On Vacation

I am on vacation for the week. I'll be back at you on the 7th. Everyone pray for good waves :)

Too Funny... But Yet Scary

Turns out we are all gay, but just don't know it. Childrens' entertainment is totally infiltrated by homosexuals trying to turn us all. The first to be noted as homoerotic was Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street. Most of us used to watch it as kids, so we must all be gay, right? Now the homo-conspirators, after getting Barney and Twinky Winky outed, created a new, even more sinister gender-bending cartoon... Sponge Bob Square Pants. No one knows how much of the little yellow sponge, holding hands with his ambiguously gay best friend, your children must watch before they turn into flamers, but chances are good that little Johnny will be playing with Barbie dolls within weeks of his first episode. But, look on the positive side - Since gay marriage is banned in most states, you will never have to pay for a Wedding.

Yellow and Porous and Outed

So SpongeBob SquarePants is gay. You think your small children, who may be glued to the TV set this morning, were just enthralled by a talking yellow sponge in suit pants. You'd be wrong. Actually, they are being brainwashed by a vast network of gay cartoon characters bent on destroying civilization as we know it.

SpongeBob isn't alone. Tinky Winky was the first to be "outed." Tinky may have seemed just like those other three fuzzy Teletubbies, harmless enough except for their uncanny power to send adults screaming from the room. Think again: Tinky is purple. His antenna is a triangle, the gay pride symbol, and he carries a purse-like bag. Get it?

Here's how we learned about SpongeBob.

"Does anyone here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James Dobson asked darkly, addressing a black-tie audience at one of Tuesday's inaugural events. Dobson is the founder of Focus on the Family, one of the nation's most outspoken conservative Christian groups. SpongeBob holds hands with his starfish pal Patrick, and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy." Evidence enough, to Dobson at any rate, that the guy's a menace.

SpongeBob's rep is that he's a nice guy — a pushover even — who tries to get along with everyone, even Squidward, his gruff neighbor. The Sponge has indeed become something of a camp figure among gay men. But his nice-guy mien is what prompted an educational-film maker to star SpongeBob in a short video for young children about multiculturalism called "We Are Family." The video promotes a "tolerance pledge" for schoolkids that could extend to sexual identity.

One person's definition of tolerance is another's "pro-homosexual" agenda. "We see the video … as manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," Dobson's spokesperson told the New York Times on Wednesday. "It's a classic bait and switch."

Chiming in, a homosexuality detection expert at the similarly conservative Family Research Council called words like "tolerance" and "diversity" part of a "coded language that is regularly used by the homosexual community."

Forget prime-time raunchiness — Janet Jackson's pixelated nipple or Nicollette Sheridan's towel drop on "Monday Night Football." The real threat lurks in the morning cartoons.

So don't get us started on Jimmy Neutron. Or Mr. Rogers, one of whose signature phrases was, suspiciously, "people can like you just because you're you."

Which of these things is not like the other ones?... which of these things is just not the same?... 

Bush Gots No Game

Now that Bush has had to put an end to using your tax money to sell you on his policies, he is now looking for private donations to use to propagandize his policies like privatizing Social Security. Gee, I wonder who will be making those donations? Mr. and Mrs. Jones who live next door or E.F. Hutton? Do you honestly think that whoever is going to be donating to this is not going to be expecting something in return? A good product will sell itself - but this product is a dud, so Bush has got to do media blitz to con us again. This is just another episode in the long line of his selling out our country.

RNC Seeks Donations to Push Bush Agenda

Who's Playing the Race Card Now

WOW! This one is quite a doozie (I used "doozie" just for you Michele). The Christian Coalition is claiming Democrats who opposed Rice's nomination are racists. That is the farthest thing from the truth. She was opposed because she lied to us and misled us. I am a multi-racial person and I opposed her nomination also. Not because of her race - she could be black, white, or even magneto for all I care. I opposed her because I do not think she was very good at her last job, much less qualified for this one. And if Democrats are so racists and hate to see any minority from succeeding, why was there so much praise of Powell when he was nominated, and so much disappointment now that he has stepped down.

