Newsmax Options

[Edward Grayson]

(IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/peace.png)

Moses & The Israelites: The US-Mexico Treaty Edition.....

This post has been edited by PMS: 01 December 2009, 13:25

[Cav]

Rerouted

(OOC: I'm an idiot).

This post has been edited by Cav: 27 January 2010, 16:12

[Mitchell]

The New Senate
By Matt Breitbart

Diverse, vocal, and definitely not lacking for personality. The Senate's all shook up, with a change in partisan control, leadership and membership. Take a look at the new Senate Republican conference that's looking to break gridlock and change the way Washington does business.

(IMG:http://static.open.salon.com/files/cindy1222813737.jpg)

Patty Sorenson (R-AL) - The Bombshell Bombthrower

After her highly publicized switch to the Republican Party from the Democrats in 2017, Senator Sorenson looks and feels good in red. Now elected Senate President Pro Temp, she follows in the footsteps of a frequent opponent and now Vice President Jefferson Pooty and looks to play a pivotal role in setting the Senate's agenda, perhaps for years to come.

(IMG:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01205/hilary-benn_1205601c.jpg)

Archie Foster (R-AZ) - Wonk Chic

Unassuming, policy-driven and thoughtful, Foster handled the job of uniting what was at times a fractious Republican caucus last session. Now with the majority, his strong personal relationship with the President, and with the power to influence policy that comes with it, his wonky sensibilities will once again be called upon to unite a party and shepherd a President's agenda.

(IMG:http://dvdtoile.com/ARTISTES/2/2674.jpg)

Marcos Sarmento (R-FL) - The Redemption Artist

Rejected by a Democratic Senate majority informed by their whip that "AYE was not an option" for his confirmation as Secretary of State, former House Speaker Sarmento saw his career come back to life with a special election in Florida, and now serves as Majority Whip in the Senate. Through what has been a less than charmed political career, Senator Sarmento has overcame partisanship and assorted long odds, earning the respect of the President, certainly someone who understands what it means to be an underdog. Their kindred spirits will most certainly prove helpful in helping President Pizzuto's legacy initiatives get through Congress. On the other hand, we almost wish President Winters could have had a chance to seek Senator Sarmento's blessing on any of his Cabinet nominees. Almost....

(IMG:http://images.politico.com/global/arena/pence_mike.jpg)

Ken MacLeod (R-MT) - The Conscience

Had the circumstances been different four years ago, we might have seen President MacLeod running on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War". Instead, the Senate's most senior member plays the role of professor of conservative ideals old and new. He's brash, talkative and fiercely independent, which can aggravate the party and annoy the President sometimes. But he's right where America and truly the President needs him, and we wouldn't have it any other way.

(IMG:http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsG/6620-17667.gif)

Buford Justice (R-TX) - The Sheriff

The Falwell to MacLeod's Buckley, Buford Justice is yet another man who knows who he is, who he serves and everything else can go to hell. Loyal to God and Texas before Party and near everything else, expect Senator Justice to continue being the voice from the Right that can give cover to President Pizzuto as often as he may give him migraines. Not to mention plenty of copy for us journalists.

(IMG:http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/8600000/Emily-emily-deschanel-8627594-418-500.jpg)

Joan Calhoon (R-IL) - The Mom

It took the spunky single mom from downstate long enough, but the third time was the charm for Joan Calhoon. Sweeping all five states of the newly megaregionalized Midwest, Senator Calhoon goes to Washington with the million dollar smile and a pragmatic streak that puts ideas over parties and policy over pettiness.

(IMG:http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009/12/rahm-emanuel.JPG)

Isaiah Markovitch (R-NY) - The Tough Guy

No-nonsense, authentic and unyielding, Markovitch did the impossible by defeating a liberal Democrat for a Senate seat in the deep blue Northeast. Never backing down from his fiscal hawk edge or apologizing for his social pragmatism, Senator Markovtich could prove to be a model for Northeast lawmakers for years to come.

(IMG:http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Imported/Editorial/Numbers/2008_sag_awards_show/sag-show-denis-leary10.jpg)

Ed Fitzgerald (R-KS) - The Wildcat

A close call indeed, and likely one not to be repeated by the conservative from Kansas. Fresh off of a messy campaign in the Heartland, Senator Fitzgerald has two years to burnish his conservative credentials and prove to his folks back home that a real Republican can represent them better than any Democrat every day and twice on Sundays.

