As Heard on The Stephanie Miller Show

SodaStream USA No Batteries Banner 4

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Well two can play at that game....

Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce

Only one problem guys....that IS thier next step!

-sigh-

Mystique and Me!

Remember the shape shifter Mystique from X-Men.

Well, Big Blue wound up getting married....then she wound up getting knocked up!

And pregnacy has a very....interesting side effect.

(that, or it was an excuse for Jerry and Rebecca to get a few of thier friends over and so a Funny or Die video and somehow bypass Sony and Stan Lee's lawyers!)

Happy New Year...enjoy!

Cheney Admits to Torture

In this exclusive ABC interview, Vice-President Dick Chaney admits to green-ligghting torture techniques.

So will this man be prosecuted? Three guesses...

Monday, December 29, 2008

So you are your own victims.......?

Prop 8 Supporters (Not Gays) Are The True Victims Of Prop 8?

In a truly remarkable column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, right-wingers John Lott and Bradley Smith use the backlash against Prop 8 donors to suggest we put an end to campaign finance disclosure laws.

This could only be written in light of persistent winger media efforts to paint Yes on 8 donors as the victims of Prop 8. By erasing the true victims - 18,000-plus same sex families and innumerable others who wished to follow them to full civil equality - folks like Steve Lopez have constructed an upside-down universe where the far right can use their own wealthy, self-designated "victims" as a battering ram against campaign finance disclosure rules they've long opposed anyway, while ignoring the blood on their hands.

The argument is as pernicious as it is disingenuous.

It holds that mandatory campaign finance disclosure laws limit freedom of speech and of political action and that anonymous donations have traditionally protected groups, like the NAACP (they from government harassment, not from public accountability, which the columnists neatly ignore), and that public pressure to disclose donors who choose to not remain anonymous will accomplish what regulations already provide (yeah, right).

This is not just another wingnut attempt to protect wealthy corporate milch-cows. It's a full-tilt attempt to undermine California's campaign finance disclosure laws.

Conservatives apparently believe that the government should be able to eavesdrop on domestic electronic communications without probable cause, and to imprison any citizen indefinitely, without counsel or appeal, if a bureaucrat says that citizen might have talked to someone who might be a suspected terrorist. But hey, if you have nothing to hide, why should you care?

Simultaneously, conservatives apparently are able to believe that the public should not have the right to know whether a church they attend or business they patronize gave money to a political campaign acting contrary to their interests, (Homeland Security already knows that from wiretaps, but it's not telling the IRS) all because some people may have strong views about your strong views about them, and they think the laws should protect them from your criticism or your taking your business elsewhere, cutting into their profits derived from... you!

Gosh. It must be terribly confusing living in a world in which one has to believe so many completely contradictory and downright scary things simultaneously.

http://www.lincolnnewsmessenger.com/detail/102070.html

Friday, December 26, 2008

Sometimes, you have to wonder....

...if Keith Olbermanm is, indeed, the most powerful man in media.

He must be. So many people seem so determined to get on that Worst Person's list.

So, on the day after Xmas this: Paul Shanklin, satirist-on-duty for the Rush Limburger...errr...Limbaugh Program wrote this ditty, obstensivly for the show, called "Rush The Magic Negro." I will not subject you directly to this, but I am leaving a link so you know what we're talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXz2xaLNMQ

Well the head of the RNC sent a copy of this to Congressional members as a Xmas greeting. You can count on one hand how many seconds it took for the fit to hit the shan:

(CNN) -- A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas -- which included a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" -- was clearly intended as a joke.

"I think most people recognize political satire when they see it," Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. "I think RNC members understand that."

The song, set to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon," was first played on conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show in 2007.

Its title was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column that suggested President-elect Barack Obama appealed to those who feel guilty about the nation's history of mistreatment of African-Americans. Saltsman said the song, penned by his longtime friend Paul Shanklin, should be easily recognized as satire directed at the Times.

The CD sent to RNC members, first reported by The Hill on Friday, is titled "We Hate the USA" and also includes songs referencing former presidential candidate John Edwards and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, among other targets.

According to The Hill, other song titles, some of which were in bold font, were: "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish Banner."

Saltsman was national campaign manager for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential bid in 2007 and 2008. Before that, he held a variety of posts, including a number of positions under former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/26/rnc.obama.satire/

Meanwhile, Rush defended this last summer:

Oh really? You wre saying that people were just finding out about OTMG LAST SUMMER...when this piece of audio dung dropped almost in 2007

What is sad about all of this, is that the Republican party, warts and all, is better than this.

Or at least it used to be

Monday, December 22, 2008

Air America Head: Rush is..........RIGHT??

Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.

As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.

Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.

Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.

Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.

The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.

Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.

So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.

First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)

Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.

No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.

It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.

When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.

Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990390599425181.html#printMode

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

One Final "Really" with Seth and Amy.....sorry Bloggie

The Gov. of Illinois. gets reamed royally in one last "really!"

REALLY!

Monday, December 15, 2008

So there....

Obama: Review shows no inappropriate contact

CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama said Monday a review by his own lawyer shows he had no direct contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich about the appointment of a Senate replacement, and transition aides did nothing inappropriate.

Obama pledged to make the review public, but said he decided to hold off because prosecutors asked for a delay and "I don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation." U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald released a statement confirming the request.

Controversy has swirled around the president-elect and his incoming White House chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, following Blagojevich's arrest last week on charges he schemed to trade Obama's Senate seat for personal gain.