If you are going to complain about the race card, don't start pulling it yourself.


Prejudice Against Secretaryof State Condoleezza Rice (Link)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Christian Coalition of America condemns left-wing Senators -- and a moderate running for President -- for their prejudice against successful American conservative minorities, as exemplified by their vote against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Senators who voted against Secretary Rice's confirmation were:

Yet Another Conservative Journalists Comes Clean

Bush is finally calling an end to his Administrations illegal use of tax payer money to pay journalists to propagandize policy initiatives. This comes a day after Maggie Gallagher, a syndicated columnist, admits that she "forgot" to tell her readers about her financial connections to the Bush White House. She had taken $21,500 from the Health and Human Services Department to help create materials promoting the agency's $300 million initiative to encourage marriage.

She said it never occurred to her to tell readers about her work for the government. "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."

At least I know, since Democrats do not control the White House or the Congress, that journalists speaking against proposed legislation are not getting payoffs to do it. Investigations are ongoing into several of these White House payoffs.

Bush Orders an End to Hiring Columnists

Deconstructing the Constructionists

He is Strict, but He is No Constructionists

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday that judges should look to historical practices when ruling on religious issues. (Link)

So, does this mean we look to how our founding fathers viewed the separation of church and state? If so, the results do not support his positions. But wait, there is more...

Speaking at the University of Michigan, Scalia criticized judges for using what he called "abstractions" to interpret religious issues when they should be looking to the text of the Constitution itself.
"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say," he said.

Exactly, the Constitution says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It does not say an establishment of a religion, but of religion. That clause is all inclusive, not singular. For a constructionist to do his/her job, they must look at what each word means.

Religion is defined by the Marriam-Webster dictionary as:

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

So, if you replace "religion" with the definition, you get, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the service and worship of God or the supernatural." This does not mean Congress cannot establish a single religion, but must void itself of anything to do with the service and worship of God or the supernatural. This does not mean it is ok to acknowledge god as long as it is non-specific. This includes "In God We Trust" and "Under God."

So, textual construction does not work. If Scalia then wants to turn to "historical practices," he runs into a whole host of new problems.

First, there were many founding fathers. Just like Democrats or Republicans, there were not a homogeneous group. As with any group you have many divergent beliefs. There is no way to look at the group as a whole and come to one concensus conclusion about how they foresaw religion as part of our government.

Lets look at James Madison in his Remonstrance of proposed legislation for Christian teachers to be paid for with public funds. Madison said:

"Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it [religion] be subject to that of the Legislative Body... The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment [mixing state and religion], exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants."

So, in Madison's own words, he considers anyone who would have the state cross the boundaries between church and state are tyrants.

Was Madison speaking only of Christianity when he talked about excluding religion, or did it go father?

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

So, again, we see by Madison's own words, that he was not merely speaking of Christianity or a specific sect, but of all religion. His statement, "we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded," means atheists are equally to be protected from the mixing of church and state.

But Religion is good and teaches us morals and gives us guidance in order to live our lives. Should not the state foster the benefits of religion in order to build a better society? Madison did not think so:

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion...for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

What Madison is saying here is that the Christian faith is bigger than the state. It existed before the state and exists in spite of the state. If religion is indeed a product of God, then there is no need for the state to support it. By the state becoming involved in religion, it in fact weakens the premises of faith in God. For someone to say that there needs to be a support of religion by the state means that their religion is not strong enough to support itself.

Many who feel that Christianity holds a special place in America because it was founded mainly by Christians are also rejected by Madison's words. Madison envisioned America as a place for all religions to prosper equally, without deference to any particular religion or sect.

Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens... Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the [Spanish] Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

There is nothing in the constitution that supports any connection with religion and the state. There is no consensus view of the founding fathers that there should be any connection between religion and the state. So, can Scalia be a strict constructionist and still find it ok for there to be any connection between religion and the state? Not a chance. If Scalia was really a strict constructionist, he would oppose any connection between religion and the state. Otherwise, Scalia is actually an "activist" judge.

