or form, since the Constitution guarantees a separation of church and state. See Bill of Rights. See Freedom.

Rich: A class of citizens who represent one of the major barriers to developing a Utopian society. This class must be taxed into extinction, unless, of course, the individuals adhere to liberal doctrine.

Rights: Any thought or action liberals deem appropriate to a shifting society, with no regard to Constitutional enumeration, or public opinion. Also, any number of government mandated expenses or entitlements. Recognition of such entitlements as rights is central to liberal doctrine. See Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh: Satan or the Great Evil One. See Anti-American. See Fairness Doctrine. See Glenn Beck.

Sensitivity Training: The idea that, if caught early enough, conservatives can be turned into liberals or at least to discover the homosexual hiding within.

Separation of Church and State: The enlightened interpretation of the outdated 1st Amendment to the Constitution. See Bill of Rights. See Constitution.

Sex Education: When taught in schools, this is only possible means for children to learn how to properly use condoms in the belief that there is such a thing as safe sex. Before sex education, all children were at the mercy of their parents to pass along incorrect sexual mores and attitudes. See Marriage.

Tax: Redistribution of wealth. A means of controlling corporate greed and the rich. See Greed. See Rich.

The One: See Barack Obama.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: A group of people who, if properly educated and who would give up religion, would become liberals. See Religion.

Equality Maine is at it again, trying to distort people's perception of same sex marriage by calling supporters of marriage liars. Here's what I mean:

This recent ad from Stand for Marriage Maine makes a valid accusation against the Equality Maine organizers, namely, that Equality Maine had tried to push homosexual teaching in Maine schools back in 2005. In 2009, of course, they push for same sex marriage and push acceptance to neuter marriage where man and woman become meaningless attributes.

Stand for Marriage Maine rightly points out that if same sex marriage is adopted in Maine, the next step will be to push the gay agenda into schools. (Of course, homosexuals and gay rights advocates are fond of telling me "there is no gay agenda." Political activism to neuter marriage isn't an agenda? Give me a bag.)

Equality Maine flatly rejects the Stand for Marriage Maine "attack" on same sex marriage. They seemingly deny that Maine will never allow teaching same sex marriage and acceptance of homosexuality in the school system. Yet, what are they really saying? Here's the basis of discontent from Maine's attorney general:

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills ruled last week that the new law would not force schools to teach same-sex marriage, and in the wake of that ruling, gay marriage advocates want the ad taken off the air. (MyFoxMaine.com)

In effect, those in Equality Maine say that because, in the past, Maine rejected teaching same sex marriage in schools, that, in the future, Maine will reject teaching same sex marriage in the schools.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Gay activists have continually denied that they would push for teaching same sex marriage in schools. (Truth be told, back in 2003, gay activists vehemently denied they would push for same sex marriage. Look where that "promise" has led us. But I digress.) Yet, all we need is one instance where gay activists have pushed to teach same sex marriage in schools to disqualify Equality Maine's objection. Here's only one example from Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal:

Massachusetts parents infuriated that their second graders were read King & King, a fairy tale about two gay princes, are suing the school and the teacher in federal court. The parents say schools are violating their religious freedom. But in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, public school officials say they not only can talk about gay couples, they are required to. (NPR)

How about this recent gem? This comes from an NPR radio interview with a Massachusetts teacher who not only taught about same sex marriage to her grade school class, but also taught about some of the finer points of lesbian sex and sex toys:

“I know that, OK, this is legal now. If somebody wants to challenge me I say give me a break.” — Deb Allen, Teacher (Beetle Blogger)

Will passing a law in Maine to allow same sex marriage open the door to laws and school policy changes to teach same sex marriage in schools?

You know it. I know it. Gay activists know it. We know it because this is exactly what gay activists want, complete acceptance and normalization of homosexual behavior and homosexual sex. In their dogmatic zeal, they will gladly hide one intention to gain another advantage. They will shout "You lie!" from the rooftops about same sex education in schools, all the while hiding behind their push to normalize the idea that two men or two women can also make a marriage.

Yet, Equality Maine and other political entities pushing to legalize neutering marriage dance the same dance, all the while producing volumes of smoke and roomfuls of mirrors in their zeal to bash those who think marriage ought to remain between a man and a woman.

Is this what you want, people of Maine? Do you want to help gay activists neuter marriage and, in some near future, teach your children that homosexual sex is all right?

Visit Stand for Marriage Maine by clicking on their banner and make a stand against the smoke and mirrors of gay activists.

Voters of Maine - Beware!

Once you stand up to protect marriage, vote yes on 1, and successfully pass a legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, you will open the door for gay activists to stab at constitutional government.

What? Is that right? How does that work? How does defending marriage lead to gay activists challenging the foundations of US government?

Here's an example of the lengths gay activists will go: After Proposition 8 passed in California, gay activists took to the streets to protest - an understandable reaction for a group who think that their "rights" have been taken away. However, taking to the streets in this case, meant threatening others, unrestrained rage and destruction of property.

More egregious, however, was the huge backlash against the religious community for supporting the institution of marriage. The Mormons still take flak for taking a stand to protect marriage. (For example, note Keith Olbermann's recent diatribe against a Mormon general leader who supports the institution of marriage.)

"So what?" you say. Perhaps you could care less about religion and the religious. All right, but what about the backlash against the black community? Exit polls showed seventy percent of the black people in California voted to uphold marriage, in favor of Proposition 8. The result? Gay activists blamed the black community for their "insensitivity" to gay "rights." ("Blacks and Latinos are being blamed for helping put Prop. 8 over the top. Only the Mormon Church has been slammed harder, by loud and passionate crowds." LA Weekly)

"Okay," you say. "That can't happen in Maine. We're nothing like California. We know that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we'll settle this once and for all."

 Yet gay activism doesn't hold the view that elections settle anything. Gay activists will use any means to get at the institution of marriage that they deem necessary. This includes tactics that are outright dangerous to constitutional government.

Directly after last year's election in California, gay activists started an online campaign to publish the names and addresses of those who supported Proposition 8 with money. Besides setting a dangerous precedent for elections (a sort of payback against people you don't agree with), the action violates the very principles that gays strive to promote.

Homosexuals, as a group, have pushed for gay "rights" by arguing to interpret the concept of constitutional privacy. This "right to privacy" was established through such means as the court decision Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court created a woman's right to privacy and included the right to abortion within that right to privacy. In 2003, in the case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional, that homosexuals could engage in homosexual sex without constraint of law because those laws invaded the privacy of homosexuals.

Gay activism now bases many of its ideas of rights on the establishment of the Supreme Court conjured right to privacy. Gay activists argue that marriage is a private matter, and not a public one, in order to throw the weight of the right to privacy against the institution of marriage.

Yet gay activists are perfectly happy to break their sacred right to privacy, when it suits them politically, by publishing names of individual donors in an election. This tactic, while not unconstitutional, does eat away at the very idea of privacy that homosexuals depend on to exist as a protected class of citizens. In effect, gay activists imply that they have a right to privacy, while anyone who doesn't agree with them has no such right to privacy.

It gets worse. A group of gay activists have attacked the very institution of constitutional government and rule of law in their zeal to strike down Proposition 8.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker opened the gates to hell this month when he ruled that strategists for Proposition 8...must release internal campaign documents to measure opponents. (San Francisco Chronicle)

What? Is that right? A US District judge has ordered those who wrote Proposition 8, to release documents to determine if they were prejudiced in writing Proposition 8? Here's the dangerous implication:

Political activists of all stripes beware: Unless this ruling is overturned, the word will be out that sore losers who can't beat you at the ballot box and probably can't beat you in court can file a lawsuit designed to pry away proprietary information that they later can use to embarrass you. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Embarrassment is the least of the problems this strategy opens.

The plaintiffs - two same-sex couples, a gay rights organization and the city of San Francisco - cite a previous federal ruling to argue that if the court finds that Prop. 8 backers were motivated by discrimination, then the court can strike down the measure without having to decide if gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. (San Francisco Chronicle)

This is the danger. This is the heart of gay activists who will stop at nothing to gain neutered marriage. This law flaunts the intent and purpose of rule of law to create rule of expediency. Make no mistakes about this, gay activists now attempt to get rid of an unwanted law by circumventing the entire constitutional process.

The slippery slope of this law suit staggers the mind. If anyone can challenge a law based on the "bias" of its backers, then any and all laws can be struck down. Why? Because all laws are backed through a process of bias, assumption, and discrimination.

Gay activists cry for equality, yet will not allow dissenters the same privilege.

Voters of Maine beware. This is what awaits you if you don't give in to gay activism and its demands to neuter marriage. You and your laws will be treated with the same contempt as those who supported Proposition 8 in California. The question is, will you give in to expediency? Or will you stand firm in the defense of an institution you know is the foundation of society?

Remember Maine's own values on marriage and the family:

 “The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.” [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

 Is this no longer true for the people of Maine?

Once upon a time there was a cabinet maker. He produced fine, wood cabinets for the people of his village and they all came to him whenever they needed a cabinet for their home. He took great pride in producing cabinets, using wood from two different trees and fitting the crafted pieces together into a seamless union. His cabinets had many drawers and room enough to protect the things the villagers needed to store. The cabinets were strong and useful, built to last a lifetime.

Many villagers were glad to have a useful and beautiful cabinet in their home. The villagers used the cabinet's drawers to protect their possessions from dirt and bugs, filth and corruption. With care, a cabinet lasted a lifetime, protecting the villagers' possessions and making the villagers happy.