Obama, fielding questions at a news conference, sidestepped when asked whether Emanuel had spoken with aides to the governor about potential Senate appointees.

Emanuel was one of several aides who watched the news conference from the wings.

The president-elect pledged the results of the investigation by his incoming White House counsel, Gregory Craig, would be released "in due course."

He said the probe was complete and thorough, but did not say which of his aides Craig interviewed, whether any of them was under oath at the time, or any other details.

In personally disclosing the results of the investigation he ordered, Obama said, "As I said in a press conference last week, I had no contact with the governor's office and I had no contact with anybody in the governor's office. What I indicated last week was there was nothing that my office did that was in any way inappropriate or related to the charges that have been brought."

Blagojevich has authority under Illinois state law to name a Senate replacement for Obama, who resigned his seat as he prepares to become president. Senate Democrats have warned the governor not to use his power, hinting they may refuse to allow his selection to take the oath of office.

There also has been talk of the legislature passing a law that would strip the governor of the power to name a replacement, and call for a special election instead.

Separately, Blagojevich has come under heavy pressure to resign, from Obama as well as Democrats nationally and in Illinois. Earlier in the day, the Legislature took the first step toward possible impeachment.

Obama held his news conference shortly after his transition office released a statement by spokesman Dan Pfeiffer saying the internal review had found no wrongdoing.

Like the president-elect, the statement left several issues uncovered.

It did not say whether Emanuel was heard on a wiretap providing the governor's top aide with a list of names that the president-elect favored. Nor did it say who, if anyone, on Obama transition's team had made contact with the governor or his aides concerning a replacement for Obama or whether Craig interviewed people under oath, or to whom he talked.

Pfeiffer said the review "affirmed the public statements of the president-elect that he had no contact with the governor or his staff, and that the president-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions with the governor or his staff over the selection of his successor as U.S. Senator."

Obama appeared before reporters to announce his environmental and natural resources team.

It was disclosed last week that he selected Steven Chu for energy secretary, Lisa Jackson for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Carol Browner as his energy and climate "czar," and Nancy Sutley to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Separately, officials familiar with the selection of Obama's Cabinet said the president-elect has selected Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan as education secretary. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose any personnel decisions not yet announced.

Earlier in the day, Obama met privately with his national security team, including Vice President-elect Joe Biden, incoming Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The president-elect's transition office said the meeting was held to discuss opportunities and challenges around the globe and was designed to help the new administration hit the ground running as of Inauguration Day, Jan. 20.

In recent days, Obama's staff has declined to respond even to basic questions about the Blagojevich review, like how long it would take, who was leading it and what issues were explored.

Two people who have been briefed on the investigation had told The Associated Press that Emanuel is not a target of the probe. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation is ongoing. One is a person close to Emanuel, who said he has been told by investigators that he's not a subject of their probe.

There are no suggestions that Obama or his aides were involved in the alleged sale of his seat. Fitzgerald has said prosecutors were making no allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming. And Blagojevich himself, in taped conversations cited by prosecutors, suggested Obama wouldn't be helpful to him and called him a vulgar term. Even if the governor were to appoint a candidate favored by the Obama team, Blagojevich said, "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation."

_____

Associated Press writers Libby Quaid and Liz Sidoti contributed to this story.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Torturing Democracy

A documentary that examines the Bush administrations detention policies ,and coercive interrogation techniques

Produced by Sherry Jones,this is currently unavailable on PBS until 2009,so here is the documentary!

Monday, December 08, 2008

Open Marriage

Trya Banks on Open Marraige...

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Bettie Page

And this is Bettie at 80

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...

The Proposition 8 battle has prompted a star-studded music video that is available at the website Funny or Die.

Written by Marc Shaiman and directed by Adam Shankman, the piece shows gay marriage backers and foes debating the issue in song against the backdrop of a Sacramento community college theater. John C. Reilly and Allison Janney lead the gay marriage foes -- all dressed in dark Sunday-best suits. The anti-Prop. 8 crowd includes Neil Patrick Harris and Andy Richter.

The musical begins with the gay marriage supporters singing about "a brand new bright Obama day.... Happy days for the gays." The anti forces then move in, singing: "Nobody's looking, let's spread the hate ... Proposition 8!"

Jack Black then appears as Jesus, who takes part in some mediation. By the end of the video, everyone seems to oppose Prop. 8 (in part because of the lawyers and tattoo removal required to end those same-sex marriages).

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/proposition-8-i.html

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Video link: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Saturday, November 29, 2008

The Rats Scatter: Prop. 8 backers splinter as court fight resumes

The group that persuaded California voters this month to pass Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, now is fighting its friends as well as its foes.

Other conservative groups that loudly backed Prop. 8 are being targeted as too extreme and off-putting by ProtectMarriage.com, which put the constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot and hopes to help persuade the state Supreme Court to uphold the measure.

"We represent the people who got things done, who got Prop. 8 passed," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. "An important part of defending Prop. 8 is eliminating arguments not helpful to our concerns."

Pugno, for example, persuaded the Supreme Court last week to bar the Campaign for California Families from intervening in the court case over the validity of Prop. 8 and the same-sex marriage ban.

"That organization represents the extreme fringe and is not representative of the coalition that got it passed," Pugno said. "They didn't even support Prop. 8 until sometime in the summer."

