Liberal Tolerance and Compassion

[Brian Baldwin]

And yet the status quo will continue. Nothing will change. People will go back to their CSI program and TV dinners with a shrug of their shoulders until it is them personally being victimized by the Social Welfare and Family Services of their local area.

I've never "Hated" a group of people in my life. I've disliked and even disagreed with them... But I truely hate Social Workers. Not to a point of violence or such but definately to the point that I go out of my way to vote against anything favoring them.

[Ryan Ruck]

Influx Of Black Renters Raises Tension In Bay Area

As more and more black renters began moving into this mostly white San Francisco Bay Area suburb a few years ago, neighbors started complaining about loud parties, mean pit bulls, blaring car radios, prostitution, drug dealing and muggings of schoolchildren.

In 2006, as the influx reached its peak, the police department formed a special crime-fighting unit to deal with the complaints, and authorities began cracking down on tenants in federally subsidized housing.

Now that police unit is the focus of lawsuits by black families who allege the city of 100,000 is orchestrating a campaign to drive them out.

"A lot of people are moving out here looking for a better place to live," said Karen Coleman, a mother of three who came here five years ago from a blighted neighborhood in nearby Pittsburg. "We are trying to raise our kids like everyone else. But they don't want us here."

City officials deny the allegations in the lawsuits, which were filed last spring and seek unspecified damages.

Across the country, similar tensions have simmered when federally subsidized renters escaped run-down housing projects and violent neighborhoods by moving to nicer communities in suburban Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles.

But the friction in Antioch is "hotter than elsewhere," said U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development spokesman Larry Bush.

An increasing number of poor families receiving federal rental assistance have been moving here in recent years, partly because of the housing crisis.

A growing number of landlords were seeking a guaranteed source of revenue in a city hard-hit by foreclosures. They began offering their Antioch homes to low-income tenants in the HUD Section 8 housing program, which pays about two-thirds of every tenant's rent.

Between 2000 and 2007, Antioch's black population nearly doubled from 8,824 to 16,316. And the number of Antioch renters receiving federal subsidies climbed almost 50 percent between 2003 and 2007 to 1,582, the majority of them black.

Longtime homeowners complained that the new arrivals brought crime and other troubles. In 2006, violent crime in Antioch shot up about 19 percent from the year before, while property crime went down slightly.

"In some neighborhoods, it was complete madness," said longtime resident David Gilbert, a black retiree who organized the United Citizens of Better Neighborhoods watch group. "They were under siege."

So the Antioch police in mid-2006 created the Community Action Team, which focused on complaints of trouble at low-income renters' homes.

Police sent 315 complaints about subsidized tenants to the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which manages the federal program in the city, and urged the agency to evict many of them for lease violations such as drug use or gun possession. Lawyers for the tenants said 70 percent of the eviction recommendations were aimed at black renters. The housing authority turned down most of the requests.

Coleman said the police, after a complaint from a neighbor, showed up at her house one morning in 2007 to check on her husband, who was on parole for drunken driving. She said they searched the house and returned twice more that summer to try to find out whether the couple had violated any terms of their lease that could lead to eviction.

The Colemans were also slapped with a restraining order after a neighbor accused them of "continually harassing and threatening their family," according to court papers. The Colemans said a judge later rescinded the order.

Coleman and four other families are suing Antioch, accusing police of engaging in racial discrimination and conducting illegal searches without warrants. They have asked a federal judge to make their suit a class-action on behalf of hundreds of other black renters. Another family has filed a lawsuit accusing the city's leaders of waging a campaign of harassment to drive them out.

Police referred questions to the city attorney's office.

City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland denied any discrimination on the part of police and said officers were responding to crime reports in troubled neighborhoods when they discovered that a large number of the troublemakers were receiving federal subsidies.

"They are responding to real problems," Nerland said.

Joseph Villarreal, the housing authority chief, said the problems in Antioch mirror tensions seen nationally when poor renters move into neighborhoods they can afford only with government help.

"One of the goals of the programs is to de-concentrate poverty," Villarreal said. "There are just some people who don't want to spend public money that way."

Tensions like those afflicting Antioch have drawn scholars and law enforcement officials to debate whether crime follows subsidized renters out of the tenements to the suburbs.

Susan Popkin, a researcher at the nonprofit Urban Institute, said she does not believe that is the case. But the tensions, she said, are real.

"That can be a recipe for anxiety," she said. "It can really change the demographics of a neighborhood."

[Ryan Ruck]

Forced 'Tolerance'

New Jersey Town Forced to Accommodate Same-Sex Unions

OCEAN GROVE, N.J. — A Christian camp meeting community here is being forced to accommodate same-sex ceremonies. Are Catholics next?

Ocean Grove, a tiny seaside village on the Jersey Shore, is in many ways like something out of another time.