Go Get 'Em Tiger

During the elections, I kept hearing, "your not voting for Kerry, you're voting against Bush." I would say over and over that was not true. I was voting for Kerry because I like his moral values. Today, he is shrugging of the disappointment of his loss and is getting back to work to continue to push the progressive agenda. Today, he plans to get back to his goal of ensuring all American children have basic health insurance. As I have always said, I could care less if two men or two women who are already living together anyway, get married or not (Bush's values). What I do care about is health insurance for the American people (Kerry's values). It is ridiculous that as wealthy and advanced we are, there are over 45 million Americans who have no access to affordable health care. At least Kerry is making a first step for kids while Bush is introducing ideas to cut Medicaid.

INTERVIEW: Kerry Resumes 'Great Job,' Pushes Health Care

And Now For Something a Little Different

Every once in a while I like to put something up that is non-political... This fits the bill. As any of the cops I know always tell me, it is only the stupid criminals they usually catch.

Cops: Alleged Robber Calls Victim for Date (Link to Full Story)

NEW CASTLE, Del. - Police say a man involved in the recent robbery of a Domino's Pizza delivery woman would be a good candidate for "World's Dumbest Criminal."

Police say that after two men robbed the woman, one of them called the victim on his cell phone to apologize — and to ask her out on a date...

Officers searched a residence and found the pizza boxes in the trash can with the original receipt still attached.

$368 Billion Deficit

The US deficit is expected to be a whopping $368 Billion next year. And before anyone posts a comment saying "well, this is down from $418 Billion last year," let me point out a few things.

First, This does not include the costs of the war. This is expected to be between $100 and $115 billion extra (and I think this is low). Bush is already asking for an additional $80 billion now.

Second, this deficit number assumes that the tax cut is not made permanent. If Bush gets his way, this number shoots way up again.

Third, the dollar continues to drop, making it even more difficult to repay our debts.

Fourth, Bush predicted a deficit of $331 billion last year... thus, it is higher than previously forecasted.

As an update - the national debt stands at $7,614,010,749,612... your share is $83,107

Welfare States

I have commented on this issue before on other blogs. While many conservatives talk so staunchly against the "welfare state" many red states benefit so much from that same system and are in fact "welfare states." On average, for ever dollar that a blue state send to DC, it gets back $.87. For every dollar sends to DC the average red state gets back $1.19. So, even though we gun-hating, god-hating, anti-American bleeding heart liberals are the mokery of many right leaning Americans, there doesn't seem to be any problem in taking our money.

I am not horribly distraught by this whole situation. We are one country and that means that we are all in this together. If an area of the country that has been hit hard by economic shifts needs a little help to get new jobs, or if the family farmer has been hurt by dropping food prices, I have no problems with helping out. After all, we are only as strong as our weakest link. But I would love to stop hearing how liberals are trying to destroy America through a "welfare state" when welfare comes in so many sizes and shapes.

Red States Make a Mockery Of Self-Reliance (Link)

By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, January 19, 2005; Page E01

In his inaugural address tomorrow, I'm guessing, George W. Bush will take a moment to reaffirm the "red state" values that returned him and the Republican congressional majority to power. You know, things like self-reliance, free markets, small government and fiscal rectitude.

Funny, that. I have in front of me the latest report from the Tax Foundation showing how much each state gets back in contracts, benefits and subsidies for every dollar of taxes paid. And it shows that, with a few exceptions, the anti-government red states are the net winners in the flow of funds while the pro-government blue states are almost all losers.

Among the biggest winners in 2003, for example, were New Mexico, at $1.99 for every tax dollar paid, followed closely by Alaska, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, Alabama and Montana -- the "red-ink states," as Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group calls them. The biggest loser was New Jersey, at 57 cents per dollar paid, followed by blue states Connecticut, New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois.

(Happily for those of us in the Washington region, the dominating presence of the federal government makes us big winners.)