People associated with the group didn't expect the Prop. 8 campaign's efforts to push them to the sidelines.

"I'm surprised, because we've litigated beside each other for 4 1/2 years" in the unsuccessful effort to keep the Supreme Court from overturning Prop. 22 same-sex marriage ban in 2000, said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which represents the Campaign for California Families. "We have the same goal, which is to defend Prop. 8."

The group, now known as the Campaign for Children and Families, is run by Randy Thomasson, who for years has been one of California's most visible opponents of gay rights and what he bills as "the homosexual agenda."

The people behind Prop. 8 have been butting heads with Thomasson for years, arguing that his efforts to outlaw same-sex marriage and curb domestic partnership arrangements are a long step further than a majority of California voters is willing to go.

In 2005 and again in January, Thomasson and his allies proposed initiatives that not only would bar same-sex marriage but that also "voids or makes unenforceable" rights conferred by California law on couples, gay or heterosexual, registered as domestic partners, including community property, child custody, hospital visitation and insurance benefits.

"It was like the nuclear option to obliterate the entire domestic partners law," Pugno said. "We were constantly hassled by that organization, who thought we weren't aggressive enough."

Limiting the range of the ballot measure - and making a point to avoid direct attacks on gays, lesbians and same-sex couples during the campaign - made political sense for the Prop. 8 strategists.

Of the 31 "defense of marriage" measures that have gone on ballots across the nation, the only one that lost was a 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment that also would have banned legal recognition of many domestic partnership benefits. When Arizona groups put a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot aimed solely at barring same-sex marriage, it passed easily.

A Field Poll released in May showed that nearly a third of California voters opposed same-sex marriage, but still believed gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to have civil unions granting them the rights of married couples. Surveys done earlier this year by GOP pollsters also showed that any measure attacking domestic partnership rights had little or no chance of passing in California.

"We wanted to be singularly focused on defending and protecting marriage," Pugno said.

Different views

Policy disputes shouldn't spill over into public attacks, said Staver.

"The CCF originally had a version of the marriage amendment that was much larger and comprehensive, but they abandoned that and supported Prop. 8," he said. "Different people have different views. Moving in the same direction to protect marriage is more important than singing from the same song sheet."

But the disputes between the groups have grown in the past few days, with Thomasson launching an all-out attack against the Supreme Court for accepting the challenge to Prop. 8, a court decision Pugno and others from ProtectMarriage.com had welcomed.

"If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt," Thomasson said in statement released after the court agreed Wednesday to hear arguments over the validity of the constitutional amendment. "The court is playing with fire by threatening to destroy the people's vote on marriage."

Pugno and others from the Prop. 8 campaign want to avoid such fiery challenges and threats to the court and keep matters on a quiet legal level until the court rules on same-sex marriage sometime after March.

"What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us," Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on Prop. 8 effort, said in an e-mail to supporters Wednesday. "Making threats to recall justices from office is counterproductive and harmful to our chances of winning in court."

Fundraising, publicity

Money also is part of the dispute. While ProtectMarriage.com collected almost all of the nearly $40 million raised to back Prop. 8, Thomasson's group and others gathered money to support their own efforts to pass the same-sex marriage ban.

But Prentice argued that "some other groups are attempting to use the passage of Prop. 8 for fundraising and publicity purposes," and Pugno said his group had unsuccessfully tried to stop the groups from claiming they were part of the official Prop. 8 effort.

Ballot measures don't belong to anyone or any group, Staver argued for the Campaign for Children and Families.

"There were a lot of different organizations and people that supported Prop. 8, but not through the official campaign," he said. "Did we give money directly to them? No. But did we encourage people to support Prop. 8? Absolutely."

E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/24/BA21149LUL.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Advocate: Florida's Gay Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

A Miami-Dade circuit judge decided Tuesday that a Florida man's sexual orientation should not preclude him from adopting his two foster children, effectively ruling unconstitutional a decades-old state law barring gays and lesbians from adopting children.

Judge Cindy Lederman, a child welfare judge, found that the state law has "no rational basis" and ruled that Frank Martin Gill, 47, should be entitled to adopt two young boys he has been fostering for the past four years, reports CBS station WFOR-TV in Miami. The Florida law, dating back to Anita Bryant's 1977 homophobic "Save Our Children" crusade, allowed gays and lesbians to foster children but prohibited them from adopting.

The two boys, who are now 4 and 8, had been living with abusive, crack-addicted parents and were removed from their home by the Department of Children and Family Services. Both the department and the attorney general support the state law blocking adoptions by gay people.

According to a statement from the pro-gay Family Equality Council, if the state supreme court takes action on the case and affirms the ruling, the law would be overturned.

"Judge Lederman's ruling is a long-overdue recognition of the equal ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to raise happy, healthy families," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director the Family Equality Council.

A study by the Family Equality Council found that more than 65,000 adopted children in the United States are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. Florida was the only state to expressly bar gay people from adopting. Arkansas voters recently passed a ballot measure to bar all unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.

On Election Day, Florida was one of three states to pass a ban on same-sex marriage. Sixty-two percent of Florida voters cast ballots in favor of the ban. Two previously existing statutes in the state already prohibited same-sex marriage, including the statewide Defense of Marriage Act adopted in 1997. (Kerry Eleveld and Ross von Metzke, The Advocate)

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid67066.asp

Advocate: Mormons Investigated on Prop. 8 Funding

The California Fair Political Practices Commission will investigate the Mormon Church's allegedly unreported contributions to the campaign to eliminate marriage equality in the state.