Yet, over the years, the cabinet maker discovered that many of the villagers didn't properly care for their cabinets. They no longer realized that even the best-made cabinets needed care and protection. Instead, some villagers left their cabinets exposed to the weather, to dry and crack. Some left their cabinets exposed to rot and filth. Termites ate away at others. Neglected, many of the cabinets broke to pieces. Some villagers even destroyed their cabinets outright in fits of anger or abuse. Some left their cabinets empty and unused, then threw them away because they could find no use for them.

Many villagers, whose cabinets decayed, blamed the cabinet maker for not building the cabinets strong enough. Even more villagers blamed the cabinets themselves, thinking that cabinets weren't worth the price and care needed to maintain them. Of course, the corrupted and broken cabinets weren't the cabinet maker's, nor the cabinet's fault. Neither were responsible for the villagers' neglect or abuse.

The cabinet maker shook his head in sad bewilderment at the villagers who blamed him or his fine cabinets. In neglecting or abusing the cabinets, the villagers blamed everyone but themselves.

One day, a stranger came to town, telling every villager he met that he, too, was a cabinet maker. He told the villagers that his cabinets were new and improved. The new cabinets, he assured the villagers, were much better than the old ones they were used to. He pointed to the broken and decaying old cabinets as proof that the villagers needed new and improved cabinets. According to the stranger, as soon as he set up shop to sell his new cabinets, the villagers certainly would not want any other kind.

The stranger soon showed up at the cabinet maker's door. The two shared few pleasantries, the cabinet maker finding himself in a quick and tense conversation with his new competitor.

"I understand you have a new cabinet you are trying to sell the people," the cabinet maker said.

"That's right," said the stranger. "My cabinets are newer and better than yours and soon everyone will want one. Your cabinets are now obsolete."

"We'll see," said the cabinet maker. " Do you have one of your new cabinets you can show me?"

The stranger pulled one of his cabinets out of the back of his truck and set it in front of the cabinet maker.

The cabinet maker was startled. In front of him was, not a cabinet, but an end table. "That's not a cabinet," he said. "That's an end table."

"No, you're wrong," the stranger said. "This is a new and improved cabinet and soon everyone will want one."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it has no drawers. How can it be a cabinet without drawers? It cannot protect the villagers' possessions without drawers."

"Drawers are obsolete," the stranger said. "No one really cares about drawers anymore and those that do happen to need drawers can just stack them underneath the cabinet."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it is made from only one tree and therefore is weak and cannot support the weight the villagers will place on it."

"Using two trees is old-fashioned. No one really believes that you need two trees to make a cabinet anymore. And besides, no one really expects cabinets to hold any weight anyway."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it is a side table, not a cabinet. No one will buy this!"

The stranger got angry with the cabinet maker. "You are just an old man with stupid old ideas about cabinets! I will make sure your old and stupid ideas don't stop me from selling my cabinets!" With that the stranger packed up his side table and left.

The next day, the constable showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "The stranger filed a complaint against you," the constable said. "He said you were rude and unfair to him and wouldn't allow him to sell his cabinets to the villagers."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The constable got angry with the cabinet maker. "That's just what he said you'd say. I'm citing you for unfair business practices and hate speech." With that the constable handed a citation to the cabinet maker and left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You stupid, ignorant old man, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the first time. "You are not only stupid and ignorant, you are a liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, the magistrate showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "I will declare from the magistrate's bench that your refusal to acknowledge the stranger's cabinet is unconstitutional, unfair, and takes away his civil rights. If you don't agree, you'll lose your business license and will never make cabinets again."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The magistrate got angry with the cabinet maker. "Are you implying that I don't recognize unfair and unconstitutional acts when I see them? I'm declaring the stranger's civil rights from the magistrate's bench whether you like it or not!" With that the magistrate left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You bigoted moron, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the second time. "You are not only bigoted and a moron, you are a filthy liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, the mayor showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "I will pass a law that says that anything the stranger makes is indeed a cabinet. If you don't agree, you'll lose your business license and will never make cabinets again."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The mayor got angry with the cabinet maker. "Are you implying that I'm getting paid off by the stranger to make these laws? I'm passing that law whether you like it or not!" With that the mayor left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You old, decrepit cretin, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the third time. "You are not only an old cretin, you are a filthy $&%**#$ scumbag liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, a student showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "My teacher told me that you don't believe in cabinets."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The student shrugged her shoulders. "Whatever, old dude. You are just as bigoted as the stranger said you'd be. Your ideas are soooooo yesterday!" With that the student left.

The cabinet maker sighed and went back inside his house. He continued to make proper cabinets, using two trees and building lots of drawers, just in case any of the villagers could still tell the difference between a cabinet and a side table.

---

A side table cannot be a cabinet. Same sex marriage cannot be marriage. Help protect the institution of marriage from those who would change and neuter its definition, and remember, marriage isn't merely an agreement between adults, it is an institution to protect children. Consider donating a few dollars to help Maine preserve the foundational institution of marriage. Click on the Yes on 1 link to make a donation.

From Euripides

 

Maine voters got more than they bargained for with a battle heating up over whether the state should allow same sex marriages. As a word of caution, be aware and beware the language the news media uses to describe the question of marriage. More often than not, the language shows a distinct bias against the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Here are a few examples from Fox 23, My Fox Maine which demonstrates the biased and sometimes inflammatory language that Maine's media uses to push its own pro-gay viewpoint. Unfortunately, It does this at the expense of the real debate, the protection of marriage and the family. Instead the media buys into the idea that same sex marriage is the only fair and natural version of marriage and will somehow be good for the country.

The first example is the headline: "Gay Marriage Foes Reach Signature Goal in Maine" (MyFOXMaine). Notice how those who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman are here characterized as "Gay Marriage Foes." Implied is that those who believe in natural marriage are somehow at fault for not agreeing with same sex marriage.

The end of the article, the "selling point" argument that news writers use to make their main point says this: "Six states allow gay marriage. Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage in May, and New Hampshire later followed suit" (MyFOXMaine). While giving the appearance of being informative, it also implies, by its placement as the final paragraph, that this is the way Maine ought to be - counted as the "progressive" states which have legalized same sex marriage. Yet, think about it. Is this the what the people of Maine really want? Is neutering marriage through language that no longer recognizes male or female, bride or groom, man or woman, is this progressive thought? Does legal language that does not recognize the unique differences of the sexes in marriage warrant such devotion from the people of Maine?

Additionally, by calling same sex marriage "gay marriage" the news media has also conceded the idea that homosexuals are a protected class of citizens. This special class desires special protection under the law, instead of equal protection as required by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Trying to change the nature of marriage itself is an example of such special consideration under the law.

Here's another example:

Stand for Marriage Maine, the group pushing for a people's veto of the new state law legalizing same-sex marriage, has launched a television ad (MyFOXMaine).

This story falls under another "Gay Marriage Foes" headline - FOX 23's established moniker for those who support marriage in the state. Notice, again, the language as an attack on those who support marriage between a man and a woman. Using words such as "pushing" indicates a negative connotation, as if the people of Maine wanted the poor law their legislators and governor created. Contrary to the news media's expectations, a vast majority of the people in Maine support marriage as a union between a man and a woman. By legalizing same sex marriage, who pushed whom?

In the same story, the "selling point" paragraph shows another offensive tactic:

The No on 1 campaign has fired back, says voters should "focus on the real issue of treating all families with dignity and respect" (MyFOXMaine).

Here the media actually changes the real issue: should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman? Yet the media and gay activists insist on throwing out a red herring which implies that anyone who doesn't agree with same sex marriage is also against "treating all families with dignity and respect."

Here's the problem with the argument: Those who want to change marriage, to make it into something it is not, have shown absolutely no dignity or respect for the institution of marriage and for families created from such a union. With no regard for an institution as old as history itself, gay activists now want to hijack marriage for their own, selfish goals.

Another interesting example:

Opponents of a new law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine have recruited the help of the California public relations firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs, which led the successful Proposition 8 proposal to overturn gay marriage in that state (MyFOXMaine).

This is the media's attempt to demonize those supporting marriage by implying that they have no business bringing in big, corporate support to force the issue against the will of the people of Maine.

Before decrying the tactics, however, consider the heavy-handed tactics gay activists use. For example, the primary website promoting "No On 1" which calls itself a "grassroots" organization, was created and registered by AP Campaigns, PO Box 15007, Washington, District Of Columbia 20003. AP Campaigns is a company that lobbies in Washington, DC on behalf of gay issues, and now lobbies in Maine.

Consider, as well, the huge list of national gay activist supporters that the No on 1 campaign proudly displays on their website. These include such groups as GLSEN, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The point of mentioning this list is to demonstrate the breadth of national involvement to try and overthrow the institution of marriage. The Maine news media trying smear marriage defenders by drawing attention to its supporters simply neglects the other side of the story.

As if these "grassroots" lobbyists aren't enough, Beetle, a fellow blogger, notes that various groups in California plan to campaign in Maine, bringing in outside gay activists to protest, organize phone campaigns, and plan paid "vacations" in Maine for a "get-out-the-vote" organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Beetle Blogger). Consider that many, if not most, of the gay activists demanding "marriage equality" in Maine, don't live in Maine.

Like it or not, same sex marriage is an issue that has implications across the country. Just don't be fooled by those news and website outlets who profess that their same sex marriage campaign is anything but an organized attempt to convince the people of Maine of support that simply does not exist in Maine.

Don't be fooled and don't be taken in by the attack language of Maine's media and "grassroots" proponents of same sex marriage. They are out to bamboozle you with bias and bigotry. They will offer half-truths and inflammatory language. They will throw red herrings along the way to get Maine voters focused on anything but the issue of supporting the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

When considering what's at stake with marriage, I encourage you to vote in favor of protecting this fundamental institution.