(IMG:http://dontdatethatdude.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/farmer-john-cornfield2.jpg)

CHESTER! Perry (R-VA) - The Farmer In The Dell

The eccentric, spiritual, calf-saving onion farmer from Virginia pulled off the true stunner of the cycle, toppling entrenched incumbent Septimus Valerian, perhaps over a quarrel over money. Senator Perry now must live up to his independent roots (pun certainly intended) and prepare for what might be a rough re-election in two years, in a region that's been most unforgiving to Republicans. But if he got this far, perhaps another win is well within his range.

(IMG:http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/39/2009/12/500x_snooki_dec17.jpg)

Kitty Khula (R-NJ) - The Situation

This Jersey Girl is a good deal more subtle than a punch in the face, and could even be said to be downright quiet. But she has a voting record that offers no surprises to her moderate-leaning region, and with the addition of more conservative states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, she could well become the rare Mid-Atlantic Senator to seek re-election and live to tell the tale. Her close relationship with native son President Pizzuto should only bolster her re-election chances as a member of the Republican Senate majority

[Isaiah Markovitc...]

TrentCare is One Big Moral Hazard
By David Balderson

The American people believe it is their responsibility to pay for my gym membership -- so says Congressman James Kennedy (D-MN). I can assure Mr. Kennedy and his benevolent constituents that they are not getting value for their money with that particular purchase. My bi-monthly sessions at the YMCA do not justify the bill they will have to foot if the American Health Renewal Act -- affectionately labelled TrentCare after its primary sponsor -- is signed into law.

Although, perhaps the problem with my fitness habits is not my own lack of motivation or sloth, but rather the quality of my gym. Surely if I only had more modern facilities, more astounding marvels of weight-lifting technology, I could press myself into a few more reps.

Fortunately, TrentCare has arrived. I can now upgrade my gym membership from the dingy YMCA to the more prestigous Bosse Sports health club of Massachusetts which, according to its founder, is "imbued with a spirit of hospitality and warmth" that the large goons frequenting my local YMCA lack.

Bosse Sports offers its clientele an onsite cafe and concierge service complete with a personal chef, nutritional consultant, limo-service to and from the airport, and auto detailing. These services are in addition to the club's full-service spa, 25000 square foot golf training center (with a dome!), 10 indoor tennis courts, a 75 foot swimming pool, and a rock-climbing wall.

All of this luxury and hospitality and warmth comes at a price -- over $4,500 per year -- but TrentCare makes the taxpayer foot that bill, so I'm free to enjoy my limo-ride to the airport and revitalizing cucumber mask with the peace of mind that someone else is paying for it.

In fact, with someone else paying for it, I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone will opt for the most expensive membership they can find. Why wouldn't they?

Fortunately, we are a nation of great means. We could probably afford to buy everyone a really, really expensive gym membership. At least for a while.

Unfortunately, TrentCare takes this idea -- that we can spend and nobody will ever have to pay for it -- and applies it writ large to the point where we can't, in fact, pay for it.

Take, for example, Title 2, Section 2, Sub-section b. This is where TrentCare gets really good because here's where it tells anyone living within 250% of the poverty line that they can buy whatever health insurance they want and taxpayers will pay for the whole sha-bang.

David, I hear you say nervously, that can't possibly be true.

"For families and individuals living within 250% of the poverty line, as determined by the Department of the Interior, the base credit shall be expanded to cover the whole of their annual health insurance premium."

But there it is, TrentCare's logic in its most glorious form.

But David, I hear you say a bit more anxiously, health insurance can be, uh, really expensive. Like, really, really expensive.

Correct! According to the most recent figures available, the average individual health insurance plan costs $4,824 per year. Bear with me as I do some quick calculations that apparently none of the many sponsors of TrentCare have done.

According to the most recent U.S. Census data, there are 123,584,000 Americans living within 250% of the poverty line. Under TrentCare, every single one of them will have their health insurance paid for by taxpayers along with an additional $2,000 bonus check thrown in for good measure.

Of course, with taxpayers covering their entire bill, virtually every single one of those 123.5 million people will get the most comprehensive, gold-plated, blinged-out health insurance they can find. Why wouldn't they -- after all, they aren't paying for it.