Independent group Californians Against Hate filed with the commission after Proposition 8 was passed on November 4, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Organization leader Fred Karger charges that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not report investments in phone banking, direct mailers, transportation into California for out-of-state Mormon volunteers, commercials, video broadcasts, and a mobile speakers bureau.

Karger said this step by the commission is a good sign, since the commission takes on less than 5% of complaints. While Roman Porter, the commission's executive director, said the move isn't indicative of anything, he added that the church could be fined up to $5,000 per violation if found at fault.

Californians Against Hate calculated in October that LDS followers had contributed more than $24 million in support of gay marriage bans in California and Arizona.

The LDS Church says it has approximately 770,000 members in California, accounting for about 2% of the state's population. (Michelle Garcia, The Advocate)

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid67099.asp

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Banned from WallyWorld!

So many people have sent me grins, I am returning the favor!

After I retired, my wife insisted that I accompany her on her trips
to Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, like most men, I found shopping boring
and preferred to get in and get out. Equally unfortunately, my wife
is like most women - she loved to browse.

Yesterday, my dear wife received the following letter from the local
Wal-Mart:

Dear Mrs. Samsel,

Over the past six months, your husband has been causing quite a
commotion in our store. We cannot tolerate this behavior and have
been forced to ban both of you from the store. Our complaints
against
Mr. Samsel are listed below and are documented by our video
surveillance cameras.

1. June 15: Took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in
people's carts when they weren't looking.

2 . July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in Housewares to go off at 5-
minute intervals.

3. July 7: Made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to the
women's restroom.

4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official
voice, 'Code 3 in Housewares. Get on it right away. '

5. August 4: Went to the Service Desk and tried to put a bag of
M&M's
on layaway.

6. August 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.

7. August 15: Set up a tent in the camping department and told other
shoppers he'd invite them in if they would bring pillows and
blankets
from the bedding department.

8. August 23: When a clerk asked if they could help him, he began
crying and screamed, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?'

9. September 4: Looked right into the security camera and used it as
a mirror while he picked his nose.

10. September 10: While handling guns in the hunting department, he
asked the clerk where the antidepressants were.

11. October 3: Darted around the store suspiciously while loudly
humming the 'Mission Impossible' theme.

12. October 6: In the auto department, he practiced his 'Madonna
look' by using different sizes of funnels.

13. October 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browsed
through, yelled 'PICK ME! PICK ME!'

14. October 21: When an announcement came over the loud speaker, he
assumed a fetal position and screamed 'OH NO! IT'S THOSE VOICES
AGAIN!'

And last, but not least,

15. October 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door, waited
awhile, then yelled very loudly, 'Hey! There's no toilet paper in
here!'

Thursday, November 20, 2008

F--- You, George Romney

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tells Maggie Rodriguez the auto industry should restructure after filing for bankruptcy instead of receiving a check to continue failed policy.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tells Maggie Rodriguez the auto industry should restructure after filing for bankruptcy instead of receiving a check to continue failed policy.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The End of America


Tombstone Generator

WASHINGTON – A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president.

Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are countless manufacturing firms and auto dealers — and millions of Americans' jobs.

For now, with the plan headed for a roadblock in the Senate, lawmakers in both parties are engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken, positioning to blame each other for the failure.

"The Congress need do nothing" during its postelection session this week, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader, said Wednesday, although he also said he still hoped lawmakers could strike an elusive deal to carve $25 billion in new auto industry loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund.

But it's really up to President George W. Bush's team to act, he said.

"If we can't do it here legislatively, I would hope that the secretary of Treasury would listen loud and clear, because they could take this into their own hands and do what I think is appropriate," the Democratic leader said.

Not our responsibility, countered the White House.

"If Congress leaves for a two-month vacation without having addressed this important issue ... then the Congress will bear responsibility for anything that happens in the next couple of months during their long vacation," said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

She said there was "no appetite" in the administration for using the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies.

The White House and congressional Republicans instead called on Democrats to sign on to a GOP plan to divert a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September — designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles — to meet the auto giants' immediate financial needs.

GOP Sens. Kit Bond of Missouri and George V. Voinovich of Ohio were at work on that measure Wednesday, toiling to placate skeptical Democrats by including a guarantee that the fuel-efficiency loan fund would ultimately be replenished.

"It is the only proposal now being considered that has a chance of actually becoming law," said Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

But there was little sign that Democratic leaders would go along. They are vehemently opposed to letting the car companies tap that money — set aside to help switch to vehicles that burn less gasoline — for short-term cash-flow needs.

All of which leaves the Big Three bracing for a bleak winter without government help. General Motors Corp. has said it could collapse within weeks, and there are indications that Chrysler LLC might not be far behind.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House committee Wednesday that the downfall of his industry could lead to a loss of 3 million jobs within the first year and ripple through communities around the nation.

In sometimes contentious testimony, Wagoner was pressed on when GM would run out of money if the loans weren't extended.

He wouldn't say precisely, but disclosed that the company now was burning through "$5 billion each month."

Still, with the $25 billion emergency package, "we think we have a good shot to make it through this," Wagoner said.

Many lawmakers in both parties, however, are now openly discussing whether bankruptcy might be a better option for auto firms they regard as lumbering industrial dinosaurs that have done too little to adjust their products and work forces for the 21st century.

