NOM Stupidity... Is FUNNY!

In case you missed the "National Organization for AGAINST Marriage (Equality)" ad, here it is... Just a million times better! :-)









And finally, 'cuz I just can't help myself:

"GOProud"? Really?

Gimme a f*ckin' break!

It's been threatened to go down, and now reality: Conservative gays are splitting from the Log Cabin Republicans, furious with the organization's internal sniping and overall lack of influence as it lost ground in even the most basic of gay news cycles. The new org is GOProud, classified as a 527 and headed by former Log Cabin political director Christopher Barron, and will likely have zero connection with influential (and wealthy) Democratic fundraiser and "gay mafia" member Tim Gill, who was outed as one of Log Cabin's biggest donors. (Were it not for his cash, it could be argued, Log Cabin would exist in name only right now.)

Expect GOProud to return to Log Cabin's more conservative roots, which means less support for hate crimes legislation. Notes GayPatriot.net, which advocated splitting from LCR: "Their left-of-center positions on important issues have bothered me as LCR has continually sucked the teet of the Gay Leftist agenda. LCR’s silence and unwillingness to stand up and be vocal on true gay conservative issues (outing of Republican staffers, increasing threat of gays being selectively aborted, peril gays face by Islamic extremists) has been mind-boggling. And LCR’s continued obsession in trashing Republicans, yet letting Democrats get a pass on their gay-related hypocrisies, has been infruriating [sic]."

So they think the answer to LCR's identity crisis is to be even more self-loathing? What's "liberal" about protecting our community from hate crimes? Or allowing women to make their own health care decisions? Or using diplomacy in our foreign policy? May gawd, they just don't get it. If common sense is "liberal", then I guess we're all raving "socialists". If they really think Bush-style lunacy is what defines "gay conservative", then they can go ahead & fall off that cliff with the rest of their failed party.

How Nevada's Republican Governor "Respects the Sanctity of Marriage"

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Yes, that's all for real. So how come the radical right screams about how loving gay & lesbian couples threaten other people's committed relationships but never complains about this? Just wonderin'...

UPDATE: There will be a committee vote in the Nevada Senate on SB 283, the domestic partnership bill. If you're in The Silver State, please call or email your legislator in support of SB 283!

Watch Out! Western CPAC Is Coming to Town!

(Proudly cross-posted at OC Progressive)

I just received this in my inbox, and I can't help sharing it with you. I had the freakiest experience of my life when I attended the 2007 CPAC Dinner after receiving an invitation from a friend. Everyone was foaming at the mouth when Tom McClintock was screaming about how evil Al Gore is by "telling lies about the great global warming hoax". And honestly, Steve Poizner was no better when he screamed about how everyone else in Sacramento is an evil "tax-and-spend lib'rul!!!!"

But in case you're the curious type that likes hearing what the other side is saying, this is the event for you. Just make sure you can find a Republican friend who can get you in for free. 'Cuz believe me, you don't want to pay to have those Howard Jarvis crazies harass you with their "literature"! ;-)

Join Michael Reagan in Newport Beach to help take back America!!!

You Are Cordially Invited To The Western Conservative Political Action Conference 2009 "Preserving the Reagan Legacy" with radio talk show host and Presidential son Michael Reagan and conservative California Congressman Tom McClintock serving as Honorary Co-Chairs! Friday, October 16th & Saturday, October 17th at the Radisson Hotel, in lovely  Newport Beach, California! Register Online Now! WWW.WESTERNCPAC.COM Last year's Conference Featured Speakers Including: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Ed Royce, Ca. Ins. Commissioner Steve Poizner Ca Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, Ca. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Ron Prentice, Chair, ProtectMarriage.com, and Floyd Brown, ExposeObama.com, and many more! GO TO THE WEBSITE AND REGISTER TODAY!  GET AN EARLY-BIRD PRICE! SUPPORT A STUDENT REGISTRATION!   JUST GO TO WWW.WESTERNCPAC.COM AND SIGN UP!!!