But let's assume, for the purpose of keeping the math simple, that every one of those people buys the average health insurance at a cost of $4,824 per year. That translates into health insurance costs of $596,169,216,000 every year. Factor in the additional $2,000 hand out (the reason for this existing has not been made clear, by the way, but there it is just the same) and you come to a grand total of $843,337,216,000 per year. I wasn't even sure what that number was -- turns out it's $843.3 billion every year.

Cash or credit?

Remember, though, that's not what TrentCare will cost taxpayers every year. That's what Title 2, Section 2, Sub-section b of TrentCare will cost taxpayers every year.

Why, you haven't even paid for my health club membership yet.

This post has been edited by Isaiah Markovitch: 16 February 2010, 16:45

[Cav]

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/SunSpeaker.jpg)

[Cav]

Reading Between the Lines

Governor Responds to Markovitch, Santos-Carter


"It was quite amusing to see Senator Markovitch talking about things that he quite frankly has no knowledge off. Efforts were made to work with Minority Leader Surratt (not that we would know, as they were behind the scenes) but there was a clear refusal to do anything. We were blind sided by his opposition given the near unanimous support the last light rail proposal received, and his lack of a desire to contact either myself or Lt. Governor Bradshaw (despite my claims to have tried to work with him and his contact in refusing that) to address any concerns he had. My office is open to either side, but I cannot force members to utlize that especially when they have no desire.

Furthermore, Senator Markovitch assumes that there was a lack of leadership on my part because I did not approach him about getting Washington to provide funding (despite the fact that he also had criticism "that the Democratic leadership enjoys a 13-member majority and still couldn't get this past", but I don't feel like mentioning that stuff). The truth of the matter is that the North Atlantic States cannot rely on a Federal Government that has shown a willingness to tie strings to any funding and that also has shown a sluggishness to pass anything that other regional representatives would label pork. We established a way to pay for the program on our own, it worked in the Northeast and I am confident we will come up with a way to compromise with Republicans to get it done. I have invited Mr. Povoovich to my mansion to discuss this issue so that we can present legislation in the coming weeks to pass.

Make no mistake, I will not be accused of being no better than a Minority Leader who threatened his Caucus with expulsion if they voted for the bill and who engaged in shady, back room deals (with Democrats) in smoke filled rooms (like the ones I'm talking to Povoovich and did talk to Surratt in) in order to defeat this bill (with Democratic support). I have been very open (except in my dealings with Minority Leaders) with what this legislation will accomplish and my willingness to work with others to accomplish it.

Also, I believe Senator Markovitch needs to take the time to read legislation before he speaks out for it or attacks others over it. The Light Rail proposal was not intended to connect cities in the North Atlantic, which the Gentleman would know if he had bothered to read the bill. It was about creating sustainable, green mass transit systems in these cities."

[Cav]

Democratic Tactics:
When in Doubt...

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/Racist.jpg)

[JWK]

For Such Kind of Borrowing as This
By Stephen Stegmann

Though my writing has been absent from national publications for some time now, I think most who remember me will remember that I generally hold most members of Congress in a fair degree of contempt. A recent turn of events only confirmed that contempt and bolstered it.

A friendly reader of my columns was kind enough to pass along two press releases that he recently read, one from Congressman Hunter Rose of Colorado and another later one from Congressman Daniel Morales of California. Upon first reading them, they didn't strike me as particularly interesting. They were both full of various misrepresentations and weak attacks on the Judge William Graham of the Appalachia Supreme Court whose nomination to the Supreme Court is pending before the Senate. But then I read the releases again. What I found was striking.

Not only were the releases working off the same Democratic Party talking points, but in many instances they were identical. Hence the title of this article. It comes from the famous English poet John Milton who said "For such kind of borrowing as this, if it be not bettered by the borrower, among good authors is accounted plagiary." The following are side by side comparisons of portions of Congressman Rose's release and Congressman Morales':

Said Congressman Rose, "Justice Graham's answers to questions posed by the Judiciary Committee demonstrate that he is possessed of a judicial philosophy that can only be described as extremist.

The nominee can be described in one word" the Congressman said, "extremist."

He told Senators Santos-Carter that, had he served on the Supreme Court in 2003, he would have voted to leave in place laws regulating the private behavior of consenting adults in their own homes.

Another example was when the Judge told Senators that had he served on the Supreme Court in 2003, he would have voted to leave in place laws regulating the private behavior of consenting adults in their own homes.