With its wood frame Victorian inns, small family-run cafes and restaurants (no alcohol served in this "dry" town with a long history of temperance), Ocean Grove might have been lifted out of the 19th century.

But a distinctly 21st-century controversy has rudely intervened in this Methodist Church-owned village, which began as a place for Protestant tent revival meetings.

Ocean Grove has come out on the short end of a homosexual union controversy that traditional marriage advocates say portends chilling religious liberty implications.

An official of the state's Catholic Conference voiced concern that Catholic organizations could be next.

It all started in March 2007, just three months after the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill allowing homosexuals to enter into state-sanctioned civil unions, the legal equivalent of marriage.

Two lesbian partners sought permission to hold their civil union ceremony at the Ocean Grove Boardwalk Pavilion, owned by the Methodist-run Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

Ocean Grove was founded in 1869 by a group of Methodist ministers seeking an oceanfront Christian camp meeting community. They formed the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which continues to own all of the village land, which it leases to residents.

The association regularly made the pavilion, which overlooks the Atlantic Ocean, available for weddings, regardless of religious affiliation. The pavilion also has long been used as a site for religious services. (The association keeps its section of beach closed on Sunday mornings.)

Because the Methodist Church disapproves of homosexual activity, same-sex "marriage" and civil unions, the two women were denied the use of the pavilion. That prompted them to file a claim of discrimination with the state of New Jersey.

On Dec. 29, the state's Division of Civil Rights ruled that because the association regularly made the pavilion available for weddings and other public use, it was a public accommodation and therefore bound by the state's anti-discrimination law to allow the civil union ceremony.

Lawrence Lustberg, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who represented the plaintiffs, hailed the decision as a "spectacular victory."

But those who support not only traditional marriage but the ability of a religious organization to remain true to its teachings saw it as a grave assault on religious liberty, with potentially dire consequences.

"Gay 'marriage' advocates seek to get the law to endorse a new moral principle — orientation is just like race," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which was the biggest single financial supporter of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex "marriage." "Once the law endorses this principle, traditional religious communities are going to be treated like racists if we act on and promote our countercultural view [that] there's something special about unions of husband and wife. Ocean Grove is the tip of a very large iceberg. Take it seriously."

Experts say Ocean Grove is just one example of religious liberty taking a backseat to promotion of the new societal ideal of nondiscrimination against homosexuals in any possible form.

For example, in 2006, Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston had to stop its adoption services because the state of Massachusetts, where court-ordered same-sex "marriages" have been performed since 2004, would not allow it to "discriminate" against homosexual couples seeking to adopt. And last year in New Mexico, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission found a private wedding photography business in Albuquerque run by a Christian husband and wife guilty of "sexual orientation discrimination" for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.

What About Tolerance?

One attorney fighting the discrimination charge in Ocean Grove warned of a "real and present threat" to religious liberty.

"On a broader level, what you're seeing is these nondiscrimination laws that are being turned against Christian people," said Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who served as associate counsel representing the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. "They're being used against religious organizations to tell them what to do and force them to use their own property in a way that violates their own religious principles, which is a very dangerous road to go down. We're elevating these sexual relationships to a level that's trumping one of the fundamental rights in this country — our right to religious liberty and religious freedom."

In New Jersey, Campbell believes the deck is stacked against the association because state law makes the Division of Civil Rights, "the judge, the jury and the prosecution" in such cases. Now that the agency has issued its determination, the case moves to a trial-like hearing by the same agency, which will also decide on any remedies.

Lustberg, the ACLU attorney, told the Associated Press he would seek an order for the pavilion to be "open to all on an equal basis."

Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, worries about the implications for the Catholic Church. While former New Jersey Attorney General (now chief justice of the state Supreme Court) Stuart Rabner previously issued an opinion saying that clergy would not be required to bless civil unions, the decision could impact the Church in other ways.

"We do have serious concerns about Catholic organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, being required to provide a facility for events and activities which would violate Catholic teaching," said Brannigan.

Since the controversy arose, the association has stopped permitting any weddings to be held in the pavilion. This is the only way to avoid charges of discrimination, similar to the action taken by Catholic Charities in Boston regarding adoption.

"It just goes to show the pretense of tolerance from the homosexual agenda; that's exactly what it is — a pretense. It's not true, and we see that here," said Campbell. "They will talk about it all day, saying, 'We're not trying to infringe on anyone's religious liberty.' … But when the rubber meets the road, look what they're demanding here.

"They're demanding that a Christian organization use its property in a way that violates their religious principles and forces them to recognize — in a sense, endorse — these relationships."

[vector7]

CNN Claims Obama The New Ronald Reagan, Assigns 'Morning in America' to The One

By Warner Todd Huston
Created 2009-02-25 06:52



Once again CNN goes over the top [1] in its gobsmacked praise of its Obammessiah. This time appropriating Ronald Reagan's famous "morning in America" theme and assigning it to President Obama as a result of his not-the-state-of-the-union speech last night. In reality, Obama's speech was more like a moaning in America as opposed to that bright new morning that Reagan invoked.

