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.

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 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 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.

Here's a bit of news that the mainstream media won't touch. Stand for Marriage Maine has collected more than 55 thousand signatures and has stopped Maine's legislature from neutering marriage for the moment. Pro-marriage forces collected the signatures after Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed legislation in May that allowed for same sex marriages. With the signatures, the attempt to neuter marriage will now go to a public vote in November. Marc Mutty, chairman of the coalition supporting the ballot proposal and Public Affairs Director for the Catholic Diocese of Portland had this good news to report:

“There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November.”...

“We look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage. Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine.” (Catholic News Agency)

Support the efforts to save natural marriage and visit Stand for Marriage Maine.

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.

Maine Marriage
Maine citizens are up in arms about their governor and legislature redefining marriage despite the overwhelming opposition to it. Stand up for what's right and support the people's veto at Stand for Marriage Maine in their quest to take back marriage from the politicians who put self-interest above the will of the people.

Circus Circus
It isn't just me. The media coverage of Michael Jackson shows just how shallow and irrelevant the news media has become. Does the American people really deserve to be subjected to 24/7 coverage of just how dead Michael Jackson is? Do we really care about the family squabbles? Do we really need to know how many drugs the man took? Do people all over the world really self-identify with an aging pop star/recluse/drug addict/inhuman alien?

Here are just two examples of how silly the whole media thing is. Jackson's ex-wifeDeborah Rowe, who was essentially paid $8.5 to have Jackson's children now asks for custody.

The future of Michael Jackson's children was thrown into question Thursday when his ex-wife emerged and won a delay in a custody hearing while she decides whether she wants to raise her two offspring....

Rowe, who met Jackson as a receptionist in the office of his dermatologist, has characterized their relationship as strictly for the purpose of birthing Jackson children. She is the mother of his two oldest children. (Yahoo!)

Now that is a healthy and caring family for you. "Hold on a minute, children, while mommy decides if she wants to raise her offspring." Not that they fared much better with Michael "hold my child over the balcony" Jackson. And people wonder why some of us worry about the future of families and parenting?

The second example shows just what a media circus looks like. The Sun's coverage of the funeral calls it a "macabre circus."

BROOKE SHIELDS rambling, MARIAH CAREY warbling, USHER touching the coffin and the decision to sing Heal The World, all seemed wide of the mark.

Shields' speech would have been apt for an awards ceremony, but not a memorial.

It wasn't the time or the place for REV AL SHARPTON to be preaching about Michael's good work for black people.

Or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee to be reminding us all you are "innocent until proven guilty" under the American constitution. (The Sun)

Sounds like a zoo, not a circus. However, when I go, I hope that Al Sharpton will put in a few words at my funeral that are totally irrelevant to the gathering.

That's Fine
On to real news. If a US Senate bill becomes law, Americans who refuse health care coverage may be fined $1000. (AP) Anyone who thought they could escape nationalized health care, will find themselves basically paying a penalty tax, estimated to raise $36 billion in revenue. This won't, of course, hit poor people who will be on the government dole of health care. This will hit the average small business owner - the ones who cannot afford government-meddled health care at the present. Add this to the energy cap and trade and we have some serious taxing going on here folks.

HELP!
National health care is the hot topic of choice for both the president and Congress. Now that they've destroyed US foreign policy, destabilized the Mideast, kicked up the national debt to three times the Bush years, overextended US credit to the breaking point while selling off US interests wholesale to the Chinese, and have set up the largest tax increase in US history, now that they've done all that, they're ready and willing to take on health care. Here's the latest idea:

According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. (TheHill.com)

First off, whose brilliant idea was it to name that Senate committee HELP? Is that some sort of congressional code word for extortion? But let me see if I get these numbers right. At a mere cost of $611.4 billion, the federal government can extend health care to about six percent of the population of the US? Be still my palpitating heart.

There are two things I do know with all this talk of health care reform. I know I will not benefit from it and I know I will be paying for it. How do I know this? Because along with teaching I own a small business. In all this high-falutin government talk, the small business owner is always the one to get the short stick. Then again, who cares about small business? We only represent about 54% of the work force in the US. Hardly a drop in the bucket.