He made statements implying that he does not believe in the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions.

For example the Judge insinuated during his Senate hearing that he opposes a woman's right to choose.

He stated that he does not believe that sexual minorities are entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment. He has said that he feels that corporations, legal constructs under the law, are entitled to all the same rights as flesh-and-blood people.

Judge Graham made clear that it is his belief that sexual minorities are not entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment and that corporations, legal constructs under the law, are in his opinion entitled to all the same rights as people.

And he has made statements that indicate his belief that that the Court should all but eliminate judicial application of strict scrutiny.

In addition to this long list of radical views the Judge made a statement saying that the Court should all but eliminate judicial application of strict scrutiny.

Clearly, this is a candidate who has no business serving on the highest court in the nation, and I frankly feel that the President should be ashamed of himself for nominating such a man.

Judge William Graham has no place in the Supreme Court and personally I think President Pizzuto should be ashamed of himself for this outrageous nomination.

Congressman Morales clearly copied Congressman Rose's press release. The identical passages simply cannot be excused as a mistake. Even where the words were not identical, the ideas were presented in the same order and followed the same line of argument. Such conduct on the part of a sitting member of Congress is reprehensible. It's people like Congressman Morales that have all but destroyed the last shred of respect I have for Washington politicians. It is people like Congressman Morales that have, over the years, eroded the confidence of the American people in their elected representatives.

Congressman Morales, you are the one that ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Stephen Stegmann is a retired attorney from New Hampshire and is a member of the Libertarian Party.

[Cav]

The West By Numbers

(IMG:http://www.freefoto.com/images/2000/98/2000_98_1---Number-Zero_web.jpg)
The number of times the governor visited the Big Sky in her campaign while criticizing people who actually went there.

(IMG:http://www.stevengoh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/75_celcius_restaurant_penang1.jpg)
The percent of the American people who oppose Renzetti-approved late-term abortion.

(IMG:http://carolinecollective.cc/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/33.jpg)
Days since the Democratic legislative leader showed up on the floor.

[JWK]

Graham Confirmed to Supreme Court!
In Stunning Turn of Events Apocalypse Does NOT Ensue!
Democrats and Liberal Think Tanks Baffled Into Near Insanity from Unsuspected Survival of Individual Rights.
See inside for details and pictures.

[Cav]

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/motivator3a0c121efe3504975f60f5aee5.jpg)

EDIT: First link died.

This post has been edited by Cav: 30 March 2010, 12:56

[JWK]

Facts are Funny Things
By Stephen Stegmann

A recent article posted on the Huffington Post caught my attention. I won’t spend another column pointing out the distortions about Justice Graham’s legal philosophy or correcting the often egregious misrepresentations about his hearing testimony. That has been sufficiently done elsewhere and Justice Graham’s detractors are so patently wrong, that my pity for their attitudes of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty prohibits me from pointing out their mistakes any more. There's no need to beat a dead horse.

What piqued my interest in this particular article was that the author, one Seamus Corcoran a former Congressman from Massachusetts, posited the thesis that, not only are nominations to the Supreme Court political by their very nature, but that the Founders intended for the Senate to take political considerations into account when deciding whether to consent to the President’s nominations. This would seem, at first glance, to be quite a compelling argument in favor of those who recently opposed newly-minted Associate Justice William Graham’s confirmation.

Rather, it would be a compelling argument, if only it were true. It isn’t.

What did the Founders have to say about the power of the President to make appointments? I’m glad you asked!

Let’s start by taking a short look at what Alexander Hamilton had to say on the subject. First of all, the main concern with devising the nomination process was not to insure that nominees to federal office held to certain political views. The main concern was whether the appointment power ought to be vested in a single person or an appointment committee (as existed at the time in some States). Part of the case against vesting that power in a committee was made thus:

There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that." This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

So, we see that one reason Hamilton supported vesting the power in the President was to expressly avoid political considerations. Perhaps Mr. Corcoran simply forgot about that part of the Federalist? I’m sure that’s what it is.

Hamilton also defended the idea of vesting the appointment power in the President:

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body.

