Does the CA Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision mean the "gay marriage" semantics fraud may be winding down?

The California Supreme Court has recently handed down two decisions relating to so-called "gay marriage" which amount to a huge opportunity to gain some very real education and wisdom about the inherent evil and inevitable gravity toward corruption of so-called "government" and the inherent pompous double-tongued stupidity of many holders of public office. The first decision is titled "In Re Marriage Cases" (filed 5/15/08), the second can be simply titled "Strauss v. Horton" (filed 5/26/09).

I've written on this subject before in a blog titled "Is Boortz a pseudo-intellectual weeny on 'gay marriage' issue?" But I didn't have the advantage of such a considerable amount of judicial dicta (and nonsensical blather) to help make my point/s.

In pertinent part, (Chief Justice Ronald M. George writing for the majority in In Re Marriage Cases) the CA Supremes said on page 81, "Whether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose[s] a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry." (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps without realizing it, C.J. George exposed for all the world to see and recognize, the REAL unspoken agenda of the radical "gay-marriage" political strategy propagandists: via the historically and intellectually fraudulent constitutional "interpretation" (by arrogant, intellectually dishonest, hubris-laden activist judges) create in law by police-power coercion "equal" dignity and respect for homosexual behavior as for heterosexual behavior.

Arguably the strongest case for categorizing homosexuality as a mental illness lies in the self-absorbed ignorance and willful stupidity of the radical "gay marriage" propaganda strategists in failing to see the numerous dangerous self-destructive errors in their reckless coercion-based anti-individualism strategy.

Words mean something. Words are units of measurement of human ideas. Words are how humans share knowledge and compare the validity of ideas. Words are how the human species may achieve its full spiritual and intellectual potential, and build space ships to travel the universe. Obviously, if you can manipulate the definitions/meanings of words, deception and other unsustainable human behaviors are made much easier. And if you can successfully use the coercion, force and violence that constitute the police powers of the State, to force other people to accept your personal definitions of words, you can facilitate deception-based, coercion-based political1 change, and, in the end, cultural and societal change. That's EXACTLY what control-freak radical homosexual speech Nazis are trying to do.

I fully concur with Thomas Sowell's observation that his increasing age tends to decrease his tolerance for cleverness. As an Anarcho-Christian free speech absolutist, I tend to dislike people who want to use the police-power coercion of the State to force other people to agree with their opinions. On this narrow point, I find it amazing that the radical anti-individualism, anti-1st-Amendment homosexual speech Nazis seem to lack the intelligence and open-mindedness to be able to see their own hypocrisy and their own similarity to the "conservative Christian right" beliefs and political1 tactics they so desperately and viscerally hate.

The recent trendy phenomenon known as “political correctness” poses a hideously dangerous threat to free thought, free speech, and individual freedom in general. In the words of comedian George Carlin, “Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict [authoritarian] codes and rules…Political correctness cripples discourse, creates ugly language and is generally stupid.” Actor Jon Voight said, "This lie of political correctness is bringing this country down." Blogger Andrew Breitbart said, "Democrats long ago jettisoned America's melting-pot ideal - E Pluribus Unum ('Out of Many, One') - because it imperils their campaign for permanent rule. Splitting the country [with political correctness - JRW] into separate identity groups and playing them against each other works a lot better. And anyone who disagrees is a racist." I couldn't agree more. (See also the rants of comedians Dennis Miller and Jackie Mason on political correctness. A related video by Jackie Mason.)

In any pro-individualism free society, there must of obvious logical necessity be a bright, inviolable line between thought/speech and ACTION/BEHAVIOR which government is not allowed to cross. Does that matter to the radical homosexual speech Nazis? Of course not. They only want to "win" the public relations (aka "political1") contest by any means possible. In their pathetically self-absorbed, illiterate, intolerant, anti-diversity-of-thought little minds, that means using what the shrinks call "projection" to demonize any and all persons who disagree with their chosen life style and behavior as "hater", "racist", "bigot", "misogynist" "homophobe", etc. They are SUCH manipulative, coercive scum2!

Let there be no doubt that what we are talking about, same-sex sexual behavior, is just that, BEHAVIOR. All sexual behavior including heterosexual celibacy is BEHAVIOR. And government has ALWAYS discriminated on the basis of behavior. Murder is behavior, and government very obviously discriminates against murderers by criminalizing murder and putting murderers in prison or executing them. Thievery is behavior, and assault is behavior, and government discriminates against those behaviors by criminalizing them.