From Euripides

To the Gay Community:

We, at the Monogamous and Heterosexual Education Network (MOHEN) have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the discriminatory practices of the gay community and 27 of its politically active organizations. In the lawsuit, we raise the concern of 752 plaintiffs who have been disenfranchised from the gay community simply because they were not lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered.

In the lawsuit, we argue that the social category "gay" is discriminatory and excludes any heterosexuals who want to express a caring and loving relationship without being homosexual. The belief that only same sex couples may participate in being gay is discriminatory and is therefore legally unjustifiable.

Gayness does not imply protected class status. That’s a false notion held within the gay community. Gayness is simply a variation of sexual practice. MOHEN argues that the heterosexual plaintiffs only want equal rights for themselves and for their children within the gay community. Both our Constitution and morality require it.

Those of us who support gay heterosexual equality realize that gays hold a bigoted view that discriminates against a specific group of citizens. Those who want to discriminate against heterosexual, monogamous couples in the granting of gay rights don’t want to be made to feel uncomfortable in their bigotry. We recognize, however, that such feelings will come with the territory since gays hold a bigoted point of view. They need to get used to it.

What we ask for is simple. All we want is inclusion into the gay community as heterosexuals. We want to express our love and devotion to each other without the bitter stigma of not being gay. We want our rights as members of the gay community: to express our feelings to each other as heterosexual members of the gay community.

We agree with Keith Olbermann when he said:

"Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world." (MSNBC)

We also ask the questions: How does keeping heterosexuals out of the gay community have any impact on homosexual behavior? What are you afraid of? How can having a gay monogamous heterosexual possibly affect your personal lives?

Therefore, we call upon gay activists everywhere to open their hearts and allow monogamous heterosexuals to join the gay community and be called gay.

---

A Note from Euripides:
Those of you who have stuck through this post without vomiting, surely realize what point I make here. Substitute the concepts of same sex marriage and notice the same arguments gay activists use in order to push their ideas of same sex marriage on the people of the US.

One argument conveniently tossed aside by gay activists is the argument against changing the definition of marriage. This post shows an analogy which validates the definition change argument. Just as there is no such thing as a gay monogamous heterosexual, there is equally no such thing as same sex marriage.

Marriage is not merely a legal definition but includes a social aspect. What this means is that, since society has always defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gay activists indeed try to change the definition to suit their political goals.

Now stop searching Google to find MOHEN's lawsuit.

From Euripides

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

All Choked Up
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got all choked up about perceived violent (or at least very vocal) "attacks" on the healthcare bill. Spoken like the true liberal she is, instead of appealing to calm emotions, Pelosi instead broke into crass emotionalism herself, comparing the rhetoric over the healthcare bill to the political climate in San Fransisco 30 years ago that culminated in the assassination of Harvey Milk.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.” (Real Clear Politics)

For pity's sake. This woman is the Speaker of the House and has to resort to teary-eyed and oblique references to a homosexual politician and then compare that with those who protest against the current healthcare reform bill? Get a grip Ms. Speaker. (Watch the video here.)

Of course, the Republicans, not to be outwhined by the likes of Pelosi, quickly denounced the ploy.

"The Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda," [Rep.] Peter Sessions [chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee] said in a statement. (The Washington Post)

The left, having overturned the establishment in order to recreate it in their own image, have now become the establishment. Leftists seemingly cannot stand up in the court of public (or even Republican) opinion, opting instead to such emotional arguments to try, once again, to silence the opposition.



A CORN Tale
I am in serious danger of being amused by ACORN's recent misfortunes. You've heard the news about James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles "infiltrating" ACORN offices in not one, not two, not three, but four separate cities and getting ACORN employees to offer advice about how a p*mp and a prostitute can buy a house, evade taxes, and hide importing underage girls from El Salvador to be used as prostitutes.

First of all, take a look at the couple in the photo. Can anyone look at these two and seriously think they are a p*mp and a prostitute? That ACORN employees took them seriously doesn't help ACORN's credibility. At the least ACORN needs to provide better education and training for its employees.

Of course, the mainstream media avoided the entire "affair" because 1) the two young adults who scooped the story were not part of the elite media; 2) Fox News reported the story (so other agencies must ignore it by default); 3) the story interferes with the media's love affair with Obama.

Yet these two, along with Andrew Breitbart, have succeeded in creating a real, bona fide political controversy. The US Census Bureau has cut ties with ACORN over this. Governor Schwarzenegger urged the California Attorney General Jerry Brown to a full investigation of ACORN activities in California. (KCRA News) The US Senate voted 83 to 7 to deny housing and transportation funds to ACORN. (Reuters) And to top it off Nancy Pelosi said this about the Senate vote:

"I don't even know what they passed," Pelosi told The Post yesterday. "What did they do? They defunded it?" (New York Post)

Thus exposing Pelosi to further well-deserved public ridicule for her grasp of the current political scene.

Seriously amusing, yet sad at the same time, was this California ACORN employee caught on tape. If you haven't seen any of these videos, this is the best one....



Pressing Matters
Related to the previous story, Pew Research recently released a study that shows that public opinion of the news media's accuracy is at a twenty year low, bottoming out at 29%.


With news reported by the likes of Keith Olbermann or Katie Couric or Charles Gibson, is it any wonder so few trust the mainstream media?

Judging Obama
Jeremy Lott at Politico, took a look at President Obama's track record so far, assessing his success with such legislation as: cap and trade - in danger of serious neutering; The Employee Free Choice Act - called on the carpet for doing away with union secret ballots; and healthcare - with its hidden public option and implicit support of federally-funded abortions.

What was Lott's conclusion?

It’s entirely possible — nay, likely — that Obama will lose on all three big issues. He’ll probably take that personally. As he has pushed for the passage of his reforms, his public approval ratings have taken a beating, and voters have started to trust the Republicans more than his party on a host of issues. (Politico)

Unless President Obama finds some sort of middle ground with the Republicans, he may well become the most divisive president in recent history. And no, it's not the Republicans fault. Just ask George W. Bush.

Aborted Laws
Arizona recently passed legislation to require a 24 hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion, to require abortions to be performed by doctors, and to require parental consent for an underage girl to receive an abortion. Planned Parenthood, that bastion of abortion "rights," and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights have challenged the laws, asking for a court block on their enactment. (AZCentral.com)

Of course, the news story pays no attention to any pro-life argument, or any argument based on anything not clouded by the unreasonable and senseless connection of uncontrolled abortion with "reproductive rights." The news can only concur with the radical abortionists:

"Here we have very strong evidence that this law will seriously impact a woman's ability to access abortion," said Suzanne Novak, a lawyer for the center. "It will prevent some women from getting an abortion at all." (AZCentral.com)

Well, isn't that the point of the new law? Has women's rights boiled down to the single issue of unlimited access to abortions on demand? And is there no place to give voice to the inalienable right to life of the unborn?

Mired
President Obama unexpectedly ran into Democratic opposition to his policies in Afghanistan. As Senator John Kerry put it:

“At the very moment when our troops and our allies’ troops are sacrificing more and more, our path and our progress seem to be growing less and less clear,” Kerry said at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Bloomberg)

Kerry sounds like he's talking to George W. Bush, except his remarks are too polite.

The problem remains: What is Obama doing in Afghanistan? What are his goals? What is the grand strategy? What is the exit strategy? And why does all this sound like Bush III?

Abuse of Power
During last year's election, much was made of George W. Bush's perceived abuses of power. From wire tapping to data mining, Bush was constantly called to the carpet for power handed to him by our Congress. Now, with the new guy in office, power seems too much of a temptation for Obama to pass up:

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. (The Washington Times)

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Statism is statism. It's time for We the People of the United States to take back control of an out-of-control government.

From Euripides

Red herrings are smelly fish. They are also a smelly argument. Ostensibly, the term that applies to the phrase "red herring argument" comes from a past practice of using smelly red herrings to throw someone off the trail or the hunt. The idea applies to arguing a point as well. We use red herring arguments to throw someone off the trail or digress from the real argument.

Modern liberals are masters of the red herring argument. We've seen quite a few uses of this fallacy over the past year as Obama and Congress have positioned themselves to pass massive spending legislation without the American people catching on to what they are doing.

Let's take a look at some of the most common red herrings in liberalism's quiver of weapons. See if you can spot where the argument tries to throw us off the trail of the real argument. We'll start off with an easy one. Here's a quote from ex-president Jimmy Carter. You may not remember him, but he was a one-term president who left office with double-digit inflation and a US hostages in Iran. (Did you catch my red herring there?)

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." (CNN)

Did you spot the red herring? Here's the argument in its simplest form: Some Americans don't like Obama's policies and voice opinions against them. Carter calls all such sentiments racism. Here's an even simpler version: Don't like Obama? You're a racist!

Of course, calling Americans racist in this context does nothing to answer the disagreements - some Americans don't agree with Obama's policies and feel disenfranchised. Their frustration has nothing to do with racism. What Carter hopes to accomplish with this red herring is to shut up the opposition to Obama's policies and allow them to pass uncontested. It can be an effective tool, but in this case, I don't think that Americans buy this sort of argument anymore.

Here's another example from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When asked about protesters to government overspending, she said:

"What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now." (TPM)

Here's what Pelosi really says: "You don't like Congress' spending? You're all failures, just like George Bush! Using failure and George Bush here as an argument doesn't answer the question about the problems inherent with rampant government deficit spending and debt acquisition. What does protesting the massive deficit spending really have to do with George Bush and his perceived failures? Blaming Bush certainly doesn't answer the current problems.