Again we see that political considerations are not a priority for Hamilton. Of deeper concern to him was to insure the people of New York that by this method the nomination and appointment process would be less subject to partiality (as in a President from Massachusetts only appointing people from Massachusetts) and, as he puts it, “the sentiments of friendship and of affection.” So, neither Alexander Hamilton nor the people to whom the Federalist was addressed were overly concerned with insuring that the President’s nominees held certain political views.

Finally, Hamilton addresses the question of whether the Senate would negate altogether all the benefits of vesting the appointment power in the President:

But might not his [the President’s] nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

Hamilton calls the President’s nominees “the object of his preference” and assures the people of New York that the Senate is not very likely to ever overrule one of the President’s choices. That flies in the face of the flimsy thesis posed by Mr. Corcoran. If the Senate was supposed to take political views into consideration, the President’s nominees would be overturned on a much more regular basis. Therefore, we must either conclude that Alexander Hamilton was exceedingly naïve in his assessment of what the Senate would do, or Mr. Corcoran is simply wrong about what role the Founders believed politics ought to play in the nomination process. For my part, even though I disagree with Alexander Hamilton’s views on a great many issues, I’m prepared to put aside those disagreements to say that I trust his assessment of the formation and purpose of the Constitution and government of the United States quite a great deal more than that of Mr. Corcoran. I’m sure many readers of this article will come to the same conclusion.

Several other influential voices on the meaning of the Constitution share Hamilton's view. For instance, Justice Joesph Story, whose Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is still considered one of the most important works on the Constitution nearly 200 years after its initial publication believed that "The president is to nominate and thereby has the sole power to select for office." James Iredell—later a Justice of the Supreme Court himself—noted during the North Carolina Ratification Convention, "[a]s to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. . . . This, in effect, is but a restriction on the President." James Wilson, one of the six original Justices appointed to the Supreme Court and a major force in drafting the Constitution, expressed similar ideas: "The person who nominates or makes appointments to offices, should be known. His own office, his own character, his own fortune, should be responsible. He should be alike unfettered and unsheltered by counsellors." James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution said:

the senate [was] joined with the president in appointing to office . . . merely for the sake of advising, being supposed, from their nature, better acquainted with the characters of the candidates than an individual; yet even here, the president is held to the responsibility he nominates, and with their consent appoints; no person can be forced upon him as an assistant by any other branch of government.

If Mr. Corcoran were a more diligent student of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, he would have discovered what Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of the Champan University School of law who testified before Congress on this very issue, discovered years ago:

No one argued that the Senate's participation in the process should include second-guessing the judicial philosophy of the President's nominees or attempting to mold that philosophy itself. Indeed, such a suggestion was routinely rejected as presenting a dangerous violation of the separation of powers, by allowing the Senate to control the President's choices and, ultimately, intrude upon the judiciary itself.

I could go on with further examples, but I think even this short recounting of the views of the Founders makes the point sufficiently. Whatever basis Mr. Corcoran believes he found for arguing that the Founders wanted the Senate to engage in scrutinizing judicial nominees for their political views, he certainly didn't find it in the actual history of the debate and ratification of the Constitution.

Why then did Mr. Corcoran make this argument in favor of injecting political considerations into the Supreme Court nomination process? Why did he feel the need to rewrite history to support his position? More importantly, does he hold the American public in such disregard that he did not consider that someone would catch his historical revisionism? The answer is simple: Mr. Corcoran is a member of that political class that seemingly cares only for getting the result they desire. If lying about Justice Graham’s legal philosophy will block his confirmation, so be it. If making an argument for politicizing the Supreme Court confirmation process based on a version of history that simply doesn’t exist, justifies opposition to that nomination, so be it.

Well, Mr. Corcoran, I don't buy it and I don't think the American people buy it either.

Stephen Stegmann is a retired attorney from New Hampshire and is a member of the Libertarian Party.

[Cav]

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/JaxBrax2.jpg)

[Cav]

PARAPHRASED!

Rep. Angelina Rockefeller
Judiciary Chair

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/2.png)
Rules equivalent to Silas amendment to Campus Free Speech Act as germane.

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/1.png)
Votes to uphold Speaker's ruling that Silas amendment is not germane.

Proudly serving Jennifer Dixon since 2021.

[Cav]

Meanwhile, out West...

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/45.png)

[Cav]

(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/motivator0cc73c2a99cdd991ea650e5032.jpg)

[Cav]

DEMOCRATIC THEATER IN MISREPRESENTATION

In 2018, 75.56% of Utahns voted for marriage between one man and one woman...
(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/bar-refaeli-picture-6.jpg)
...but Congresswoman Topol voted FOR overriding her constituents at the federal level.