California  Conservative  Congressman Tom McClintcock Tom McClintock is a principled conservative who is a leading light in the new Congress Barack Obama nemisis Floyd Brown  Seattle's Floyd Brown helped create the famous "Willie Horton" ad in the 1988 Presidential election.  He made Obama's "Smears" list during the 2008 Presidential election.   He is the author of "OBama Unmasked."   Seewww.exposeobama.com   Michael Reagan  Michael Reagan, the eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan, hosts a national radio talk show program on the American Family Network.  Visit www.reagan.com for a list of stations in your area.

Day of Justice

Find more photos like this on Orange County Equality Coalition


Today is the day I've been waiting for quite some time. The California Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the lawsuits that will force the judges to decide whether it's OK to treat millions of people, people like me, as "second-class citizens" simply because of who we love. Can this possibly be allowed? I hope not, and I renew my vow today to work my hardest to ensure it's not allowed.

So what's at stake today? Here's an idea.



OK, so that's the human element... But what about the legality? It's not as "cut and dry" simple as the pro-H8 forces want us to believe. Believe it or not, the judges must ultimately decide on their own relevance. Does the court's interpretation of the constitution still matter?

What’s really at stake in the Prop 8 case – and what will probably be the real deciding factor in the California Supreme Court’s decision – is the power and prestige of the California Supreme Court itself.

Prop 8 aims to overturn the California Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in The Marriage Cases (2008), where the Court held that “the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society,” and that “in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

If this decision of the California Supreme Court, based on what it described as a “fundamental constitutional right,” can be overturned by a simple majority of voters in a ballot proposition, then the purportedly “fundamental” state constitution carries no more weight than a simple statute — and arguably even less weight, since a statute requires either the approval of a majority of the legislature and the signature of the governor or a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

And since appellate judges see themselves first and foremost as guardians of the constitution, if the constitution is diminished, then the judges are correspondingly diminished as well.

And this is what scares me the most about Prop H8 if it were left to stand! It could very well undo all of California's pioneering ventures to advance civil rights simply because any electoral majority can vote away any "protected" minority group's rights. It could very well reduce the value of our state's constitution to nothing more than scrap paper worth trashing. It could very well undermine the importance and the independence of the judiciary system by refusing to let them do the job they're supposed to do in interpreting the constitution!

This is what should scare all of us today, scare us all into action. Do we want the nation's most populous state reduced to ridicule? Do we want to see people's fundamental rights stripped because of certain churches' religious doctrines? Do we really want a "tyranny of the (bare) majority" where a 52% election win can render the entire judiciary meaningless?

This is what keeps me going. I just can't imagine this happening. And frankly, I don't want to.

LGBT families deserve better. All people who've had to endure unjust discrimination deserve better. And ultimately, all Californians deserve better. Hell, all Americans deserve better!

But as I've said before, this matter doesn't end once a decision is announced. If the court allows H8 to stand, we have no other choice but to go back to the ballot to win back our equal rights. But if the court does the right thing and overturns H8, we must be vigilant in defending them from the coming radical right attacks and ultimately stopping the radical right from playing any more political games with our lives.

After all, these people hurt by H8 deserve their day of justice.



Ultimately, we all need our day of justice. Let's hope we see it coming today.

I'm Sorry, Rush! I Really Am, Your Majesty!

This is so fun it can become addicting! Look at the apology to El Rushbo that I just "uncovered"!

Dear Rush,

I’m so sorry that I called you an opportunistic brick thrower. My comments were inarticulate. What I meant to say is that you are thought provoking. Yeah, sometimes I say words that I’m not thinking. Everyone knows we Republicans like to say one thing and do another, right?

You and I both know that in reality, you simply want President Obama to fail in this time of economic collapse. How can I disagree with that? Please accept my sincere apologies, oh great leader of the Republican Party. Can’t wait to be on your show soon! XOXO

Sincerely,

Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey

P.S. Please forgive me so I can be your BFF forever again! You know you're my first love, Dear Leader. Oh, and this is a manly kind of love... I'd never suggest you were homosexual. How dare the info- babes not want to date you!

Come on, now. You know you want to try it yourself. ;-)

Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark

Did y'all see this hot mess on CNBC this morning?