Bush corollaries:

• Something goes wrong with the people's perception of Congress? It's Bush' fault!
• Americans are unhappy? It's Bush's fault!
• People don't like the current Congress? It's Bush's fault!
• Obama is mired in Afghanistan? It's Bush's fault!
• Obama's popular opinion is falling? It's Bush's fault!
  

This next example comes from a Facebook status posting that went viral. Dozens of my Facebook friends posted this. It's the liberalized response to protests against the current healthcare bill. See if you can spot the red herring:

No one should die because they cannot afford healthcare. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

This really throws the argument off the scent, doesn't it? The original argument is over continued government meddling with the healthcare system and protests over it and Congress. The argument is about too much spending and government control. Yet this Facebook argument gets right to our heart strings, doesn't it? It claims that without government interference in healthcare, people will die, people will go broke and people will have to work at a job they dislike.

Red herrings all of them - effective, but completely off the point. Appeals to emotion can be terribly effective at derailing the real arguments.

Here's an example from close to home. In a local town, someone stole a banner from the front of a store. The banner read "Jesus Saves." With the online news story came one response in the comments section. The language was quite colorful, but the gist of the comment said: "I agree with stealing the banner because there are a lot of priests who are pedophiles. That's way worse than stealing a stupid banner from a group of religious nuts."

Here's the liberal red herring in this comment: Ignore the theft of your property because your group has members who are pedophiles.

This form of red herring takes on many forms but boils down to the argument: "You can't say anything against me because you are just as bad. So there!" Remember the story of the pro-life man shot and killed by a crazed liberal? The red herring argument says he deserved it because an abortion clinic was bombed by a crazed pro-lifer.

These arguments simply ignore the fact of the original argument: Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. Yet people use them all the time to derail the main point. What follows is usually an argument that has nothing to do with the original topic. From this one comment to the news story, the comments flared into an exchange about religion. (Well, not really an exchange since the anti-religion liberals dominated the forum.)

Here's an example that I encounter all the time in defense of marriage: "You don't like same sex marriage? You are a bigot!" or "You are a religious nut!" or "You are a Nazi!" or "You are a pinhead!" or....Well, you get the idea.

See the red herring? Instead of addressing the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman, the liberals derail the argument by name calling. Again, this can be an effective means to derail an argument, but derail it does.

We've seen a lot of name calling this past summer with the debate over the dubious healthcare bill. Top government officials have called protesters astroturf, angry mobs, racists, Fox News lackeys, Limbaugh Dittoheads, and Nazis. These are all red herrings to throw protesters off the real arguments over healthcare legislation. None of them address the real issues brought up by the protesters, yet top national liberals used them to express disdain for any disagreements with passing a healthcare bill.

Unfortunately for the liberalized government, these red herrings and name calling energized opposition to the healthcare bill, rather than derailing the argument. The largely ignored protest in Washington DC showed an energized opposition to Obama and Congress.

One last example will suffice. ACORN has recently come under attack because of videos which show ACORN employees telling a couple posing as a p*mp and a prostitute how to lie, get a house for illicit use, and prostitute underage El Salvadorian girls. Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer at ACORN had this to day in response:

An international entertainment conglomerate, disguising itself as a "news" agency (Fox), has expended millions, if not tens of millions of dollars, in their attempt to destroy the largest community organization of Black, Latino, poor and working class people in the country.....

But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist "filmmaker" O'Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was - our lawyers believe a felony - and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators. (ACORN.com)

Lewis completely ignores the arguments and accusations in order to cast her red herrings far and wide, accusing Fox News of defamation and bigotry, lying about the film as "doctored," demeaning O'Keefe by adding quote marks to his title, and threatening legal action.

The last, of course, is the darling red herring of liberals everywhere - the threat of legal action. They know and understand that when their position goes awry, it's time to obfuscate the issues with a law suit - the ultimate red herring.

With practice, you too can learn to spot the red herring. For practice, all you have to do is listen to the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

Washington DC webcam image shows a massive September 12, 2009 protest against government overspending, debt, and national healthcare. How's that hope and change working out for you?

From Euripides

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Astroturf
A whole gob of people showed up in Washington DC on September 12, 2009 to protest government overspending and Obama's policies. Michelle Malkin claims 2 million protesters. Another report from the DC police claims around 1.2 million.

Whatever the numbers, it does my heart good to see so many people protesting for what's right and fair and good in this country. Alas, the mainstream news agencies will never see it that way. I suspect we'll see and read about the angry mob and how unfairly Obama has been judged. Case in point are these snippets from the NY Times:

The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light....(Demeaning light? Shocking!)

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity....(Happy vitriolics?)

For the most part, Democrats stayed silent on Saturday, with the exception of a small group of counterdemonstrators who gathered behind a roadblock to protest what they called a “right-wing rally.” Many were members of the clergy, who said they were concerned about misinformation propagated by opponents of health care legislation. (NY Times)

Despite the protest, Obama will do what his statist mentality dictates and Congress will continue to spend taxpayer money like drunken sailors. Can we please get some of these jokers out of office before they do some real damage? And just how many protesters does it take to make Obama and Nancy Pelosi take Americans seriously?

ACORNed
Many of you have read of the latest drama unfolding with the release of two videos showing criminal conspiracy on the part of ACORN workers in Baltimore and Washington DC. (Here's a link in case you've missed the videos. They represent terrific investigative journalism.)

Two college students, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, decided to "infiltrate" two ACORN offices and ask for assistance in buying a house and with filing taxes. The catch? The students posed as a prostitute and her p*mp and filmed the proceedings. The videos show ACORN employees in not one, but two different offices, in different cities, conspiring to commit felonies. These ACORN employees "helped" the couple by instructing them how to lie about Giles' stated profession, how to form an LLC, and how to show a profit on taxes. Bad enough you say? What about the ACORN employees telling a prostitute and her p*mp how to hide their plans to import 13 underage, El Salvadorian girls to help with business?

The employees have been fired, and better still, the US Census Bureau severed its ties with ACORN for the 2010 US census. (Breitbart)

Here's my take on the story. First of all, Hannah Giles is far too pretty to be taken seriously as a prostitute. James O'Keefe is too young and innocent to play to p*mp. The fact that the ACORN employees bought their story simply amazes me on these fact alone.

Second, I cannot believe how amoral the ACORN employees were. How far do you have to sink to help out a prostitute, her p*mp, and their plans of putting underage El Salvadorian girls into sexual slavery? What kind of blindness does it take to help and encourage such blatant felonies?

Third, ACORN's response, while expected, stymies the intellect. Here are some quotes from Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer. These come from the ACORN website:

An international entertainment conglomerate, disguising itself as a "news" agency (Fox), has expended millions, if not tens of millions of dollars, in their attempt to destroy the largest community organization of Black, Latino, poor and working class people in the country.....

But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist "filmmaker" O'Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was - our lawyers believe a felony - and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators. (ACORN.com)

I really hadn't bought into the ACORN conspiracy and connection with President Obama. I'd guessed that ACORN had some inherent corruption within its ranks, just as many large corporations. Yet, Ms. Lewis' blatant lies against O'Keefe and Giles and her misplaced outrage against Fox News have shifted my opinion against the group. ACORN's "hurt" response and threat of legal action against Fox is enough to make me a believer that the entire corporation is corrupt from bottom to top.

Moore? Too Much!
I wish I had as much money as Michael Moore. Then I could sit back in my comfy place and make news by making fun of George Bush, the US healthcare system, or capitalism. In fact, I could travel the world over, visit my buddies in Cuba, and still have time to rip on the system that created my own wealth. I could do all that, but I wouldn't because I'm not a bald-faced hypocrite, like Michael Moore.

Case it point is Moore's latest movie entitled "Capitalism: A Love Story." It holds Moore's peculiar own views on the world:

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." (Reuters)

Despite mixing an economic ideology (capitalism) with a political one (democracy), the movie propagandizes Michael Moore's own love affair with communism (both an economic and political ideology). Obviously Moore benefits from the capitalist system as opposed to his pipe dream utopia. Might I suggest he give away all his money to ACORN and become a Cuban citizen? At least we wouldn't have to hear about any more of his movies.

Hope for Change
Bloomberg analysts announced that the jobless rate hiked up to 9.7 percent in August and that the underemployment rate also reached a record 16.8 percent. (Bloomberg) Yet the mainstream media and the White House keep telling us that the economy has "bottomed out" and we are now in the midst of an economic upswing.

Such economies have killed off many politicians. Politically ignoring the economy doesn't help. Let's not let such a crisis in the economy go to waste and push for real reform in Washington - in the form of congressional unemployment.

Healthcare Redux
Since Obama can't leave healthcare off the table for more than, say, ten minutes at a time, I'll once again review the highlights of the week's news on the topic.

After a summer break of protests that left many congressional representatives reeling, Congress returned to session with a new mandate from Obama: "the time for bickering is over." (AP) What he really meant to say was: "Stop listening to those pesky Americans and pass my legacy bill now!"

Despite his disingenuous speech to Congress, his "legacy" healthcare bill is far from a sure thing in spite of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's assurance that they have the votes to pass the bill. (ABC News) Obama's healthcare disapproval rose to 52 percent while his approval on the issue sank to 42 percent. (AP) Clearly the pesky Americans aren't accepting Obama's wool pulling.