Microsoft Works Is An Oxymoron
Microsoft is the devil. You heard it here first. Well, maybe you didn't hear it here first if you've had to suffer and curse through Microsoft's Vista, the Edsel of operating systems.

It turns out Google is trying to take on Microsoft. Google announced that it will release a new operating system, open-source of course, based on their new web browser - Chrome. (My Way)

The two can duke it out. I'll stick with Mac OS X and Unix.

Attack on DOMA
The Defense of Marriage Act is under attack again, not for the first or the last time. Now, the attack comes from Massachusetts, land of same sex marriage and the homosexualizing of children in school.

The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004. (Reuters)

DOMA protects marriage by declaring it to be a union between a man and a woman. It also protects state rights in upholding natural marriage. If successful (this is the second time Massachusetts has brought up this law suit), the suit would deny federal authority marriage laws and challenge the majority of state laws and constitutions which also define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The suit claims the following:

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples." (Reuters)

This is all a bunch of legal hooey and a severe misrepresentation of the gay activists' true agenda, to redefine marriage in order to make it meaningless. In reality, gay activists are pushing the federal suit to wrest marriage from state authority and create a federal definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. This is the exact opposite of their stated intention in the law suit.

It's the bald-faced lies in gay activism that really disturb me.

Palin Politics
You've all heard the (repeated and repeated and repeated) news that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will step down from office. You've also heard the repeated attempts to explain her motives, from her desire to spend time taking care of her Downs Syndrome child, to positioning herself for presidential election in 2012.

Whatever the reason she left office, can you think of anyone in modern history who has been so lampooned and vilified by the main stream media as Sarah Palin? Well, except for George W. Bush, I mean? Anyone who can stir up the media like she does gets my vote for whatever she decides to do. Sarah Palin shows exactly what a strong and capable woman can do to improve politics in this country.

Al Bore
Former Vice President Al Gore took his rhetoric up another notch against climate change non-believers. Apparently, we have to gear up to fight global warming as we did to fight against Hitler. It's that serious. (Times Online UK)

If he's going to throw in the Hitler argument, he should take it all the way down the road and be really offensive to those who fought and died saving Europe from fascism. He should diminish true evil and talk about the polar bear holocaust, greenhouse gassing those poor creatures to their extinction. He should compare Cap and Trade to a modern Blitzkrieg. (Oh wait. That would put the US Congress on the side of Germany.) He should talk about how global warming legislation is the unrelenting advance of Stalin's army into Germany. (Since we we're headed toward full-blown socialism anyway, we may as well emulate Stalin.) He should hide the real facts of global climate change like Goebbels hid reality from the German people. (Oh wait. He's already done that.)

Maybe his reference to Hitler is an apt one after all....

Third Stimulus
In the strange and wacky world of Obama's government where there is no time to debate the issues, where a good crisis should never be wasted, where money and debt mean diddly squat, in such a world, what's wrong with another stimulus package? (Bloomberg)

The second spending bill hasn't even taken off the ground and the Obama administration is already talking about another spending package? (Let's not forget Bush caving in to Congressional spending in 2008 with the first stimulus bill to save the banks.) Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President Barack Obama. (Bloomberg)

Even the news media can't keep count of the stimulus money spent and since when are $500 billion and $787 billion "a bit too small"?

Who are these people and what planet did they leave to invade us? It looks I finish up this column with how I started - wondering about inhuman aliens like Michael Jackson and government.

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.

Post-partum
PBS board members announced that PBS will phase out religious broadcasting. Under the insane assumption that the 1st Amendment means that publicly funded means to become anti-religious, PBS will no longer have the guts to show such excellent shows as Christmas concerts or Christmas mass. It's such a shame, since Christmas mass is the only time I actually watch PBS.

Obama's Tall Tales
Victor Davis Hanson is a classics professor at Stanford and Emeritus at California State University, Fresno. His outspoken and conservative approach to politics has earned him national acclaim and recognition. (Liberals hate his guts which is a major reason I admire him.) In a recent article, he points out several historical inaccuracies that President Obama spread as fact. Check out the article at the National Review Online.