The carmakers argue that bankruptcy would devastate their companies, but proponents say it would give them a chance to reorganize and emerge stronger and more competitive.

It's unclear, though, whether Democrats controlling Congress are willing to risk being blamed for letting one of the Big Three — symbols of the nation's once-mighty manufacturing sector — go under.

Bailout-shy lawmakers got an earful from jittery constituents last month when the House let an early version of the Wall Street rescue fail, sending the Dow Jones industrials tumbling and erasing more than a trillion dollars in retirement savings and other investments. Congress took a deep breath and reconsidered, passing the plan a few days later.

Faced with a similar collapse in the auto industry, the Bush administration might yet decide to use its authority under the $700 billion financial industry bailout to help the auto companies, or the Federal Reserve could step in — though both have steadfastly refused to do so.

If not, lawmakers have left themselves a contingency plan: Come back to Washington in December for yet another postelection session where they might be able to strike the deal that now seems beyond reach.

Democratic leaders are planning to gather for an economic conference the week of Dec. 8, noted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

"That is available," Hoyer said this week. "The year has not ended."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_go_co/auto_bailout_what_s_next/print;_ylt=AjXbhsRe1qWZYPQ1tFCKTlKMwfIE

Just a thought

A Job Assurance program was considered for this country some time ago, that would cost abou $9,880 per unemployed person.

So lets suppose that this is the cost to the government of the US per out-of-work person.

The US Automakers are asking for $25 billion to keep in business.

If they go down, there may be as many as 25 million people out of work.

Bail out cost: $25 billion. Automakers go out of business: $247 billion.

But then again these are some of the same people who wanted New Orleans to die.

And they day I hate America???

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Panic In Tupelo


It was supposed to be so easy.
Deny gays the right to be hitched. They'd lose, and they would crawl back in the holes the came from.....or in...depending.
Funny how things turned out. Gays are NOT being the obedient sodomites the Religious Wrong were hoping for. Thousands...possibly millions...took the streets on Saturday to protest proposition 8, a California constitutional amendment that stripped gays of the right to marry. On top of that, the NeoXians are not getting any help from the Republican Governor, who is supporting the gays' battle. Not to mention most of the state legislature and several communities.
And they're not finished. The next salvo is a "Day Without a Gay," asking gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals to forgo work for one day in protest.
As you can imagine, the H8ers are not to pleased.
Which brings me to this little bit from our No-Necked friend in Tupelo.
Form e-mail AFA's Donald Wildmon:

Dear Donald,

We have arrived at a most urgent time in history.

Some elected officials in California - the governor and a number of
legislators - have decided that the vote of the people means NOTHING.

Yes....when you pass a law that is pretty much illegal....

For reasons known only to them, they have indicated that they want the vote
of the people
concerning Proposition 8 overturned.
So here's some education for your neck-less ass.
According to KABC-TV Legal Analyst Dean Johnson the issue for the court to decide is whether Prop 8 amends the constitution or revises it.

"If it's an amendment then it can be ratified by a majority vote of the voters. If on the other hand prop 8 is a revision then it requires a much more elaborate procedure," said Johnson.
For starters, if the same-sex marriage ban is a revision of the constitution, the State Legislature would have to approve prop 8 by a two-thirds majority or call a constitutional convention.
And the question is Prop, a revision of the constitution, i.e. something so radical that it changes the very nature of the constitution.
This is Section One of the California Constitution:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
But, currently, Section 7.5 states:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It is clear that Section 7.5 either violates or revises the constitution.
And to revise it, it would have to go through the legislature, which the backers of P8 did not.
Rev. No-Neck continuuuuuuuues........
To date, 44 legislators as well as the governor are petitioning the California
Supreme Court to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Although I fail to see
how something that is in the constitution can be unconstitutional, this is what
they are advocating nevertheless.
Because, pinhead, you did not follow procedure.

I have never-EVER-witnessed such blatant disdain from elected officials towards
a majority of their constituents as is the case concerning the sanctity of
marriage.
Are we channeling Strother Martin, here, dude?

What we must do is to let our voices be heard-NOW.

I am not suggesting we should take to the streets as the marriage
opponents are currently doing. We must make our voices be heard directly by
every legislator in California - both in the Assembly and in the Senate - as
well as by the governor. We have voted on this issue-TWICE-and it is high time
the government of the people, by the people, and for the people be restored TO
the people.
Or else, what? Force the Governor to watch continued showings of "Jingle All the Way?"
You have used the same lame excuses that various and sundry bigots.....and you are bigots....have used to prop up slavery, miscegenation, segregation, and some of the current racism disguised as our lust for protecting our borders.
But not only that, as we have pointed out before, the campaign to pass P8 was built on lies and truth-bending. You knew damned well that the people of California would never take away a right, so you put fear in thier hearts.....fear that "homosexuality will be taught in the schools!" But ANY talk of marriage would come in comphrensive sex education which is (A) voluntary and (B) you probably oppose anyway.
What you are afraid of is the change that is coming. Along with the finacincial changes will come social and, yes, sexual changes. These changes will be as game-changing as those in the 50's and, as they were, these are inevitable.
And that includes the right for people to marry whoever they want.
You can stomp and moan and throw a tantrum all you wish. The flood that will overtake you will be as massive as that which destroyed the dinosaurs.
And you, Rev. Wildmon, are a dinosaur

Saturday, November 15, 2008

A Day of Defiance.