During Obama's speech to Congress, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina actually shouted out "You lie!" While embarrassing and out of place for a member of the House, Wilson spoke up for a lot of Americans. Joseph "Put My Foot In It Again" Biden said of the outburst that he was "embarrassed for the chamber and a Congress I love." (AP) (I'm impressed that Biden can still get embarrassed.) Also, it is clearly a shame that Joseph "Love Me" Biden doesn't feel the same way about the American people whom he represents.

Bloomberg notes that what Obama really needs to push his healthcare bill through is a good crisis and notes that, except for those who lack health insurance, we really don't have a healthcare crisis. Since modern liberal theory requires a crisis in order to act, Obama will have to concoct one pretty soon before the healthcare bill dies. Case in point: Has anyone heard anything about the cap and trade bill that the House rushed through because of the global warming "crisis?" Of course not, since it has to now compete with the dying healthcare bill and with Obama's legacy.

Nice Sentiments
Obama's speech to the students of America held some nice sentiments about setting goals and persevering and student responsibility. Now if Obama and the huge federal education bureaucracy would just move out of the way, students would be able to do those things. Here's the full text of the speech if you haven't read it.

Oops
Former California Assemblyman Mike Duvall resigned over explicit sexual comments he broadcast over a hot microphone. (CNN) Apparently, he couldn't keep from bragging about affairs with women lobbyists. His whole conversation was broadcast and recorded.

Also, in the true style of politicians everywhere, his apology lacks a certain...well...apology:

"I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction for my colleagues in the Assembly, who are working hard on the very serious problems facing our state." (CNN)

Amoral and corrupt politicians - where have we seen them before?

Offended
I understand that my writings offend a lot of people. In the true style of the politician or the liberal, I offer my own apology:

"I am deeply saddened that my comments have become a major distraction for some of you, who are working hard to preach the gospel of liberalism to the poor, benighted people of the United States."

I feel better already - well on the road to accepting myself for who I am. And isn't feeling good about myself what's most important in life?

Not to Harlan James Drake, who couldn't quite come to grasp with differing viewpoints than his own and who shot and killed Jim Pouillon because Pouillon's pro-life sign offended him. (CNN) Chalk up another kill for the "tolerant" left and chalk up another blow to peaceful discourse on the subject of abortion.

Coolness
NASA astronauts repaired and upgraded space telescope Hubble last May. As a result of the upgrades, NASA recently released some new and spectacular Hubble photos. These have a clarity and resolution that outdo Hubble's previous masterpieces. Here's a glance at some of the new photos. Check out the HubbleSite for more and larger versions of these amazing images.

From Euripides

The most quoted phrase from Karl Marx refers to religion as the opiate of the masses. Often quoted to show disdain for religion, Marx's quote in context tells us a slightly different story:

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. (Wikipedia)

Marx thought that people could only be happy by removing religion. Yet this conclusion doesn't follow the premises of Marx's own thought. He understood that in order for his vision of the world to come to fruit, he had to replace the Christianity of his day with a new system, which he thoughtfully supplied. Yet Marx's system, tried in various forms across the world stage, has failed time and again to supplant religion and has, by its very nature, produced some of the most despotic regimes of the last century. It has failed for the simple fact that Marx failed to create a system that could, indeed, replace the human urge toward the religious.

There is a growing social element within the US to attempt to supplant religion, to replace it with some form of benign secularism. This element argues that traditional religion is the most dangerous of all ideologies, that our secular government demands complete disregard of religion, and that religion itself, without any authority or political power, is still a dangerous beast that must be held in check by the strictest of social forces. In so believing, this element denies the reality of religion-less ideologies that swept the world in terror throughout the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, what has grown up in the US out of secularism is not benign, beholden to the rigors of the founding principles of democracy. What has emerged is a new religion, loosely based on the gospel of secularism, and beholden to no other ideals than those of popular opinion connected by the doctrines of social relativism and statist control over the population. It caters to overt emotionalism and crass sentimentality. It is every bit as illogical and irrational as the traditional religion it supplants.

This is the religion of social liberalism. It is highly secularized, which denies any higher power than that of its current prophet or priesthood. It answers only to the tides of popular opinion, based on a few standard principles. It represents a broad range of beliefs, all held in common by a disdain for such things as conservatism, economic inequity, or traditional religion. Its goal is to sweep the country under its all-encompassing beliefs, ridding the country of any unworthy or unapproved thought. Its dogma disguises itself under the rubric of political correctness.

The religion of social liberalism bases its liturgy on the nebulous ideals of social and cultural relativism. There are no absolute values in this religion, except those values that stand as monuments to previous social prophets. Its liturgy, instead, consists of social engineering values such as abortion, race baiting, neutering marriage, breaching taboos, or preaching cultural relativism. It consists of economic engineering values such as the redistribution of wealth, the distrust of the wealthy, the distrust of corporations, controlling the means of production, and the distribution of huge and unwieldy entitlements. It consists of statist control values, using good ideas to impose draconian responses with dubious conclusions: cap and trade to control global warming; nanny-state healthcare to control health insurance costs; huge deficit spending to control money supply; taking over corporations to control bad corporate management decisions.

The religion of social liberalism denies the validity of other religions. It simply cannot stand to compete with any other system or any individuals who may believe differently from its dogma. Therefore, it reifies traditional religion into some monolithic beast that must be attacked and subdued. It conveniently forgets that religion only exists because individual people are religious. It cannot understand, then, the religious person. Instead, it sees that person as deluded at best, or as a threat at worst. By attacking traditional religion it creates the false hope that somehow the world will be a better place, if only religion would just go away, crying out to the world "Imagine!"

By extension, religious people are marginalized according to the gospel of social liberalism. To the social liberal, there is nothing more dangerous than the religious person, especially one who dares express religious dialog in public. It cannot countenance the Glenn Becks or the Rush Limbaughs of the world, not because of their boisterous voices, but because they dare to publicly oppose the doctrines of the new religion and dare to turn liberal arguments against it. The religion of social liberalism has no qualms about attacking the individuals who disagree with it. Seemingly, it is only through personal attacks that it sees that the country can be washed clean from the stench of unapproved dissent.

This new secularist religion gains ground every day. Its purpose is to supplant traditional religions with its own world view, relegating the religious as a voiceless element in politics. With its doctrines, government grows to ever greater control, threatening the very foundations of the Constitution and the Republic. It gives legitimacy to socialized programs, appealing to the poorest and the weakest elements of society to create a false hope in salvation through government programs. And it accomplishes this with every bit of fervor that it accuses religious people of having.

The conclusion is clear and simple. beware of those who wield power under the banner of the new religion. They have only their own interests at heart and they are guided by their own, inner voices. Beware the opium of the people.

From Euripides

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

The Coolest Thing
This falls into my "Wow!" category. A research team at IBM succeeded in using an Atomic Force Microscope to image a single molecule. (Daily Mail) The above photo shows a single molecule of pentacene, which is commonly used in solar cells.

What strikes me is how closely the molecule looks like the models we made in school using styrofoam balls and wooden dowels. You can clearly see the five carbon rings and the force lines tracing out to each hydrogen atom.

Imaging a single molecule is just too cool for words.

Heated Language
The same sex marriage debate certainly produces a lot of angry and negative language from its supporters. Look at this news headline, from the ongoing debate in Iowa:

Group that opposes gay marriage now targeting Iowa

DES MOINES, Iowa — A group that helped to outlaw gay marriage in California is turning its focus to Iowa.... (AP)

Take a look at the language that the press uses here. The use of pejorative terms is not new, nor unique to the press. Everyone, however, should be aware of how media writers manipulate words. In the quoted story, note the phrases "opposes gay marriage" and "helped to outlaw gay marriage in California." These hold a negative connotation, invoked in order to lead readers of the article to conclude that the pro-marriage group is bigoted, villainous, or even doing something illegal.

Also note the media's almost universal expression of "gay marriage" as opposed to same sex marriage. This particular phrase connects the same sex marriage advocates with gay activists who are attempting to hijack the civil rights movement to create protected class status for homosexuals. What this connection between gays and marriage does is subtly to draw a line from homosexual practice to creating same sex marriage as a civil right. Without having established the civil right of homosexuality, gay activists now try to create a new civil right out of thin air.

Here's another example of disingenuous speech from the media:

An out-of-state anti-gay marriage group will likely need to form its own Political Action Committee and disclose its donors if it continues its Iowa activities, a state official warned today. (Des Moines Register)

Again we see the same kind of pejorative language identifying a pro-marriage group: "out-of-state" and "anti-gay marriage." Also implied is the threat of "outing" the donors to this group. Many pro-marriage donors who contributed to California's Proposition 8 campaign were publicly outed and then attacked by angry gay activists after the election last year. Now in Iowa, an unnamed state official attempts to derail Iowa's pro-marriage campaign by alluding to the intimidation tactics used in California.

As informed citizens, Americans need to recognize and contest this negative press and heavy-handed government intimidation. Despite all the bad press, pro-marriage supporters now stand strongly against the continued attacks on the fundamental institution of marriage.

Scary Politics
I spent quite a number of years outside the United States, in many countries and under many different governments. One time, when I lived in Egypt, members of the army turned out a small group of us at gunpoint while we gathered together at a friend's house. We had drawn attention from the local neighbors, as a group of foreigners. (There is no right to assemble in Egypt.) On another occasion, this time in Bolivia, members of the Bolivian military took an acquaintance of mine away one night and he was never seen again. (There is no right to habeus corpus in Bolivia and in true authoritarian fashion, his body was never found.)

Of course, these experiences give me an appreciation for the civil protections we enjoy in the United States. Yet every day, I see more stories that point to more government control and fewer liberties. These types of stories don't give me much confidence in the current administration or its ability to handle problems without resorting to draconian threats to personal liberty. Here are two examples:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet....