So, for all persons who believe in the stupid-human pecking order known by the popular euphemism, "government", I've got news for you: sexual behavior is by definition BEHAVIOR, and, also by definition, is within the traditional historical legal jurisdiction of "gubmint" to discriminate against if it sees fit to do so. As a matter of fact, it is all of the opposing special interests competing for inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One Ring (political1) Power which are a big part of what makes "government" an unsustainable societal model/paradigm, most especially control-freak, "I want my own way, and I want everybody to agree with me, Boohoohoo!" spoiled-brat government.

Now, there is much to be disagreed with and ridiculed for its illogic and stupidity in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, and no doubt such legal scholars as Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork would be more than up to the task. But what is really scary is the fact that there are sitting policy judges who actually believe, despite many state constitutions containing verbiage to the effect that "all political power stems from the people", that only legislators and judges should be able to change the people's constitutions. In other words, only one party (government) to the social contract (aka "constitution") should be able to unilaterally change a two-party contract, with the other party (the people) having no effective say in the matter other than voting. Fortunately, in Strauss v. Horton, the CA Supremes, by a 6-1 margin decided that the people do in fact still have the right to amend their own constitution. Of course the radical homosexual speech-Nazi scum2 can't see the bright side, the individual-freedom side, of that decision. They're only bummed because everybody doesn't think it's a wonderful and "normal" BEHAVIOR to smear feces on their urethras.

In Strauss v. Horton, the page numbering sequence is interrupted after page 136. From that point, the page numbering starts at 1 for the additional remarks of each concurring and/or dissenting justice. Following the decision, Justice Joyce L. Kennard has 4 pages of concurring remarks, then Justice Kathryn Werdegar has 10 pages of concurring remarks. Then we arrive at the 25 pages of anti-individualism (deceptively masquerading as the exact opposite: individualism) dissenting remarks of Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who doesn't appear to believe that the people should be able to amend their own constitution. Scary guy! Prototypical control-freak tyrant personality who should never be trusted by "the people" with a position of any power, let alone the great power of a state supreme court justice. You need to actually read his illiterate, philosophically-challenged blather and illogic and compare them with the writings of opposing opinions of constitutional scholars to be able to really appreciate the amazing arrogance, illogic, and sophistry of it.

That may sound harsh to some, but it's actually overly kind. After all, it's BEHAVIOR we are talking about society (aka "the people") being able to discriminate against. And let's reinforce the point: words mean something. Heat and cold are not the same things, therefore the development and existence of the two words "hot" and "cold". "Light" and "dark" are not the same thing, therefore the two separate words. "Wet" and "dry" are not the same thing, therefore the two separate words. "Dog" and "cat" are not the same thing, therefore the two separate words. "Homo" and "hetero" are not the same thing, therefore the two separate words. "Food" and "feces" are not the same thing, therefore the two separate words. Humans "normally" eat food. "Normal" humans do not eat feces, they expel it. Because that's what the human body does: intake food and expel feces. Since "homo" and "hetero" are not the same thing, and have their own separate and distinct words, and since "homo" and "hetero" romantic relationships are not the same thing, I have absolutely ZERO moral, spiritual, intellectual or logical problem whatsoever with defining those self-evidently different relationships with the different words of "marriage" (hetero) and "domestic partnership" (homo) or "civil union" (homo). But that wouldn't fulfill the purpose of the radical homosexual propaganda strategists' desperately manipulative efforts to use the police power of the State to co-own the word "marriage" AS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, would it?

It is a well-settled axiom of law that "it is the facts of a case which determine what law shall be applied to that case." So what is the actual REAL FACTUAL physical behavior that all these morally illiterate short-sighted judicial sophists want to pretend is a "constitutional right" (given sufficient ignorance to sincerely believe in the State and its inherently evil and inevitably corrupting mechanisms and mechanics in the first place)? In the case of male humans, the specific homosexual behavior at issue is inserting one's erect penis into the rectum of another male, thus smearing feces on one's urethra. Another word for this behavior is "sodomy". Isn't it interesting that the various intellectually dishonest judicial sophists deliberately ignore the self-evident fact that "rectums" and "vaginas" are two different things with two different functions, hence the two separate words? Isn't it interesting that the various intellectually dishonest judicial sophists deliberately ignore the self-evident fact that rectums are designed (or evolved, if you prefer) for the expulsion of waste, not the expression of the romantic heterosexual love which leads to the heterosexual propagation which, in turn, results in the perpetuation of the human species?