OK, so that's not exactly what happened... But it's not too far off.

I’m sure some of you have heard or seen the absolute RANT by one of CNBC’s on air personalities, Rick Santellil. Rick, probably the biggest corporate and wealth whore next to Larry Kudlow and the "money honeys" went on about a five minute rant right in the middle of the Chicago trading floor about Pres Obama’s housing proposal and how Obama’s just giving hard earned tax money away to people who are essentially welfare kings and queens, you know, anyone make less than Santelli and all his rich buddies. He then turned to a group of traders and asked basically if they wanted their hard earned tax dollars to go to their neighbor who has one more bathroom than they do in their house and won’t pay their mortgage. If you asked that question to 100 people, 99 would probably respond just like the guys actually did respond...boos and yelling. He then turned to the camera like Tony Montana, held up his hands and then yelled to the camera "President Obama are you listening". Obviously the way he phrased the question he knew the response that he was going to get.

Basically, this has confirmed a suspicion I've had for quite a long time. CNBC has become nothing more than "Faux News Lite" with occasional "business news". I used to appreciate their financial reporting, but now I hardly ever watch that network. Why? All they ever do these days is parrot GOP talking points!

At least "The Real Housewives" don't pretend to be anything more than socialites and socialite-wannabes. CNBC, on the other hand, pretends to be a legitimate "news network". So why has Rick Santelli been going all over the teevee channels today to trash President Obama's mortgage plan?

Now don't get me wrong, I certainly have no problem with questioning authority. Honestly I myself may agree with this New York Times editorial that President Obama's mortgage plan may not be enough, as it helps the homeowners fast approaching foreclosure but not the homeowners with "upside-down mortgages" who aren't that much farther. Nonetheless, I can't stomach any more of the lies from the CNBC talking heads! Obama's plan is not "welfare for lazy people", and it doesn't "redistribute wealth to people who can't afford it". Again, we need to be doing MORE to prevent further collapse of the housing market, not less!

So if you're as sick and tired of the right-wing hijack of CNBC as I am, please let them know.

900 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
United States
201-735-2622

CNBC Viewer Services:
1-877-251-5685

CNBC "Customer Support" Email Page

And as long as they keep pulling this crap, stick to Bloomberg for financial news. At least they report it instead of trying to make it.

ACTION ALERT: Tell Obama to Keep His Word on Social Security & Medicare!

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher's also reporting this at FDL, so this isn't a "silly rumor" anymore. This is serious, so let's go work those phones & keyboards!

For everyone who thought I was some insane "boy crying wolf" yesterday, this should prove them wrong. Just as I warned and many folks "in the know" had previously reported, President Obama may be open to supporting the creation of an commission that could force some undemocratic, unfair, and unstimulative proposals including cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

However, President Obama still says on the White House web site that he opposes the very measures that supporters of this "fiscal responsibility commission" support, like raising the retirement age and any type of privatization effort. So what are we to believe? We need for the White House to clarify to us and to the entire nation what they intend to do on "entitlement reform".

Please email the White House here or call them at 202-456-1111! And if you need any ideas on what to say, please let my comments inspire you.

Dear White House,

I am quite disturbed by this new report that the White House is considering a very undemocratic proposal that would force Congress into an "up-or-down vote" on legislation that could end up weakening Social Security and Medicare.

Is this true? Is President Obama considering supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare? And is he changing his mind on privatization? We need to know.

My father depends on his Social Security and Medicare to just get by. It would be awfully unfair to "balance the budget" on the backs of seniors and disabled people like my dad, and it would be counterproductive to the President's goal of stimulating the economy. Please, please let us know that the President will not allow the theft of Social Security and Medicare funds in the name of "fiscal responsibility". That would not be responsible in any way, and I hope this is the message we soon hear from President Obama.

President Obama, Please Don't F*ck Up Our Social Security

This frightens me. I'm sorry, but I just can't ignore it any longer. I need to ask this question. Is President Obama considering privatizing Social Security and/or Medicare?