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page [revised] draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. (CNET)

In effect, this bill would allow the president of the United States to suspend the fourth amendment to the US Constitution and control the private sector in case of an emergency. No one is certain what constitutes an emergency in this case, but the powers seem quite broad in scope under the guise of public safety.

Speaking of public safety, how about this example?

A "pandemic response bill" currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance. (WND)

While I'm all for the idea of containing the flu formerly known as swine, we must still ask ourselves the question: At what point do we give up our freedom, guaranteed by the US Constitution, in order to obtain a little security?

Remember my examples of experiences outside the US? There is only a sliver of difference between what happened there and what could happen here. As long as government keeps chipping away at the foundations of our Constitution, we won't be free or safe.

The Edward M. Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill
Democrats sank to new lows this past week to try and get their floundering nationalized healthcare bill passed. The first example made national news because of its sheer silliness:

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News. (ABC)

I suppose attributing and naming the bill after the now dead liberal darling of the Democratic party makes a lot of sense. In the advertising industry, we call it repackaging. Some have used the term KennedyCare. I prefer the term TeddyCare. The latter sounds so much more cuddly and cute, don't you think?

The other example shows the depths to which Nancy Pelosi will sink in order to pass the healthcare bill that the majority of Americans don't really want:

"Republican opponents of reform are coming out with one outrageous smear after the next, all aimed at derailing our progress. We must be able to counter their special interest-funded attacks and set the record straight," Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic supporters.

"That's why I have set a goal of raising $100,000 in grassroots donations before the August FEC deadline," says Pelosi. (Politico)

Apparently, having a Democrat for a president and a Democrat majority in the House and in the Senate aren't enough to push the horrendous healthcare bill through. Pelosi has to turn to smear tactics and fund raising? I envision thousands of ACORN "volunteers" out on the streets selling lemonade and cupcakes to raise the money for the poor Democrats to be able to finally inflict nationalized healthcare on the US.

Here's the real question. If Obama and Pelosi have the power to push the healthcare bill through, just what are they afraid of? Why don't they just do it? Could it be that they "misunderestimated" the American people?

Smearing America
If there's one thing we've learned from the debate over the healthcare bill, it's that the Democrats will say anything to try to suppress those who voice concerns over the bill. If we can count on one thing from the Left, we can count on having screeching reactions against debate and public opinion far out of proportion to the discussion. A case in point is this summer's mantra that Americans who oppose healthcare are: 1) either fear mongers or afraid; 2) driven like sheep by powerful Republican interests; 3) funded and supported by some vast special interest groups; and 4) driven to a frenzy by Fox News.

Despite the absurdity of these ideas, those foisting nationalized healthcare on Americans continue to spew these points again and again. Here's Bill Clinton's view:

Clinton said the anger that arose this summer against health care was fueled by fear generated by opponents of reform, which he said is hard to win because health care is complicated, personal and the interests that benefit financially from the current system don’t want to give it up. (Commercial Appeal)

Amazingly, he garnered three of the liberal lies about Americans into one statement.

Here's another example of the Left's language. This appeared on the barackobama.com website for a short while, removed when the obvious and spiteful fallacies were discovered:

President Obama’s campaign organization “Organizing for America” sent out a notice to its “grassroots” supporters. It asked them to wage a coordinated phone campaign for health care by calling their U.S. Senators on September 11 – also known as Patriot Day in honor of the thousands of Americans killed by Al Qaeda terrorists eight years ago. It goes on: “All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.” (The Heritage Foundation)

That's always good political policy - attack those who don't agree with the current healthcare bill by calling them "domestic terrorists." Way to go Obama! That's one better than naming Americans the angry mob!

Of course, average Americans are angry because of these relentless attacks by the administration and the media and have succeeded, at least in part, to force the Obama administration to change its strategy on the healthcare bill.

Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time on Wednesday, Sept. 9...and the president plans to give lawmakers a more specific prescription for health care legislation than he has in the past, aides said. (Politico)

Don't be misled by the strategic change. Obama will not give up on healthcare created after his own statist image. The battle against government control is far from over.

Surprise!
The Cash for Clunkers program has created one giant mess for the federal government, for car dealers, and for the consumers. Adding insult to injury, consumers were surprised to find that, along with the massive paperwork to receive money, "the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable." (Keloland News)

Let's see if I got this right. The federal government gave away borrowed tax money to stimulate the economy, then taxed the money it gave away for "free?" This brings up the logical question, will the federal government then tax the tax money that we've paid in taxes?

It's no wonder we cannot trust the government.

They'll Do It My Way
President Obama plans to interrupt schools all across the US by transmitting a 15 to 20 minute speech on September 8. This has, of course, caused quite a stir among the conservatives in the US. It is indeed a shame when we cannot trust the President of the United States with an unsupervised speech to our children. I'm afraid, however, that the opportunity for propaganda will prove too much a temptation for Obama.

My children will indeed be present in school to listen to the president. This is too good of an opportunity to pass up for me to educate them about the dangers of public power, socialism, and government propaganda. All of us have a fine opportunity to shape the future generation and teach our children the importance of taking back government power for ourselves. Maybe some good will come of the president's speech after all.

From Euripides

The response surprised me.

A recent Gallup Poll asked Americans what would be the best way to improve kindergarten through twelfth grade education in the US today. The poll determined that "Americans most commonly mention having higher-quality, better-educated, and more-involved teachers."

Why does this surprise me? For one, I completely disagree with Americans' perception of education in the US. The answer to the problem does not lie with the teachers, but with the support system that teaches, hires, and controls the teachers.

If I were to answer the Gallup Poll question, from my viewpoint as a teacher, I would point to eight entirely different things:

1. Low teacher salaries;
2. Failed university systems which neglect to teach the teachers;
3. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and government concepts of "accountability";
4. Increased federal interference;
5. Top-heavy school and district administration (i.e. district centralization versus department control);
6. Failed approaches to teaching, propagated and amplified by 1960s liberal ideals;
7. Self-serving teachers' unions;
8. And last, but not least, lack of student responsibility.
   

In other words, poor-quality, poorly-educated, poorly-involved teachers isn't the problem. It's only a symptom of the greater problem with education in the US.

I created quite a list here. The Gallup Poll shows that very few of my top problems with education in the US even make it to the Gallup list. This means that average Americans aren't aware of some of the basic, underlying problems with education in the US. Why the discrepancy? Of course, I can attribute many problems I identify on my list to years of personal experience, as I have watched the decline in student interest and student ability in the classroom. Some I attribute to my basic distrust of government interference and big government-run institutions. Some I attribute to my distrust of liberalized educational principles with which I do not agree.

The problem remains, however, that students graduate from high school lacking many of the basic skills necessary to continue at the college level. I've seen a sharp decline in students' abilities over the past five years or so. Students now lack the basic reading skills necessary to tackle the technical or specialized reading required for advanced education. For example, just yesterday, several of my students complained about a short article I had assigned them to read about the historical development of political ideologies. Many students couldn't read the article and grasp the author's main point. Many couldn't get past the author's language.

Also, yesterday I finished grading the first written assignment of the semester, finding a considerable number of the short essays all but unreadable because of basic problems with grammar, spelling, and mechanics. Virtually none of the students could properly group sentences together to form paragraphs, opting instead to break ideas randomly or to ignore paragraphs altogether. A significant number of students copied material straight from the textbook instead of paraphrasing - a clear indication to me of an inability to process information.

Which leads me to conclude that yes, the educational system is failing. Getting back to my own list of problems, I can suggest some solutions, none of which, of course, will ever happen since the educational system in the US is firmly under the control of power mongers: teachers' unions, state projects, and federal mandates and funding.

1 - Increase Teachers' Salaries According to Merit
I advocate across the board salary increases for teachers. While this may sound self-serving (which, of course it is), there is the fact that teachers' salaries simply cannot support a family. Speaking from experience, in order to make ends meet, I must supplement my teaching salary with an outside business and investment income. K-12 teachers are the worst hit, college teachers less so.

Teachers' salaries should be tied to performance, especially at the college and university levels. Performance, in this case, doesn't mean publishing the drivel that passes for research these days, but instead means contributing to teaching, retaining, and counseling students to successfully navigate through school. Bad and overpaid university professors should have their salaries reduced, and should be paid by the number of classes taught, rather than the number of years in the system.

2 - Get Rid of the Elementary Education Degree
The utter garbage teachers learn from a degree in elementary education astonishes me. We now produce college graduates who can spew the latest teaching theories of facilitation and collaboration, yet they cannot read, write, spell, or do math. How can we expect these graduates to become effective teachers themselves when they lack basic educational skills?

Getting rid of the programs to award degrees in elementary education, as well as their big sister, the doctorate of education, and requiring teachers to have graduated in science, history, English, or mathematics, would go a long way toward producing better teachers.

3 - Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act
Of all the stupid things that George W. Bush has been blamed for, liberals seem to ignore this shining example of bad legislation among them. The NCLB controls schools at the local level by threatening reduced funding from the federal level. The NCLB also places great emphasis on some vague and poorly defined ideal of "accountability" measurable through standardized testing. The end result produces an almost universal "teaching to the test." It's happened in my local school district. It's a good bet it's happened in yours as well.

The emphasis on standardized testing has produced and will continue to produce problems such as "gaming" (fixing tests to show better results), changing test standards, teaching to the lowest level in classes, English-only assessment, limiting local school control, and others. (Wikipedia)

4 - Give Education Back to the States
Our modern sensibilities and ideologies say that we must ensure that all students, everywhere, are treated exactly the same. Little disturbs a modern liberal more than the thought that one school may enjoy a more privileged status than another. The solution to school funding inequity, was to take school funding decisions away from the states and place them at the federal level.