Sodomy is not about romantic species-perpetuating "love": it's about dominance and submission. It's about Power Over the Other. It's about lust.

And where is the logic or utility in having to use the adjectives "same-sex" or "opposite-sex" on a constant basis simply to speak about any particular subject? Where is the logic in males having "husbands" and females having "wives" simply because they are of the homosexual persuasion? Give me a break, puh-leeze! And any decent, hard-working, kind-hearted person who disagrees with the sheer idiocy of such symantical manipulations is supposed to be demonized as a "hater", "racist", "bigot", "homophobe" — right?! Yeh, right. This level of manipulation and speech-Nazi sophistry and political correctness rises to the level of a personality disorder. It is simply unacceptable to any intellectually honest person who cares about the intellectual potential and physical destiny of humankind.

The problem is FAR more dangerous than mere self-absorbed deliberate illogic and irrationality. Part of the problem is a sickening hypocrisy: the homosexuals resent being "in the closet", yet various short-sighted judicial sophists would put heterosexuals "in the closet" by criminalizing any speech which disagrees with the so-called "gay-marriage" political agenda as "hate", "hate speech", "hate thought" and/or "hate behavior". In other words, various short-sighted judicial sophists actually believe that it should be illegal, and the 1st Amendment doesn't protect any heterosexual person who says something like, "I sincerely believe that smearing feces on one's urethra is disgusting, repulsive, and medically risky." Also illegal and punishable by law would be to speak a sentence like, "I sincerely believe rectums were designed (or evolved if you prefer) for the expulsion of waste, not the expression of romantic love." To simply think or speak such things is called "hate", and/or "hate speech" and made illegal by law AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. How sick (intellectually dishonest) can you get?! It is sheer lunacy.

It is only when you accurately and bluntly describe the actual physical behaviors involved in the so-called "gay-marriage" fraud that the extreme anathematical legal sophistry and scumness2 of some judicial officers becomes so painfully obvious as to be utterly without either moral or intellectual support, and utterly without any shred of redeeming social value: the behaviors of 1) smearing feces on one's urethra, 2) inserting one's erect penis into a rectum, and 3) ejaculating semen into a vagina are supposed by various deliberately irrational morally illiterate judicial sophists to be "absolutely equal" as a matter of physical fact, as a matter of public policy consideration, as a matter of positive statutory law, as a matter of constitutional law theory, as a matter of strict constitutional scrutiny, as a matter of suspect classes, and as a matter of "fundamental" CONSTITUTIONAL right! Exactly what is the "compelling government interest" for declaring that 1) smearing feces on one's urethra, 2) inserting one's erect penis into a rectum, and 3) ejaculating semen into a vagina are all "absolutely equal" in the eyes of the law? Obviously there can be none. And if those behaviors are held to be unequal in the eyes of the law, exactly what is the "suspect class"? Obviously there can be none. Such unimaginably extreme levels of intellectual dishonesty and manipulativeness MUST necessarily be anathema and totally unacceptable to any intellectually honest person of good will.

In other words, according to various morally illiterate short-sighted judicial sophists, the imaginary nonexistent "constitutional right" of one particular sophistically alleged "victim-minority" group to not be offended outweighs the 1st Amendment freedom-of-speech right of ALL INDIVIDUALS (including the wannabe-clever radical homosexual political strategy speech-Nazi scum2 themselves) to simply speak a truthful and sincerely held opinion. Can you grasp the sheer moral and intellectual depravity, the utter hate-spawned sociopathic INSANITY of that sophistic position?

No morally, spiritually, intellectually and philosophically enlightened society can allow a small minority of self-absorbed tyrant-minded control-freak sickos to make it a "hate" crime to simply SPEAK such things as, "I sincerely believe 'marriage' is between one man and one woman. I sincerely believe that ejaculating semen into a vagina for the purpose of creating a child has, and rightfully ought to have, a higher moral value, social importance, and/or public policy consideration than inserting one's erect penis into a rectum or smearing feces on one's urethra. I sincerely believe that inserting one's erect penis into a rectum is disgusting, repulsive, and medically risky. I sincerely believe that smearing feces on one's urethra is disgusting, repulsive, and medically risky." At the absolute least, it is not remotely a "fundamental constitutional right".