In New York

In Los Angeles

In conservative Williamsburg, VA

In San Diego

London

And too many places to mention, today millions of people protested the actions of the California electorate towards Proposition 8.

The demonstrations were peaceful. And they are not over. The outrage is worldwide

This is not over by any means.

Friday, November 14, 2008

TAKE ACTION!: Help Pepsico fight Donald Wildmon and the AFA

The American Family Association of Tupelo, MS, headed by Donald Wildmon, is one of the organizations that was at the forefront of the recent gay marriage tragedy in California. This is a diabolical organization that has used the treat of boycott to censor television, and try to stop good companies from supporting diversity and equality for non-heterosexuals in America.
Their latest target is Pepsico, which includes the Pepsi, Frito-Lay, Tropicana, and Quaker Oat/Gatorade brands.
This from a recent AFA mailing.

November 14, 2008

Dear Donald,

Pepsi has given Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) a half-million dollars to help push the homosexual agenda in the workplace. PFLAG is a political advocacy group that promotes radical homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption.

Pepsi has a long tradition of financial support for homosexual groups. According to Jacqueline Millan, director of PepsiCo Corporate Contributions, "We are delighted to continue our partnership with PFLAG...(in) promoting the necessary message of inclusion to untapped groups...and that is a crucial step toward building a healthy working environment."

Despite the fact that 30 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Pepsi continues to support the efforts by same-sex groups pushing for homosexual marriage. AFA wrote Pepsi on October 14 and again on October 29 asking the company to remain neutral in the culture war.

Pepsi didn't care enough to respond to the AFA letters. (yayyyyyyyy!)

Pepsi's lack of response indicates the company plans to continue support for the homosexual agenda.

This is followed by a request for donations.
Also with the letter, this "call to action"
Take Action!
  • E-mail Chairman Indra K. Nooyi. Tell her that you expect Pepsi to stop supporting the gay agenda.
  • After sending your e-mail, please call Pepsi (914-253-2000) (800-960-3602) and ask the company to remain neutral in the culture war.
  • Forward this e-mail to your friends and family so they will know about Pepsi's support of the gay agenda.

Pepsi's products include Pepsi soft drinks, Frito-Lay chips (800-352-4477), Quaker Oats (800-367-6287), Tropicana (800-237-7799) and Gatorade (800-367-6287).

We must respond to this immediately We are now beginning to realize that this war for equality and freedom must be fought by counteracting thier scare tactics.
  • First, DO contact Ms Nooyi, but THANK HER for supporting P-FLAG and encourage her, both corporately and personally, to continue that support.
  • Second, call the Pepsi numbers show above to also thank them for the support and encourage them to continue. Also let them know that the more they SUPPORT groups like P-FLAG, the more likely you will enjoy Pepsico products.
  • Third, pass this along to others, and encourage them to do the same...and immediately.
  • Fouth, invest in Pepsico. The company has launched a DirectBUY program where you can purchase stock in the corporation directly from Pepsico through Bank of New York. Details here: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=78265&p=irol-buy_direct_plan
Finally, BUY PEPSICO products! By using your consumer power, you can...and will....offset any drop in sales caused by any called boycott by AFA and its minions. The list is too lengthy, but here are listings of all of Pepsico's products, by division: http://www.pepsico.com/PEP_Company/BrandsCompanies/index.cfm#container5
Many of us have stood by the sidelines of this too long. The results of that inaction are clear, if you witness the outcome of Prop. 8 in California. The main goal of people like Wildmon and the AFA is a United States (and eventually, the world) under a monolithic theocracy based on a highly skewed interpretation of the Bible.
People should be free to choose their own path. Donald Wildmon and his AFA minions do not believe that. That is why, starting now, they must be halted and frustrated at every turn. Starting here. Starting now.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Prop 8 Protest THIS SATURDAY NATIONWIDE

I’m sure all would agree that with the election of Barack Obama, this week has been one of amazing wins in the world of equality! Still, Tuesday night was one of bitter-sweet celebration, as we came together to witness the first black man who will become our president, and watched in sadness as Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California all voted down equal rights for all citizens. Pendants and bloggers alike have put their focus on Proposition 8, trying hard to find an explanation for the anti-gay wins in the face of a huge pro-equality event. Some have blamed the voters, others blame religious groups, and even others blame the LGBTQ community for not being able to mobilize on a larger enough scale. And you know what, there is truth in every argument.

As a community, we have to admit to the fact that we are polarized in various ways. Honestly, I’m not sure what community isn’t and I believe that our polarization is proof to our humanity - we are no different than anyone else, regardless of color, creed, or sexual orientation. Still, our polarization has hindered us from mobalizing as one strong voice. We all come together in the month of June to celebrate Gay Pride, but few of us are even aware of why Gay Pride exists. Gay Pride is a celebration to commemorate the Stonewall Riots of 1969. Many say that the Gay Rights Movement began in 1969, which means that we are still a young movement and have accomplished a great deal in such a short amount of time. The generation that fought for us in 1969 deserves our gratitude and respect. This is a generation of amazing people who fought for our ability to hold hands in the street, to speak out against hate, to dance to our own “thumpa thump”, witness television shows with a queer cast, and come together in the streets celebrating for an entire month! This is the generation that opened the doors for us to even have a conversation about gay marriage, and this is the generation that deserves our help and our voices now. On June 27th, 1969, this generation came together in protest, jumping from closets, taking to the streets, and mobilizing in ways this country had never seen before! And what happened? The country was forced to respond. The Queer identity was forced onto the front pages and coffee tables of people’s worlds and people had to once and for all accept that we are human too!