Polyamory
A long time ago, this was called "cheating on your spouse." After the 60s sexual revolution, it was called "swinging." In the 70s, it was called "open marriage." Nowadays, it's called polyamory. These are folks who feel that one spouse isn't enough. They are sexually attracted to more than one person at a time. (Not to be confused with those evil polygamists who are all right-wing extremist. Polyamorist are left wing extremists and are, therefore, perfectly acceptable in modern society.) These are folks who also feel the new same sex marriage laws are discriminatory since they exclude more than two people from marriage.

"We have rights to love any way we want unless we are harming other people," said [Ashara] Love. "Like the air we breathe, we have a right to be and do and say whatever is our full expression, and this to me is a civil right." (ABC "Now Sold Out to the White House" News)

You know what? If same sex marriage advocates can argue this way to neuter marriage, polyamorist advocates have a point. (Too bad it's on the top of their heads.)

Apologies
In wake of President Obama apologizing to the world for the evil empire that is the United States, the US Senate passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation. In this case, the adage "better late than never" doesn't begin to cover how vacuous and empty a gesture that is. Yep, I feel better about the US, now that racism's completely erased since we have such a caring and feeling government to issue such apologies.

Rules to Live By
The Brooksville, Florida city council voted to adopt this rule for city workers:

The revision...lists "the observable lack of undergarments and exposed undergarments" as "unacceptable attire." (Click Orlando)

In other words, city workers must now wear underwear. The world asks the obvious question: Why, oh why, did the city have to actually enumerate this rule? The mind reels at the possibilites.

It's just nice to know that in Brooksville, at least, the meter reader and the garbage truck driver will be appropriately attired with underwear.

Lack of Parenting Skills
If my blogging pleas for good parenting have fallen on deaf ears, consider this:

Determined to drive evil spirits out of her daughter, a Queens mom performed a bizarre voodoo fire ritual that left the 6-year-old girl scarred for life, prosecutors say. (NY Daily News)

What's happened to the good moms and dads in the world? Of course, it is the children who are the ones to suffer.

Thomas Jefferson
Fundamental truths from one of the best of the Founders of the US:



Doesn't Make Census
A Minnesota lawmaker has vowed not to complete the census:

Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household. (The Washington Times)

Conservative bloggers have made a great deal out of this story but an overriding question stares us all in the face. Do we really trust the organization formerly known as ACORN which will be hired to conduct the census? And for that matter, do we really trust the US government?

Pink Light District
British Village Idiot Sacha Baron Cohen promoted his new movie, Bruno, this week. (Bruno will be my most anticipated movie never to see in my lifetime. Michael Moore's new movie comes in a close third, right behind Year One.) In celebration, Cohen opened a new gay brothel in Amsterdam. Why? Because the world doesn't have enough man hookers.

Western Withdrawal

The housing bust sent the unemployment rate in the West bolting past 10 percent in May -- the first time in more than 25 years that a region of the United States has suffered double-digit joblessness. (Yahoo! Finance)

As we say here in Arizona: "How's that hope and change working out for you?" I wonder how we'll fare after the new Health Care bill plunges the country into maelstrom debt and the new Cap and Trade tax takes another chunk of money out of our wallets?

Disfunctional
The New York state Senate seems to have fallen apart, at least as far as Governor David A. Paterson is concerned. This week he scolded the Senate for not getting any work done. The governor ordered special sessions to force the Senate to act. Is the governor concerned with the budget? Is he concerned with unemployment? Is he concerned with the schools?

Apparently not, since first on the agenda for Wednesday is to vote on same sex marriage. Yep, social engineering, neutering marriage, and wrecking havoc on marriage laws is certainly the number one issue facing New Yorkers.

Here's the question no one's asking: Who's paying off Governor Paterson to push this gay activist bill?

It's About Time
President Obama finally made a statement about Iran:

"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost." (Reuters)

Obama's first mistake was becoming buddy-buddies with Iran's president Ahmadinejad. When Ahmadinejad turned out to be every bit as ruthless and authoritarian as expected, Obama found himself between a rock and a hard place. The rock was his silly cosying up to authoritarian leaders. The hard place was the all too obvious abuse of violence and power from Iran's government.

Obama's second mistake was going for ice cream instead of responding to the mounting riots in Iran.

The US had a real opportunity to stand on the side of democracy, freedom, liberty and to gain the good will of the people of Iran.

Obama's blown another chance at real leadership and real change.