In my opinion, any competent constitutional law attorney (even a homosexual one) who is remotely intellectually honest and remotely familiar with America's historical body of 1st Amendment case law governing the freedoms of thought and speech is morally obligated to vigorously and vociferously object to the ridiculous intellectual fraud that is "hate" speech, and point out that the radical homosexual political strategists are foolishly creating a very real and serious danger to the exact same 1st Amendment which allows them to be who they are, associate with, and feel affection for, whomever they please.

Truth is, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) said: "The First Amendment is a value-free provision whose protection is not dependent on `the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.' NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963). `The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind . . . . In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.' Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945) (Jackson, J., concurring)." Id., at 1455. See also the reference in Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959) to the letter of Thomas Jefferson to Elijah Boardman, July 3, 1801, Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Vol. 115, folio 19761: "But we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors. And especially when the law stands ready to punish the first criminal act produced by the false reasoning. These are safer correctives than the conscience of a judge."

Thank God neither the homosexual nor heterosexual "communities" are monolithic. No less a thinker than one of my favorite writers, the brilliant and openly lesbian Camille Paglia (see also her official website), the University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, in an admirable exercise in intellectual honesty, said the following:

“Surely the truth about human nature must be our ultimate goal. Intimidation of or violence against anyone, gay or straight, of course cannot be tolerated in civil society. But to make so direct a connection (as gay activists persistently did in the '90s) between free inquiry and homophobic oppression is worrisome."

“The decision by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was a major advance in civil liberties. But an unfortunate result, reinforced by the new trend of post-structuralism (which sees human beings as entirely shaped by covert political forces), was the waning of psychological insight into personality formation. There are a myriad of factors at work there that require a nearly novelistic aptitude to detect and dissect."

“I have said many times before that I do not believe homosexuality is inborn but that it is an adaptation to specific circumstances and possibilities. What many gay men are remembering as their innate gayness was in fact some other attribute (often an artistic gene) that may have led to a dislocation from roughhousing male bonding. The sex instinct, which comes later, is in my view heavily symbolic among human beings. (Post-structuralism, among its many pathetic flaws, is helpless with symbolism.)"

“Once the symbolism of erotic attraction is deeply implanted in the brain, it is almost impossible to change it. And in a just society, sexual orientation would not be subject to such pressures anyhow. Everyone, in my strong opinion, has the potential for bisexual response and expression. Hence I think both exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality do need to be "explained." I understand the biological imperative of hormones, which drive male and female to mate and reproduce. But why is anyone entirely gay? It seems incontrovertible to me that at root there is indeed a dissatisfaction of some kind with the opposite sex, grounded in early experiences and reinforced in adolescence. There is not a single gay person whom I have known over the course of my life since high school for whom childhood factors played no role whatever in his or her adult choice. And yes, behavior is a choice, even if fantasy and imagination are uncontrollable.”

"I have been on the record since the 1990s as strongly opposing hate crimes legislation. I think it is a totalitarian intrusion into citizens' thought processes. Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation. They aren't novelists, psychologists or sibyls! Furthermore, there should be no special privileged class of protected groups in a democracy. A crime is a crime -- period."(Emphasis added.)

In an attempt to be absolutely intellectually fair (and simultaneously demonstrate the scope of the public relations problem), I have included a link to an emotional pro-gay-marriage blog article, titled "There is nothing wrong with you," by one Libba Bray, a friend of the daughter of a friend. There are approximately 350 comments to the article. From what I could tell, the writer and most of the commentors are decent-but-woefully-ignorant people who are coming from what they perceive to be both an innocent and kind-hearted place. I also linked to an interesting article in USA Today titled "Beyond 'gay marriage'" by Joel P. Engardio (director of the award-winning PBS documentary "Knocking", about Jehovah's Witnesses.), a self-professed so-called "gay" man. Although the piece is intellectually nowhere, it did remind me of the unvarnished idiocy of male homosexuals having "husbands" and female homosexuals having "wives" just so they can sophistically manipulate the definition of the word "marriage" for propaganda purposes. I also linked to another article titled, "Cher's daughter Chastity Bono is changing gender from female to male." Read the comment string to see what people's reactions to this so-called "news" is. Lots of disagreement. Lots of ad hominem bologna.