Now, almost 40 years later we NEED to come together again. We need to show this nation that we are ONE LOUD VOICE THAT DEMANDS TO BE HEARD! We need to be one organized unit. Our gay pride shouldn’t be something we celebrate one month out of the year. Our gratitude towards the ones who came before us shouldn’t be ignored and wasted away with one party after another. We beg to be given a right that requires responsibility and commitment, yet we, as one strong community, have not proven to this nation that we deserve to be taken seriously! The gay pride parade has become a great party, but it has lost the memory of Stonewall and therefor given the nation another reason to cast us aside as irresponsible. It’s time we come together for debate, for public recognition, and for LOVE! Let’s move as one full unit, on the same day, at the same hour, and let’s show the United States of America that we too are UNITED CITIZENS EQAUL IN MIND, BODY, SPIRIT AND DESERVING OF FULL EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW!

On the steps of your City Hall on November 15th at 10:30am PST / 1:30pm EST, our community WILL take to the streets and speak out against Proposition 8 and all of the other pro-equality losses that we have faced in our lifetimes, in our parents’ lifetimes, and for many generations before us. WE CAN’T DO THIS ALONE! WE NEED YOUR HELP! We need organizers in every major city to work with us and get out the protest! I know you’re all tired from all of the work you’ve done for this great election year, but I’m asking for one more push! Let the country hear our voices together. Let them see that we are a strong, adamant, and powerful community that deserves equal rights, and CAN’T BE DEFEATED!

Send this post to everyone! We have one week and must react to the pro-hate votes cast against us! Let’s help our LGBTQ friends, families, neighbors, and each other to IMPACT this country with a demand for our basic human rights! Join the cause, join the voice, and JOIN THE IMPACT!

For mor information and protest locations: http://www.jointheimpact.com/?p=3

SexWar: The Fight for Equallity: Day 6

Singer Melissa Etheridge is getting a lot of mileage out of her angry promise to withhold taxes from the state of California after the passage of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment denying recognition to same-sex marriages of the sort briefly allowed after a state supreme court decision earlier this year. Her anger is understandable, since the constitutional change leaves her marriage to Tammy Lynn Michaels in legal limbo as people wait for the courts to hash out the impact on thousands of existing gay and lesbian marriages.

Writing for The Daily Beast, Etheridge said:

"Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books."

No doubt, Etheridge penned her words in a rage and could probably be forgiven were she to reconsider and step back from her threat. After all, governments are capable of forgiving almost anything except challenges to their flow of revenue. Nothing gets officials to reach for the battering rams and handcuffs with greater enthusiasm than a tax case.

But what if ...

Full story: http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d10-Melissa-Etheridge-should-turn-Proposition-8-tax-revolt-threat-into-a-movement

You could see this coming, and this is what I'm talking about when you ignore the elephant in the room. Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0 blogs reports on the escalation of the "blame the blacks" meme that has been swirling about the blogosphere and the MSM.

A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.


Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

Full story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html

SACRAMENTO - As protesters took to the streets for a fifth day, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage.

In an interview with CNN, Schwarzenegger also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed already would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," he said about the same-sex marriage ban. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, Schwarzenegger's thinking appears to have evolved.

In past statements, he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and he has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he also has said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.

Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Yesterday, he urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that at first were too heavy for him. "I learned that you should never, ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Fall From Grace: Full programs)

The late 2007 shocking documentary of Pastor Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, those who oppose it and those family members who chose to leave it all behind.

One last thing. This may offend you, but at least, with the Phelps' they are up front with thier phobias. They are hateful people, and the real God will deal with them at the appointed time. But they have influence, influence that caused a great state to go backwards. To fight them, we cannot ignore them.

And when you know your enemy, that is when they can, and will, be defeated.

Factor Fiction's Greatest Hits

One of the reasons I love Countdown is Keith Olbermann's occasional blowbacks against blowHARD William James O'Reilly, Jr, of the Fox News Network.

With the 2012 Presidential Campaign just into first gear, we take a brief pause to bring you some classic Factor Fictions.

Here is the Best of Billo Getting Bumrushed:

SexWar: The Battle for Equality: Day 4

What bigotry has wrought.

Religious erotophobes nationwide are starting to feel the heat brought on by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. The amnedment to the states constitution relegates marriage to only a union between a male and a female, shutting out same-sex unions.

But instead of victory, those who allowed themselves to be swayed by a series of half-truths and outright lies are feeling a firestorm of rage by people who will not just sit docily and allow thier rights to evaporate.

In short, payback IS, indeed, a mutherf*cker.

In the land of Brigaham Young, non-hetosexuals and thier supporters are protesting the LDS Church as co-conspiritors in this travesty:

Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, "I didn't vote on your marriage," "Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors," and "Jesus said love everyone." Others read, "Proud of my two moms" and "Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce."
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three openly gay state legislators, Sen. Scott McCoy and Reps. Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson, spoke out in support. At one point, the crowd took up the mantra made famous by the country's new president-elect: "Yes, we can!"
Then, the masses headed west, weaving between cars, waving at those who watched from windows in the LDS Church Office Building and shouting chants such as: "What do we want? Equality! When do we want it? Now!"
Across the street on North Temple, a group of about 50 - the majority not LDS members - defended the church's support of the successful ballot measure. "The people voted," they shouted at the protesters. "YOU are intolerant!"
Others screamed: "Marriage is between a man and woman. You'll never be a man and woman!"
Some marchers offered heated arguments to the counterprotesters, others responded by kissing their partners. The romantic moments were greeted with cheers.
Full story here:
http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=10929992&siteId=297

Head of Focus-on-the-Freaks....errrrrr.....Family, James Dobson, also has blood on his hands for this....about $800,000 worth, which his group donated for the cause.