The result produced many unintended consequences. First, because schools got federal funding, the states took money away from the schools. The net effect didn't raise up under-advantaged schools. It didn't "level" the playing field. It didn't provide more funds per student.

What it did was to lift educational responsibilities from the states and hand them to the federal government. The result is an actual decline in the schools' abilities to fund programs and pay teachers' salaries. Most schools in my state, including universities, now suffer from inadequate funding.

How many examples of ineffective federal controls do we need before we figure out that the federal government simply cannot fix the problems it creates. When the Democrats pass federal health care "reform," we'll have another shining example. Large bureaucracies simply cannot respond to local needs.

5 - Return to School-Independent and Departmental Control
Following the example of the federal government, the school administration where I teach has discovered a newly found power in taking decisions away from the department to create greater control and centralization over the entire system. Where my department chair used to make decisions about teaching loads and class size, now a bureaucrat makes the decision for all the departments across all the campuses. Where each campus had its own email system, now students must have a system-wide email (as well as a campus email, forcing students to check both systems). Where each campus had a single database listing of students for each class, now we must access two systems: one for grading, one for contact information. The new centralized control has multiplied high-paid administrative positions, yet has reduced the number of classes, reduced the numbers of teachers, and has significantly increased the numbers of students per class.

A simple rule applies here - centralization and big bureaucracies to not respond well to the needs at the local level. "Modern" centralized school administration growth buries teachers and students alike.

6 - Give Up Silly Liberal Teaching Models
The liberalization of today's educational system demands layer upon layer of bureaucracy to ensure such things as fairness, equality, compassion, and tolerance are taught in school. What suffers, of course, is the actual education of the students. Equality-based systems replace merit-based systems. Students learn that education is a right or an entitlement, rather than a process that demands effort. No child left behind means reducing educational standards rather than lifting educational expectations.

The result is a generation of students who expect good grades whether earned or not. For example, more and more students who earn poor or failing grades in my class expect me to change their grades because they don't "feel" they've been treated fairly.

Recently, one of my students failed to turn in an exam and plagiarized a book report. He earned an F for the class. His mother, of all people, called me on the phone and insisted I allow him special privileges. Her explanation and reasoning? He needed to pass the class so he could transfer to another school. In her mind, skipping an exam and plagiarism were minor infractions, not worthy of a failing grade. Her son was a "good" student and tried very hard in everything he did. To her and her son, the effort satisfied the demands of education, despite the glaring omissions of any accomplishment whatsoever.

This example belies a deeper symptom of the failure of education. Instead of subject mastery, students expect the entitlement of passing a class. Instead of demonstrated skill, effort wins the grade. Instead of learning, copying and pasting someone else's effort is entirely acceptable. All these point to the disease of failed educational philosophies invented within the past 40 years.

7 - Treat All Political Lobbies as We Now Treat Corporations
One of the modern-day boogeymen is the supposed "evil" corporation and attendant abuse of power. Under the Obama administration, banks, car manufacturers, insurance companies, Wall Street moguls, and the nebulous corporate greed have all been blamed for our economic troubles. The federal government, in turn, has taken over and diminished the power of the corporations for supposedly failing the people of the US.

The problem, of course, arises from the abuse of power, wherever it may arise. Many corporations abused their power to create cheap wealth (Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, are all examples). Teachers' unions, as well, have done their part to help destroy public education. These unions think and act just as large corporations and make political decisions based, not on altruism or the ideals of constituency, but on good-old American greed and lust for power.

Educational lobbies are just as harmful as any other power monger corporation, perhaps more so, since the future of education rests in their unscrupulous hands.

8 - Expect More from Students
The last point is perhaps the most insidious, yet the easiest to correct. Teachers simply need to expect their student to perform. Administration simply needs to back up teacher decisions. Students should learn the basic lesson of education, that the responsibility of our education falls on our own shoulders and is utterly independent of teachers.

For example, I expect my students to write well. After initial poor attempts, many of my students learn to write and proofread and turn in great essays. It takes time and it takes a bit of practice. I find that my students will rise to my expectations. I also expect my students to think. I do not condone lazy thinking in my classes and, for the most part, the students rise to the occasion.

What this tells me is that, with a bit of effort, students can and will rise to the occasion and learn how to learn. Why they wait until they are adults does not reflect well on our current K-12 system.

Can we implement solutions to bring us out of the mire of poor education? Given the political climate and the ideological bent of modern education, I'd have to reach the conclusion that no, we are stuck in a mire. Our schools seem to be locked into a badly designed system, spiraling downward toward the goal of pronounced mediocrity and delusions of adequacy.

From Euripides Latest

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Camelot
Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy died at age 77 after a battle with brain cancer. I won't be making any rude comments about how much the country will benefit because he is gone. I won't snidely remark about his abuse of power. I won't make any remarks about killing a girl in the Chappaquiddick. I won't even make fun of his little red, inebriated nose.

What I will say is this: Isn't it convenient, now that Kennedy has passed on, that every news media from one side to another memorializes Kennedy and his dream for nationalized healthcare?

Kennedy was a longtime advocate of healthcare reform, a signature issue of Obama's presidency. Obama said on Wednesday he was heartbroken to hear of the death of Kennedy, a crucial supporter of his presidential candidacy. (Reuters)

I'll bet Obama is heartbroken. Really. And I mean that most sincerely.

In the wake of Kennedy's death, who wouldn't have predicted that Nancy Pelosi would start channeling him?

"Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," Pelosi said in a statement.(Breitbart)

Yes, it's politics as usual in Washington, where liberals never let a good crisis go to waste and Nancy Pelosi never lets a comrade's death help to further her own, corrupt agenda.

GLAAD to Protest
Gay activists continue to try and stir up public shame over same sex marriage, despite the fact that their campaign to neuter the institution of marriage has stalled in the public arena, and public support for same sex marriage has declined this past year.

Case in point: GLAAD attempted to make a big deal out of a small, Utah-based newspaper refusing to run a "wedding" announcement for two homosexual men. The St. George newspaper refused to print the announcement, stating its policy to only announce marriages legal in Utah. Of course, the two homosexual men were outraged at being treated so unfairly and turned to GLAAD to help set things right for them. GLAAD, in turn, made some phone calls and the story made it to the news. (AZCentral)

What does the news story turn around and do? Once again, the media vilifies the Mormon church in an attempt to alienate it as a major stumbling block to gay rights.

Let's get to the bottom line on this one. Gay rights is failing, not because of some religious group which has insignificant influence on public opinion, but because Americans are waking up to the fact that gay rights is trying to hijack civil rights. It attempts to equate with race, the sexual preferences of two homosexuals. It attempts to redefine what marriage is to validate homosexuals living together. It attempts to create protected class status for a group based on sexual preference and some nebulous considerations of "fairness" and "love."

Gay activists have offended religious groups, racial minorities and middle America. Let's see if they can turn moderate liberals against them as well.

A Bridge Too Far
In relation to the previous, leaders of Equality California, a gay activist group trying to force neutered marriage in California, announced that it will wait until the 1012 election to try again to push same sex marriage on Californians. (LA Times) Equality California leaders say they want to make sure they can win the next time around.

Why? Because with every failure of the political issue of same sex marriage, gay activists understand that their chances will diminish of neutering marriage and forcing protected class status for homosexuals.

Note that despite gay activists spending millions these past five years or so, despite the constant gay campaign, despite buying off elected officials, despite courting Democratic party favor, despite all these, public support for same sex marriage continues to dwindle.

Apparently, Americans as a whole aren't fooled by the same sex marriage mantra of gay activists.

Liberals and Race
In my article Liberalism's Peculiar Institutions, I asserted that liberalism supports race and class warfare in the US. By clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.

Case in point: New York Governor David Paterson is not doing well in his bid to win reelection next year. Does he blame himself for his heavy-handed policies dealing with the state legislature this past year? Does he blame pushing unwanted liberal programs on New Yorkers? Does he blame his support of unwanted institutions (like same sex marriage)? Does he blame his 18% approval rating?

Heck no. Instead he blames the news media turning against him because of race. (NY Daily News)

Yep, he's spoken like a true liberal. He's bought into the big lie of liberalism, that all failures can be blamed on identity politics, rather than on personal failure. Worst of all, he perpetuates race as a divisive issue in this country, cheapening the real racial problems yet to be solved by wrapping himself up in the protective cloak of race-baiting.

In connection with this approach, Paterson also had this to say:

“The reality is the next victim on the list, and you can see it coming, is President Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system,” Mr. Paterson said. (New York Times)

All of which proves my earlier assertion: By clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.

Castro Knows
Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro says that Obama's trying to make changes in the US but that right-wingers hate Obama because he's black. (Reuters)

Doesn't that absolutely prove what I've said about leftists and race warfare? Absolutely.

By the way, I think that Americans should be really worried when the current administration gets an endorsement from a communist dictator such as Fidel Castro. That's not something I'd point to as a highlight for Obama, even if he did travel to court favor among the most insidious dictators of our modern world.

Deficiter and Deficiter
You heard the news that the Obama administration recently raised the 10 year deficit projection from 7.1 trillion dollars to 9 trillion. (Reuters) This news doesn't surprise me in the least. It does, however, raise a few questions.

• How did the Obama administration miscalculate the deficit by two trillion dollars?
• Why does Obama continue to insist on more expensive programs, such as healthcare, after such news?
• Why do the talking heads in Washington think creating such a huge deficit was good for the economy?
• When (not if) will Obama raise everyone's taxes to help pay for the deficit?
• When (not if) will we get blasted by runaway inflation? (The Hill)
  
• Who is it, exactly, who benefits from all this overspent government money?
  