The daughter of a friend posted an emotional pro-gay-"marriage" video titled "Sub-human" on her website. Pretty music. Intellectually nowhere. It asks a bunch of stupid questions (my answers are in red), and makes a bunch of stupid statements, such as, "Can I even still claim to be a human being?" (Give me a break! Self-pity is ugly!) "How am I different from you?" (I think smearing feces on my urethra would be disgusting, repulsive and medically risky. Apparently you don't.) "My blood is still red." (So?) "I breathe the same air you do." (So?) "What gives you the right to define love?" (What gives YOU the right to define it, or any other word for ALL the rest of society, and then demonize all who disagree with your definition as "haters"?) "Who are you to say who I can and can't declare my love for?" (I couldn't care less who you "declare your love" for. Nobody else cares, either!) "If you saw me on the street alone, would you be able to tell that I was gay?" (I haven't the faintest clue, nor could I care less.)

It is simultaneously scary and depressing that in today's sick "victim-therapy" culture so many human beings can put so much energy into ignorance-based emotion that they would rather "win" the so-called "gay marriage" public relations contest, even if it meant living under the tyranny of an oligarchy of state supreme court justices who believed that the "common people", the "little people", the "hoi polloi" working class masses do not have the right to amend their own constitution. This is a classic example of why I hate (yes, that is exactly the right word) "politics1". How can you burst the naïveté balloons of such "nice" people by telling them their reasoning is utterly devoid of both facts and logic, and that they need to grow up, get a life, and read a few books on economics and philosophy? How can you tell them they are using psychological projection to demonize their opponents for doing exactly what they themselves are actually guilty of, when they sincerely believe they are not? Who wants to argue with this kind of "genuinely-nice-yet-too-dumb-to-live" person? What can you possibly say to this type of intellectually uncurious person that would have any meaning, other than to lie to them and tell them how "brilliant", "sensitive", "caring" and "nice" they are? And yet in debates which permeate the Culture Wars, you can't afford to simply ignore their idiotic identity politics, their illogic, their political correctness, their "multiculturalism", their cultural Marxism, their fake "diversity", and their phony intolerant "tolerance", because it's a long-proven statistical fact that negative political campaigning and rhetorical double standards ARE politically effective. They work, period, end of story. So you are left with the choice of either 1) appearing mean-spirited or 2) losing the intellectual argument and the Culture War. Arghhhh!

Especially since he is a lawyer with enough basic marble count to understand this essay, Neal Boortz has NO business calling himself a "libertarian" if he disagrees with the analysis of constitutional law contained in this essay. Hey, Neal, babe, it's time to either 1) stop being wussy on the so-called "gay marriage" fraud, or 2) stop calling yourself a "libertarian".

It is amusing how professional loudmouth, Neal Boortz who even wrote a book titled "Somebody's Gotta Say It!," obviously doesn't "say it" when it comes to the so-called "gay marriage" fraud. We love ya for your Fair Tax books, Neal, but ya gotta do better on the gay sophistry bit!

Lastly, I want to apologize to any children who may have accidentally stumbled across this essay with all its blunt and crude language. This essay was not intended to be read by children. But the website is called "Speaking Truth To Power", and as professional loudmouth, Neal Boortz, says: "Somebody's Gotta Say it!" Since the wannabe-clever, gubmint-lovin', born-again-Christian-bashing Boortz has on air been such an intellectually dishonest weeny on the "gay marriage" speech-Nazi fraud, and since the radical homosexual speech Nazis didn't think any "decent" straight person would dare talk as I have in this essay, SOMEBODY indeed did need to speak the accurate truth in sufficiently blunt and direct language as to dispositively prove the crucial individual-freedom-based 1st Amendment point. So be it. I volunteer of my own free will. Let the chips fall where they may. Read 'em and weep, Neal, baby!

EPILOGUE:

Full disclosure: Even though, as an Anarcho-Christian free speech absolutist, I believe that smearing feces on one's urethra is basically an unsustainable behavior choice, I couldn't care less what consenting homosexual adults do in the privacy of their own homes. That is simply more information than I have any interest in whatsoever. Nor do I believe it is anyone else's business, especially the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring State. As a matter of fact, I have always been opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court's anti-sodomy decision of Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) on self-ownership grounds. I was, however, also opposed to the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) decision on grounds of stupidity, sophistry, and irrelevance as very clearly and eloquently articulated by the dissenting justices, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas. The bizarre notion that there is somehow an earth-shakingly important "fundamental right" to smear feces on one's urethra contained in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights strikes me as so hopelessly moronic and laughable that, in any but a dying society, it wouldn't need any oral argument in rebuttal.