Ever since I read Dean Baker's last HuffPo diary, I've been worrying.

Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression. [...]

[...] Due to the reckless policies of the Rubin-Greenspan-Bush clique, this cohort has just seen [baby boomers'] housing equity wiped out with the collapse of the housing bubble. Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes. [...]

In short, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security and Medicare to support them. And now President Obama is apparently prepared to appoint a commission that will attack these only remaining pillars of support.

It is especially infuriating that this task force is likely to headed up by economists who somehow could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble. The incompetence of such economists has inflicted enormous pain on billions of people around the world. However, unlike people who fail in other professions, economists who mess up on the job just get promoted so that they can do even more harm.

And if that's not scary enough, take a look at William Greider's story at AlterNet!

Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the nation from the elderly.

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.

Oh yes, none other than Mr. "IOUSA", Republican billionaire Peter Peterson, is out on a mission to finish what George W. Bush started in destroying the bedrock American social safety net. And why is he out to take away working people's right to a poverty-free retirement? Bascially, he and his fellow "market fundamentalist" buddies hate The New Deal. They hate the fact that "socialist" policies have kept the American capitalist system intact, so they're out to dismantle our social safety net so they can have their laissez-faire nirvana.

But why is President Obama cozying up to this? Hasn't he promised us that he will protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes, he has. So why are we even talking about this "fiscal responsibility summit" that's nothing more than a radical right scheme in disguise? That's what we need to know.

Now's a good time for us to contact President Obama and our members of Congress, before any "fiscal responsibility" ponzi scheme takes hold. Again, we need to remind them that they work for us, not the "Broder-Friedman media establishment". We defeated Bush's privatization program in 2005, and we can defeat it again in 2009. With so many other crises to tackle, like health care and climate change, there's no reason to rush into the non-crisis of Social Security & Medicare.

We elected President Obama & the new Congress on the promise that they will bring change to Washington. So why should we let Washington change them? Let's remind them who they're working for and what kind of change we want to see on "entitlement reform".

The Price of the "Bipartisan Cult"

I couldn't have possibly said it better than Jane Hamsher at HuffPo & FDL:

The stimulus package is consistently being attacked because not enough Republicans support it. The fact that the bill received no Republican votes in the House, and "only" three Republicans support the Senate version, is sufficient to conclude that it fails Obama's objective of being "bipartisan."

We'll overlook for the moment that two years ago, any bill Joe Lieberman voted for was considered "bipartisan." When Obama sketched out the goals for the stimulus package in early January, he started negotiating with himself by offering "huge tax cuts" as "a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support."

But the biggest ground he gave up to the Republicans was control of the primary objective he set for the bill, that it have "bipartisan" support.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The purpose of the stimulus should NOT be to "show bipartisanship in action". No, the purpose should be putting people back to work and helping working-class people afford the necessities of life. By following the advice of the idiots in the Beltway Insiders' Chattering Class Club and bending over backwards to "be bipartisan" and give the GOP a sharp knife to stab him, President Obama may be undermining his own mandate.

Here's more of what Jane had to say:

If this becomes the template for all future sausage making between the White House and the Hill, progressive interests will continue to be offered up in sacrifice every time the Republicans decide they don't like something so the administration can appear to "rise above it all." And rather than being forced to defend their propositions, dithering "centrists" will continue to be patted on the head for pitching public temper tantrums, holding the Senate hostage and parading before the cameras like a bunch of peacocks until their egos are suitably stroked.

There is no inherent value in bipartisanship, it's the means to an end. If the administration doesn't define what that "end" is and gives the Republicans the power to determine success or failure by a simple refusal to participate, they will continue to do so.

How very true. So again, why do we care how "bipartisan" the process is and how many Republicans get to insert more stupid Bushian sh*t into this bill? Shouldn't we care more about getting a good bill passed ASAP that actually helps people? So go ahead, get as many Republicans as possible to support the best bill possible. But please, let's not forsake our own scruples for the sake of "bipartisanship".

All You Really Need to Know...

About "bipartisanship"...

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

Well, at least Balloon Juice gets it. And yes, I'm back... ;-)

Take Action on "Warren-gate"

FYI...