In other words, we now have a new red-state political majority comprising voters who, while professing distrust of government and disdain for the values of the blue-state minority, are only too happy to rely on Washington and blue-state wealth to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed.

This rank hypocrisy might be laughable but for the fact that the fleecing of the blue states has increased markedly over the past decade as Republicans tightened their hold on Washington. And the early signs are that it's about to get worse.

Is it mere coincidence, for instance, that after voting 91 percent for his opponent, the District suddenly finds itself stuck with a $12 million tab for inauguration security? Or that Dick Cheney is still pushing tax cuts and royalty breaks for red-state drillers and miners, even after energy prices for blue-state consumers have rocketed to record highs? Or that the tax plan being cooked up by the Treasury will eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes, which just happen to be highest in blue states? Or that the administration plans to slash funding for urban-oriented community block grants, then bury the program in the Commerce Department?

And how can we square the Republicans' urgent desire to "privatize" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with its continued support for Farmer Mac -- or, for that matter, the Rural Utilities Service, a New Deal agency that was supposed to bring electricity to family farms but now finances golf courses in North Texas?

Then again, you'd think those truly committed to free markets and smaller government would be raising hell over the big increase in farm subsidies over the past two years, even as farm incomes doubled.

How's that possible? You may remember that in the bad old days of Bill Clinton, Congress passed the "Freedom to Farm" Act, which was supposed to wean farmers from disaster aid and price supports by replacing those with a gradually diminishing annual subsidy, whether they planted a crop or not. But then the weather turned bad, world prices fell and the farm lobby was back on Capitol Hill with both hands out. When the legislative smoke had cleared, the "freedom" payments survived, only to be supplemented by another round of disaster relief and a brand-new price-support system.

Three years later, red-state farmers are now getting all the advantages of free markets with all the benefits of French-style subsidies. Yields are at record levels, driving prices low enough to trigger price-support payments while sending the price of farmland to new highs. Meanwhile, in blue-state supermarkets, food prices have risen faster than prices for nearly everything else.

George W. Bush says he wants to put aside this silly red-blue thing and be president of all the people. So far, however, his actions -- and those of his congressional allies -- suggest a different reality:

To the victor belong the spoils.

More Questions About Gonzales

First, it was the reinterpretation of torture that rose questions about Gonzales. then it was questions whether or not he left out vitally important mitigating factors from files to then governor Bush regarding clemency requests for prisoners on death row. Now come questions of if Gonzales pulled strings so Bush could skip out of jury duty and thus, skip disclosing his DUI conviction on court documents.

While I doubt that I would particularly like any person that Bush nominated to be Attorney General, I think Gonzales shows a history of playing a little too loose and free with the law. We cannot have a man who is the highest ranking government lawyer who is willing to re-interpret the law to his liking. While I would take Gonzales in a heart beat over the former Attorney General (who just ignored laws), we are in a period of our nations history where we are grappling with difficult questions regarding privacy, human rights, war on terror, etc. America deserves a person who will take the law seriously.

Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet? (Link)

Jan. 31 issue - Senate Democrats put off a vote on White House counsel Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general, complaining he had provided evasive answers to questions about torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. But Gonzales's most surprising answer may have come on a different subject: his role in helping President Bush escape jury duty in a drunken-driving case involving a dancer at an Austin strip club in 1996. The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account.

Bush's summons to serve as a juror in the drunken-driving case was, in retrospect, a fateful moment in his political career: by getting excused from jury duty he was able to avoid questions that would have required him to disclose his own 1976 arrest and conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Kennebunkport, Maine—an incident that didn't become public until the closing days of the 2000 campaign. (Bush, who had publicly declared his willingness to serve, had left blank on his jury questionnaire whether he had ever been "accused" in a criminal case.) Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy to describe "in detail" the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush, Gonzales—who was then chief counsel to the Texas governor—wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.

While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

Gonzales last week refused to waver. "Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers," a senior White House official said, adding that while Gonzales did recall that Bush's potential conflict was "discussed," he never "requested" that Bush be excused. "His answer to the Senate's question is accurate," the official said.