I don't hate anybody's humanity. I only hate anti-individualism IDEAS. I hate coercion. I hate deception (a form of coercion). I hate sophistry. I hate deliberate irrationality. I hate "political correctness".I hate control-freakness. I hate war. I hate famine. I hate disease. I hate death. I hate poverty. I hate cruelty. I hate suffering. I hate greed. I hate laziness. I hate apathy. I hate all sin ("sin" = unsustainable Golden-Rule-violative human behavior) in general. I genuinely and truthfully don't believe I am inherently even one tiny bit "better than" any other person of any age, size, gender, color or socio-economic status. I am not age, size, gender, color or socio-economic status. I am a human being, just like you, dear reader.

Additionally, I have had several "gay" close friends, all of whom have coincidentally died of either AIDS or cancer. One of those "gay" friends was a brilliant lesbian law professor, and one of the finest, brightest human beings I have ever known. I am confident that I knew her well enough to truthfully say she would have agreed with my constitutional analysis in this essay, were she still alive. It's a pity we can't ask her.

I freely admit to very much resenting being unfairly called such names as "hater", "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe" by a bunch of arrogant, illiterate, self-absorbed, self-pitying, manipulative, tyrant-minded, control-freak jerks simply for being intellectually honest, intellectually curious, and daring to speak the unvarnished truth bluntly and openly. The notion is anathema to me — and, I believe, to the 1st Amendment — that simply speaking a simple truth such as, "I sincerely believe that smearing feces on one's urethra is disgusting, repulsive, and medically risky," ought to be criminalized as "hate speech" as a matter of "fair-minded" and "tolerant" public policy. All manipulative speech-Nazi behaviors, along with their wannabe-clever "political correctness" are anathema to me.

Again, thank goodness that when push came to shove, 6 out of 7 California Supreme Court justices still believe that "the people" of California have the right to amend their own constitution! The alternative is unthinkable.

Under construction . . .

RECENT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, AND STATEMENTS:

Obama fends off criticism from gay supporters - AP - "'When a president tells you he's going to be different, you believe him,' said John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist. 'It's not that he didn't follow through on his promises, he stabbed us in the back.'" "Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., defended Obama against criticism that he has been slow to deliver on his campaign promises. 'The notion that if someone doesn't agree with you 100 percent, then you shouldn't be supportive of him - versus someone who disagrees with you 100 percent - is very bad politics,' said Frank, who was the first openly gay man re-elected to Congress."

Barney "The Scum2" Frank walking off an interview with CNBC's Mark Haines


Hey, Barn - why don't you learn how to talk without all the slobbering? (What I want to know is: what kind of critter elects manipulative vermin like Barney Frank to represent them in Congress! How is it possible that the people in this clown's district choose not to fire him? - JRW)

Internet access is a fundamental human right: Top French court rips heart out of Sarkozy internet law - TimesOnline - "The Constitutional Council declared access to the internet to be a basic human right, directly opposing the key points of Mr Sarkozy's law, passed in April, which created the first internet police agency in the democratic world. ¶ The strongly-worded decision means that Mr Sarkozy's scheme has backfired and inadvertently boosted those who defend the free-for-all culture of the web."

AMA Opposes Public Insurance Plan - NYTimes - "While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be 'provided through private markets, as they are currently.' It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress." "If the doctors are too aggressive in fighting the public plan, they risk alienating Democrats whose support they need for legislation to increase their Medicare fees." - Hey, the doctors aren't stupid: like the auto-workers' unions, they don't want to work for less either! - JRW

Cop Tasers Great-Grandmother - WIRED Magazine

60 pct of cancer patients try nontraditional med, by Marilynn Marchione - AP - The Daily Sentinel, our local propaganda rag, er, "journal of record", ran the same story in their print version and titled it "'Natural' remedies may rob cancer patients of real cure." Then They didn't run it online. Maybe they didn't want a comment string on that story! - JRW

An End To My Quest: Flour Tortillas, by Lisa (Homesick Texan) - Thanks to Rick Castellini for posting this recipe on his FaceBook page! - JRW

GALLUP poll: Cheney is more popular than Pelosi! - Gallup.com - "According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans."