Now tonight (11/8) he is being inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, an organization which, like so many others, seems to have been co-opted by the Clear Channel/Salem wing of the business. Dobson will be there to accept. And he'll have company....

CHICAGO - Focus on the Family's James Dobson spent $800,000 on Proposition 8 to stop gay people form marrying in California. Tonight, this dangerous ideologue will be inducted into the Museum of Broadcast Communication's Radio Hall of Fame in Chicago.

He will be met with a protest from outraged gay organizations at 5:30 PM this evening, November 8, outside of the Renaissance Chicago Hotel, 1 W. Wacker Drive (corner of Wacker & State).

"It is mind-blowing, that the Radio Hall of Fame would honor a primary leader of Proposition 8," said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. "Dobson put his Media Empire and vast amounts of money into the service of denying equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. And, the Radio Hall of Fame reacts disgracefully by giving this demagogue a trophy."

"If Dobson had helped organize and fund a campaign to take away African American voting rights, he would be properly shunned as a hater,'" said Bob Schwartz of the Gay Liberation Network. "However, because the Museum of Broadcast Communications has chosen instead to honor Dobson, they apparently think it's okay to promote those who publicly organize discrimination against gays."

It is ironic that the Museum will be honoring a promoter of hate like Dobson, while at the same time many mourn the recent passing of journalistic legend Studs Turkel, whom the Museum never got around to honoring.

The campaign against the honoring of Dobson was initiated by the Gay Liberation Network (www.GayLiberation.net) and Truth Wins Out (www.TruthWinsOut.com and www.DumpDobson.com), and endorsed by dozens of groups and individuals signing on to a series of full-page protest signature advertisements.

www.DUMPDOBSON.com Full story here: http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/protest-in-chicago-tonight-against.html

And as protesters filled the streets in San Francsisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Palm Springs, the city of Santa Cruz, CA may be taking a more forceful tact:

SANTA CRUZ -- City leaders could be joining other cities around the state in a lawsuit to challenge the passage of Proposition 8 -- the successful measure that took away the right of same-sex couples to marry -- on the grounds the measure is unconstitutional.

"It's an important issue and the city needs to play a role," said Mayor Ryan Coonerty, who hopes to bring the proposal before the City Council at its Nov. 25 meeting.

Coonerty said he was especially motivated to bring the issue up after hastily marrying gay couples last weekend and on Election Day that were worried they would not have the right to wed much longer.

"It's shocking that people are forced into these situations, where they're rushing to get married because they don't know what their legal status will be," Coonerty said. "It's shameful."

Voters on Tuesday overturned this year's state Supreme Court ruling that made gay marriage possible. Proposition 8 amends California's Constitution to define marriage as between a woman and a man.

Coonerty said the city would likely join a suit with leaders in San Francisco to argue that the proposition was illegal because it took away a fundamental constitutional right from a select group of people. Before such propositions can go to the ballot, supporters allege, the state Legislature must approve them. That did not happen. Full story here: http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_10934458

But what is really astonishing is the fact that those who voted yes on 8 really believed that those who had thier rights stolen would simply just crawl back into thier caves and leave us good 'phobes alone. Whites in Mississippi circa 1964 had that same idea. That was a crock then and it is now. To whit.....

Prop. 8 backers have been writing...to say they have been shocked at the vehemence of the reaction to their "Yes on Prop. 8" yard signs and bumper stickers. A woman, who asked to be identified as "Kathy in Pleasanton," because she fears retaliation, detailed a list of encounters.

"I've had eggs thrown at me, been accused of being a homophobe, and was even tailgated home from the Oakland airport (all the way to Pleasanton) by a man who cornered my car and screamed at me because of our 'Yes on 8' bumper sticker," she said. "I'm a small woman, it was late at night, so this was very frightening."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/07/BAGD140G16.DTL

Ahhhh, Kathy.....maybe the reason you were being treated like a homophobe is, well.....YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE!

Look, I do not want violence, and people should be left alone, but those who voted for this, and those who propogated the lies that lead to its passage have to realize the firestorm that is hitting you is one of your own making. People have simply had it with the mob trying to force thier standards and so-called morals on them.

And you know what you are fighting. First you nullify gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Porn people are next, then the fetish folk, the swingers, others outside the norm. The finally the Grand Prize, those so-called normal people who happen to have sex outside of marriage, either by affair or committment, and finally those committed, monogamous people who commit the sin of having sex for purposes other than repopulating the race. Your main goal is to control the behavior of every living being on the planet

So now, we know the stakes. Total freedom or total enslavement. Tuesday was thier Pearl Harbor. But now all of us have to decide which side we will be on. There is not equivication. It is all or nothing. I choose freedom. And woe to those who chose the side of enslavement on Tuesday...and especially those whose lies pushed it through. Tuesday was not the end.....but the beginning.