• How come no one on The Hill, or in the news media, asks these questions?

Along the same lines, Obama's office also announced that millions of Americans face shrinking Social Security payments because of the havoc of the Medicare system that the Bush administration helped screw up. (Breitbart)

Put these two stories together and then ask yourself the question of whether or not you really want government mucking up healthcare even more? What makes anyone believe that government has the answers to such problems?

Kinder, Gentler Interrogation
In a move, sure to appease touchy-feely liberals everywhere, the Obama administration also announced that it will now monitor interrogations of foreign detainees and set new standards for such interrogations to ensure that no more torture be inflicted on any terrorist or potential terrorist.

I don't know about you, but I feel safer already knowing that the White House will now take over the interrogations of Gitmo detainees and other terrorists. The folks in the Obama administration certainly know a lot more about such matters than anyone in the CIA.

Wee Obama Jokes
I just couldn't pass by the week without saying something about Obama's falling out with the national press. Obama commented on the media, saying, "everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." (Washington Examiner)

The news media, responding to Obama's statement reportedly said, "Oh yeah? Well, Obama's just a big poo-poo head!"

Who let this guy into office anyway?

Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Land Wars
In the movie The Princess Bride, Vezzini, the evil mastermind behind the evil plot to kidnap Princess Buttercup, informs the masked man that he committed a great blunder: "Ha ha! You fool!" he said. "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia."

It's too bad that Obama never heard of that classic blunder. He might have saved himself from Afghanistan. Unfortunately for him (and for Bush in Iraq) Obama has now mired himself into a military and political position ideal for al Qaida and for the Taliban.

The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating along with U.S. public support for the war, Washington's top military officer said on Sunday as he left open the possibility of another increase in troops. (Reuters)

Soon enough, Americans will have to ask the tough questions about our increased involvement in Afghanistan and its utility in destroying the Taliban and in rooting out bin Laden.

Stimulation
Finally, the following government-funded projects give us a whole new definition of "stimulus." The National Institutes of Health awarded funds for studies that would:

* Examine "barriers to correct condom use" at Indiana University, at a cost of $221,000.

* Study "hookups" among adolescents at Syracuse University. Study's cost: $219,000.

* Evaluate "drug use as a sex enhancer" in an analysis of "high-risk community sex networks" at the University of Illinois, Chicago. That study will cost $123,000.

* Study how methamphetamine, thought to produce an "insatiable need" for sex among users, "enhances the motivation for female rat sexual behavior." Some $28,000 has been awarded for the University of Maryland at Baltimore study. (NY Post)

It's great to see our tax dollars at work spending so much for so very little.

From the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:

From Euripides Self Evident Truths

It looks like Obama's push for undebated and expensive healthcare legislation is taking its toll. (Along with the stimulus spending bill, a massive national debt, massive deficit spending, the slow economy, no rebound of employment, cap and trade, and his general disdain of the majority of Americans.)

Obama's not only lost the conservatives, but he's seriously damaged his ability to reach moderates in both political parties.

This is good news. It shows that the backlash against the badly written healthcare bill and Congress' insistence on steamrolling through dubious legislation is taking its poll toll.

Will Obama figure it out and get back on track with mainstream America? Not as long as he keeps telling Americans to shut up. Not as long as members of Congress keep calling Americans Nazis, mobs, or stupid. Not as long as Obama continues to act like a monarch.

I hate to gloat about Obama, but we told you so.

From Euripides' Blog

Before the US Civil War, Southerners used to refer to slavery as "our peculiar institution." Peculiar in this case means "one's own," referring to a distinctive trait among the Southerners. Slave owners, seeing no moral ambiguity in their institution, held on to it as necessary and integral to the South's self-definition. Despite the moral imperatives from the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the South clung to its peculiar institution. Slave holders defended it against all argument and moral objection.

We can all agree that chattel slavery is an immoral institution, despite those yesteryear slave holders who defended their "rights" to buy and sell humans as property. Every bit as connected, and stemming from the moral failure of the South's peculiar institution, is the deep rooted and pernicious institution of racism. As current events demonstrate, we, as Americans, have made progress in the dialog of race, yet racism remains.

Modern liberalism, born out of the 1950s and the 1960s, has its own, definitive, peculiar institutions. To modern moralists, and yes, to the religious, these peculiar institutions lack the very moral backing that slavery lacked more than 150 years ago. Social conservatives decry these modern and peculiar institutions of liberalism with the same backing and moral outrage as the abolitionists of old. And, as the old Southerners of antebellum America, liberals cling to their peculiar institutions with all the fervor and zeal as those slave holders.

Also, as the Southerners of yesterday used political power to keep and hold onto their peculiar institution of slavery, modern liberals also skew political power to keep their own versions. Yet, as US history showed us in the mid-1800s, despite the political backing, an immoral institution remains immoral.

Here are a few examples modern liberalism's peculiar institutions:

Abortion
No other social issue defines modern liberalism more than abortion. It has grown to be the definitive issue around which liberalism rallies. Traditionally liberals have renamed the institution in various ways, hiding its true meaning and purpose behind the monikers of "Pro-Choice" or "Women's Rights" or "Reproductive Rights."

How aborting babies came to be so intimately connected with modern liberalism dates back to the early 1900s with its roots in people such as Margaret Sanger. However, it wasn't until the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that state abortion laws in the US were declared unconstitutional and abortion became liberal's peculiar institution.

In one fell swoop, and with a Supreme Court decision that was every bit as convoluted as the antebellum Dred Scott case, modern liberalism succeeded in creating an institution every bit as morally reprehensible as slavery. In essence, Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to privacy (in this case to abort her fetus) is politically more expedient than the morally substantive inalienable right to life.

Yet modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of abortion with all the fervor of a moral imperative, derived from political and economic expediency.

Racism
To say that racism doesn't exist in this country is to turn a blind eye to the modern problem. Racism is divisive, creating legal, social, and economic inequities across the country. Of course, liberalism helped expose the immorality of racism under the moral imperative established by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

How then, did racism become modern liberals' peculiar institution? Simply because of the liberal view that now filters all human transactions in terms of race, instead of viewing the broad range of interactions that humans actually have. In other words, modern liberals stereotype all interactions as racial interactions.

The idiocy of liberal stereotyping, can easily be seen when applied to extreme cases. For example, when the Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and, in turn, decried his arrest as racist. Then, when the president of the US got involved to decry racism and when it turned out that no racism was intended or implied in Gate's arrest, in such a case we see the vacuous stereotyping of liberalism's peculiar institution.

An even more absurd example stems from the current nation-wide protests against Congress' healthcare bill. Members of Congress and the White House have labeled protesters racist. Why? Ostensibly under the definition that anyone who disagrees with a black president, in any capacity or under any pretense, is a racist. When Nancy Pelosi says that protesters are showing up with swastikas, all protesters are condemned for racism.

In another example, gay activists apply the term against anyone who disagrees with them about same sex marriage. The concept attempts to equate homosexuals in terms of race despite the absurdity of such an equation. Yet they make the connection because, according to liberals, all human interactions are racial interactions.

What was once a serious description of a real division between Americans has been trivialized, becoming one of liberalism's peculiar institutions. Liberals fling the term "racist" around like mad carnival barkers attempting to hawk their wares, and by doing so, they cheapen and degrade any real or meaningful discussion about race itself.

Modern liberals also wrap themselves in the cloak of self-delusion, that they are the only ones who are qualified to talk about race (hence making racism liberals' peculiar institution). Yet, by clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.

Liberals perpetuate the peculiar and immoral institution of racial divide to create political expediency, because without racism, liberalism would sputter and die.

Same Sex Marriage
One of the newest peculiar institutions on the liberal scene, the concept of same sex marriage derives its basis out of denying the foundations of the established social institution of marriage based entirely on a disagreement with the moral imperative to preserve it. In other words, liberals claim a right for homosexuals to marry for no other reason than marriage is denied to them. The peculiar institution denies the historical fact of marriage by trying to make marriage meaningless.

It seems inevitable, that liberalism which so desperately clings to race to create political tension, should invent new class struggles to maintain the status quo. Above all else, liberals must fight against the Establishment, whatever the Establishment is. In the case of same sex marriage, liberalism has defined the Establishment by the very nebulous term "the religious." The subject of attack - religion - is obvious. Liberalism is the new Establishment. Hence, other enemies, apart from government, must be sought, other causes must be taken up, liberalism must progress at all costs.

The problem arises from liberalism naming religion as immoral. By doing so, the peculiar institution of same sex marriage, which a majority of Americans views as immoral, is set against the liberal imperative that religion is immoral. Liberals clash with most Americans on this point because, by definition, liberalism claims anyone opposed to same sex marriage is an immoral and religious nut.

All the same, modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of same sex marriage with all the fervor of a moral imperative, when, in reality, it derives from political and economic expediency.

Conclusions
In order for modern liberalism to survive, it must maintain its status quo. However, just as over 150 years ago slave owners clung to their immoral, peculiar institution with all of the fervor of a zealot, liberals also cling to their immoral, peculiar institutions of abortion, racism, and same sex marriage. Without these, liberalism fears the death of its own system.

Yet, as we have seen in US history, even without slavery, the South remained.

It's time for modern liberalism to give up its immoral, peculiar institutions in favor of the core values that made it successful in the first place. Instead, if liberalism maintains its peculiar institutions, it will find itself without the power base it so desperately desires.