Grand Junction caught in the run on ammo, by Gary Harmon - Daily Sentinel - In response to this story, the BRILLIANT (just kidding, it's only self-perceived) ad hominem Ralph D'Andrea of the JunctionDailyBlog, in an article titled "Now we know" wrote the following "¶ Yesterday, we found out exactly why right-wing fruitcakes have been stockpiling all that ammunition. ¶ Apparently, it's to execute anyone who doesn't agree with them. ¶ And according to the so-called "pro-life" movement, the end apparently justifies the means. ¶ So how is that "pro life?" There is no way I will take down this guy's link. He's WAY too much fun to watch - kind of like somebody accidentally stepping on a fresh cow pie! I never cease to be amazed at how such otherwise decent and intelligent people can speak such illiterate ad hominem drivel. Maybe it's because leftists generally seem incapable of entertaining even the mere suspicion that they might not be the most intelligent and knowledgeable person in the room. - JRW

It's the Economy, Stupid, by Karl Rove - WSJ - " ¶ Mr. Obama has an ingenious approach to job losses: He describes them as job gains. For example, last week the president claimed that 150,000 jobs had been created or saved because of his stimulus package. He boasted, 'And that's just the beginning.' ¶ However, at the beginning of January, 134.3 million people were employed. At the start of May, 132.4 million Americans were working. How was Mr. Obama magically able to conjure this loss of 1.9 million jobs into an increase of 150,000 jobs?"

Bernanke Warns Deficits Threaten Financial Stability, by Craig Torres and Brian Faler - Bloomberg.com - "¶ 'Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,' Bernanke said in testimony to lawmakers today. 'Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance.' ¶ Bernanke’s comments signal that the central bank sees risks of a relapse into financial turmoil even as credit markets show signs of stability. He said the Fed won’t finance government spending over the long term, while warning that the financial industry remains under stress and the credit crunch continues to limit spending. ¶ The Fed chief said in his remarks to the House Budget Committee that deficit concerns are already influencing the prices of long-term Treasuries."

Germany Blasts 'Powers of the Fed' - WSJ - "¶ German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a rare public rebuke of central banks, suggested the European Central Bank and its counterparts in the U.S. and Britain have gone too far in fighting the financial crisis and may be laying the groundwork for another financial blowup. ¶ 'I view with great skepticism the powers of the Fed, for example, and also how, within Europe, the Bank of England has carved out its own small line,' Ms. Merkel said in a speech in Berlin. 'We must return together to an independent central-bank policy and to a policy of reason, otherwise we will be in exactly the same situation in 10 years' time.'"

Don't call it 'socialism'!, by Jonah Goldberg - USA Today - "Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a 'mixed economy' but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often — but fume when conservatives take them at their word."

U.S. Releases Secret List of Nuclear Sites Accidentally - NYTimes - "¶ The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons. ¶ The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public."

The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots, by Jake Tapper - ABC News, Political Punch - Among the posted comments was, "Now you know why Obama will not release his birth certificate."

Wafa Sultan - YouTube video - "Wafa Sultan at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, Palm Beach, Florida 2007" - This woman absolutely destroys the manipulative leftist propaganda scum2 who are systematically trying to use a "benign" Islam to destroy Christianity because they believe the latter is the greater danger. - JRW

Wafa Sultan debating her critics in Arabic - Aljazeera TV (Quatar) with English subtitles - For her great courage, Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist, is a genuine hero in my book. - JRW

Wafa Sultan - Islam danger to women and children - Aljazeera TV (Dubai) with English subtitles

Calif. Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban, by Andrea Stone - USA Today - "Robin Tyler, part of the first lesbian couple to sue the state in 2004, called the justices 'cowardly.' Diane Olson may still be her wife but they are "as upset as if our marriage had been taken away." "Gay-marriage supporters said they will redouble efforts to sway public opinion."