In 2018, 51.99% of Californians voted for marriage between one man and one woman...
(IMG:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/AOC8709/fc6f486b3f_ltpAndyGarcia113007.jpg)
...but Congressman Morales voted FOR overriding his constituents at the federal level.

WHO WILL BETRAY THEIR CONSTITUENTS NEXT?!?!?!
LET'S FIND OUT!

This post has been edited by Cav: 08 April 2010, 14:50

[Edward Grayson]

Our planet is populated with plenty of bizarre and astonishing creatures without the need for resorting to fiction.
Some are rare; some are on the verge of extinction. Here are 5 of the most peculiar creatures known to mankind.

Make certain to see them all!

Aye-Aye
(IMG:http://i44.tinypic.com/1z6bmg5.jpg)

Blobfish
(IMG:http://i40.tinypic.com/2vt5u2b.jpg)

Star-nosed Mole
(IMG:http://www.alkhubr.biz/vb/imgcache2/24047.gif)

White-faced Saki Monkey
(IMG:http://giovanniworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/white-faced-saki-monkey.jpg)

Left-Winged Ding Bat
(IMG:http://images.politico.com/global/news/090123_gillibrand_thrush_297.jpg)

[Cav]

(IMG:http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y11/kimrok1982/rockefeller-1.jpg)

And it appears our message has resonated as today the Lubbock City Council decided to reverse the ban on gay bars in the city much to the anger of the Mayor of Lubbock who tried to use his religion to promote hatred and fear.

- Angelina Rockefeller, on Mayor Reddy of Lubbock trying to use religion to promote hatred and fear.

"...the LGBT community does not matter to conservatives because to them you are not people."

- Angelina Rockefeller, using her political ideology to promote hatred and fear.

TAKES A HATEMONGER
TO KNOW A HATEMONGER

[Cav]

Reading Between the Lines
Senator Gardner's Convenient Truth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

GARDNER COMMENTS ON PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Questioned by reporters outside his office, Jack Gardner, the junior U.S. Senator for the Northwest, commented on a recent statement by the White House, in which the President was reported to be "asking that Democrats cease the alienation of 1/4th of our entire nation" in criticizing Southern politicians who have spoken out against equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual Americans.

Said Gardner: "In the past few weeks since the Supreme Court's decision on the Lubbock ban, a high-ranking Senate Republican from Texas has publicly compared operating a bar serving those Americans who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual to selling heroin or giving pornography to children while the Speaker compared the Lubbock decision to the holocaust and the murder of ethnic groups to ending abortion, but I those comparisons okay because they're obviously true. I only find abortion abominable when Jenny isn't around. He also compared those Americans themselves to pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality. Various Republicans from the House of Representatives have suggested that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual Americans are not entitled to protection from economic discrimination, because one's sexuality is a choice, and therefore a lifestyle decision similar to a bad fashion sense. At the recent Southern Conservative Conference, at which all speakers were members of the Republican Party, every speech unanimously condemned granting equal rights to those Americans who identify as a sexual minority while at the Democrats United tour, only Democrats being around was totally cool. And the Dixie Regional Legislature has recently, with the full support of its Republican membership and Democratic governor I don't mention, passed a law, in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, not only refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other regions regardless of the repeal of DOMA, but actually making it a crime for any federal employee in Dixie to enforce the law, the passing of which required the signature of the governor. But that doesn't matter...I serve my party, not my beliefs.

"I guess my question is, quite simply, at what point will the White House Press Office be issuing a statement chiding members of the President's own party for alienating those citizens of our nation who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual? At what point will our nation's chief executive, who notes that he is one of only two Americans to have been voted on by people of every state and region, speak up on behalf of the millions of our fellow citizens who cry out for equal respect and protection before the law? At what point will our nation's Republican leadership recognize the basic, God-given humanity of all 300 million of their fellow citizens, no matter their sexual orientation? At what point will their feelings, their basic sense of dignity and of self-worth, matter to this Administration as much as those of their own party members? I guess my answer is that it'll be about the same time I criticize the members of my own party who don't...which is probably never.

This post has been edited by Cav: 20 April 2010, 16:42