Please sign the petition.

It is appalling that President-elect Barack Obama would invite California Pastor Rev. Rick Warren, an ardent supporter of Prop 8 and someone who is opposed to the equality of LGBT Americans, to give the invocation at his inauguration.

Demand President-elect Obama to immediately rescind this invitation.

Please sign the petition.

Would President-elect Obama invite someone to give the invocation who supported eliminating the civil rights of a minority other than the LGBT community? Of course he wouldnt!

This is a slap in the face to the millions of LGBT Americans who supported his historic candidacy.

TAKE ACTION: Sign EQCAs petition to President-elect Obama. Ask him to immediately rescind this despicable invitation. Please sign the petition.


In solidarity,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

The Pride of Orange County

Oh, my! Everyone's talking about the first shot in what should be a fascinating 2010 Senate campaign in California! It's just too bad for Orange County's favorite radical right legislator that people are laughing at the video, not along with the video.

Charles Lemos is having a good laugh about the Chuck DeVore for Senate campaign at MyDD. Sometimes, I still can't believe my original hometown is known for producing so many batsh*t crazy politicians.

Hooray for Herbert Hoover!

Hoover lives! How wonderful that the GOP pols hold fast to their "values" of killing the economy by sitting on their hands & doing nothing. Are they aiming to make this recession into a depression?

Mumbai Update

We have some bad news out of India. The death toll from the terrorist attack on Mumbai has now risen to 160. At least 320 people are seriously injured. The terrorists have been defeated at the Oberai hotel, but terrorists are still on the run in the Taj. Five people were recently found dead at the Mumbai Jewish Center when terrorists were finally defeated there.

No one quite knows yet who is really responsible for this carnage. Some are already blaming Pakistan. Others say it's NOT the Pakistani government, but rather rogue ex-intelligence agents who may have been behind the attacks. Meanwhile, others think this was an al-Qaeda attacks... And others think Kashmiri separatists committed these attacks.

Please stay tuned here for continued updates, and go ahead & view CNN.com for the latest news.

And George W. Bush Voted for...

John McCain for President! Yippee!!!! Let's hope McCain uses this in his next campaign ad.

"George W. Bush Trusts John McCain to Continue the EPIC FAIL That He Started"

I love that. ;-)

Barry Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...

Barack Obama for President! Why? Oh, just because John McCain is NO Barry Goldwater! Apparently, many in Goldwater's family are not impressed with McCain's sleazy campaign, support for The Bush-Cheney-Neocon-Corporate Right Agenda, and complete sell-out of the libertarian values that Barry Goldwater fought for.

So hooray for McCrazy losing even MORE Republican votes! ;-)

No, It's NOT "Black Racism"!

I really think John Ridley at The Huffington Post did a good job this morning of putting an end to the false rumor being spread by Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads PUMA McTrolls that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama last weekend was entirely "ALL ABOUT RACE!!!!" & that African-Americans are always "racist" in only supporting African-American candidates.

Uh huh. So why didn't Al Sharpton or Carol Mosely Braun win the DC Primary in 2004? Why didn't African-American voters cross party lines in droves to vote for Alan Keyes in 1996 & 2000? Why didn't Jesse Jackson win the majority of the Afro-American vote in 1984 or 1988?

Obviously, black voters don't support black candidates "just because they're black". If that were the case, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) should have lost his Congressional race in the majority-black Memphis district in 2006 to Harold Ford's brother... But he didn't! Yes, believe it or not, black voters choose the best candidate, just like all the rest of us. And when we remember this, that only confirms what Colin Powell said himself on Sunday.

So there, another "PUMA McTroll myth" debunked for today! ;-)

Latinos Aren't Falling for the McBS

Whoops! McBush can't get Latinos to support him. I guess they don't like politicians that pander to them... Only to then pander to anti-immigrant wacko nuts! So much for McLame bringing about a "Big Tent GOP"...

We're All "Socialist Hooligans"...

That's what the McBush campaign now says. Wow! The McCrazy Campaign gets more unhinged every day!