Prop 8 delay holds benefit for gays, by Gerald Southwick, Phoenix - Letters section of USA Today - "I think gay marriage is inevitable. We'll look back on efforts to block it with much the same attitude we now have toward racial segregation or not allowing women to vote. Even so, it might be good that California's high court decided not to overturn the ballot measure. I would rather see it overturned by another ballot measure, as I think it will be, the next time it's put up for a vote. People are rapidly accepting the idea that two people who are already 'married' in almost every sense should be allowed to be legally recognized." - Yeh, right! Dream on Bullwinkle! People are NOT getting more used to (or accepting of) the idea that 1) sticking one's erect penis into a rectum, and/or 2) smearing feces on one's urethra have any REMOTELY logical connection to skin color or women voting. Actually, people are getting exponentially less and less tolerant of the wannabe cleverness and sophistry of the radical homosexual propaganda strategists' B.S. - JRW

These Hard Economic Times, by Jill Cooper - LivingOnADime.com - "We buy things we really don't need with money we really don't have to impress people we really don't know."

Same-sex marriage ruling leaves unanswered questions - National Law Journal - An NLJ interview with Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson. Compare Davidson's shamanistic blather with the opinions of legal scholars regarding the historical body of 1st Amendment constitutional analysis. And remember, the REAL SUBSTANCE lawyer Davidson is talking about is the "fundamental constitutional right" to have 1) sticking one's erect penis into a same-sex rectum, and 2)smearing feces on your urethra considered "normal" and given "absolutely equal" respect, dignity, and societal importance as procreating children! What a SICK (it's called "narcissism") joke! - JRW

No more apologies from Sotomayor, by Andrew Breitbart - Washington Times - "In today's left-of-center culture, the 'white male' - 'the victim,' as it were - understands that what Judge Sotomayor said is the accepted liberal way of thinking. Identity politics (also known as political correctness, multiculturalism and cultural Marxism) is the foundation of the political left. It is the first, middle and last lesson taught today in Academia. It is the mainstream media's rulebook. It is why Sotomayor and Obama are praiseworthy, and why Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez and Miguel Estrada are unacceptable members of their respective tribes. It is the onerous double standard that ensures that the left wins every argument over race. And that is far too useful a weapon for the president and his Democratic Party to give up."

NYT: Sonia Sotomayor Has a 'Compelling Life Story' -- Clarence Thomas Didn't? - NewsBusters.org - "Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Judge Clarence Thomas both had compelling life stories when they were nominated for the Supreme Court. But only Sotomayor's story has been celebrated that way by the New York Times."

Nominee's civil practice was with a small, but specialized, firm - National Law Journal - "Sotomayor spent eight years at New York firm Pavia & Harcourt, where she represented Italian luxury goods retailer Fendi in its fight against knockoff handbags bearing the designer's logo. Fendi was one of Sotomayor's major clients when she was an associate and later a partner specializing in intellectual property litigation. Sotomayor worked at the firm between 1984 to 1992, following a stint as an assistant district attorney in New York City and before her appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. President Clinton later elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit."

Is Sonia Sothomayor a racist? - Sotomayor vs. Ricci; Firefighter was denied equal justice because of the color of his skin, - New York Daily News

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made - YouTube video - Sotomayor is obviously embarrassed that she slipped on video and spoke the truth, because she then tries to pretend that judges don't really make policy when she knows first hand that they do.

Karl Rove on Sonia Sotomayor - YouTube video

Jay Sekulow on Sonia Sotomayor - Fox News video

"Latina Freedom Fighter" on Sonia Sotomayor - YouTube video - In my opinion, it's VERY cool when Black's oppose Black B.S., and Latinas oppose Latina B.S., etc. That way the jerkweed race hustlers have a harder time falsely labeling you a "racist". That's why the scumbag race-dividing DEMS didn't want Miguel Estrada on the U.S. Supreme Court: Latino's aren't supposed to think like Estrada, they're supposed to think like Sothomayor - JRW

Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court Nomination Speech - YouTube video - She sounds like just another wannabe-clever lying and spinning fascist neo-feudalist politician to me! - JRW

Video of Judge Sonya Sothomayor - C-Span - America and the Courts - Arar v. Ashcroft

Mayor Bloomberg calls reporter 'a disgrace' for questioning rationale for third term run - NY Daily News - In my opinion, Bloomberg is arrogant, corrupt scum2. Watch the video!

FOOTNOTES:

1. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

2. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate "scum" what it is.

ShareThis
AttachmentSize
In Re Marriage Cases - S147999.pdf468 KB
Strauss v. Horton S168047.pdf483.23 KB