Worse, Reagan's main theme for his "morning in America" ideal was to provoke Americans into a renewal of the American way of self-reliance, one removed from sucking at the teat of government. On the other hand, Barack Obama's main point was that without government, without The One and all his fixes, we are all doomed.

It was obvious to anyone's ears that Obama's theme was as far removed as Reagan's as can be.
CNN tries hard to shoehorn Reagan's always sunny optimism into Obama's big government puffing prescription for what ails the U.S. And CNN seems to think that Obama was very successful in the attempt.

President Barack Obama addressed Congress shortly after 9 p.m. Tuesday, but a casual viewer might have believed it was actually morning in America.

Perhaps CNN is right if that "casual viewer" has no clue what Ronald Reagan was all about!
Writing for CNN, Alan Silverleib goes on:

"Morning in America" was the theme of Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign, and it was front and center in Obama's most critical event since Inauguration Day.

The president who has pledged to reverse much of Reagan's economic revolution took a page from the 40th president's playbook in his 52-minute speech, striking a defiantly optimistic tone that belied the nation's sour mood and rebutted critics who have accused him of intentionally talking down the economy for short-term political gain.

Layering a soup of Reaganisms over the top of Carter policies, however, does not find Obama in emulation of Ronald Reagan, despite what CNN tries to promulgate.
Naturally, CNN is bowled over at Obama's amazingness and coolosity, calling the speech a "political tour de force." But, even while pretending that Obama is the new Ronald Reagan, CNN reveals that about every single idea that Barack Obama has makes him rather the direct opposite of Reagan as opposed to his heir.
CNN analyzes the Obama and Reagan agendas thus:

The president's agenda as defined in his address to Congress may have been the most ambitious in a generation or even two, but it was also easily boiled down to a few bullet points: restore financial stability, strengthen education and promote energy independence and health care reform.
It was, in many ways, the mirror image of 1981, when a newly inaugurated Reagan used the combination of stagnating economic growth and skyrocketing inflation to promote an equally ambitious, simple agenda: cut taxes, shrink government and build up the defense budget.

The differrences are striking showing that Obama is NO Ronald Reagan. Where Reagan encouraged Americans to take responsibility and stride forward into a re-dawning of American exuberance, Obama wants America to curl up in a ball and allow big daddy government to take the reins. Obama certainly tried to steal some of Reagan's rhetoric, but it is a far more cynical usage of it than was Reagan's.

Reagan's rhetoric from his mouth was sincere. It was heart felt. It was emboldening, inspiring, soaring. On the other hand, Obama's use of that Reaganesque sunny optimism is a dodge, a shuck and jive used to mask the doom saying that without government we have nothing. Obama's sunny rhetoric is merely a mask, not the sincere belief in the American people that Ronald Reagan held as a guiding principle.

As CNN itself even admits, when Reagan took office he famously said that "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
And here is the key difference. Look at what Obama said:

"I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves, that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."

Obama rejects that you, the American people, have the capacity to make your own lives better. He rejects that you are smart enough to lead your own lives without Big Government leading you by the nose.

Despite that CNN tries to abscond with Reagan's legacy and give it as a gift to President Obama, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.

One other thing about this CNN report stinks. Before the speech on Tuesday, Obama's staffers were telling everyone that his speech would be "Reaganesque" [2] and that talking point was a central theme in the way they were hyping the event. And what do we get from CNN after the speech? The dutiful Obama spin of how "Reaganesque" the speech was by the compliant folks at CNN. What a coincidence, eh?

(Photo credit: cnn.com)

[vector7]

Chris Matthews heard saying "Oh God" Before Jindal Reponse

[vector7]

Time to shut Fox down...?

Apology not accepted: Sharpton not satisfied with Murdoch's statement on controversial Post cartoon

BY Adam Lisberg and Christina Boyle
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS Tuesday, February 24th 2009, 8:14 PM


The Rev. Al Sharpton on the steps of City Hall on Tuesday.

The Rev. Al Sharpton was still not satisfied Tuesday after New York Post owner Rupert Murdoch issued an unprecedented personal apology over a controversial cartoon that was branded racist.

Standing on the steps of City Hall, flanked by several City Council members and civil rights leaders, Sharpton continued his calls for a boycott over the illustration, which critics say compared President Obama to a chimpanzee.

He also demanded that the billionaire businessman explain how he will ensure that a similar gaffe will not occur in the future.

"[Murdoch] says in his statement this will never happen again. Well, he does not say how he intends to see that it never happens again," Sharpton said in front of supporters holding signs reading, "Yes we can shut you down NY Post!" and "How do you spell racism? New York Post."

"Is he asking the community to trust those that did it, to trust their judgment in the future?"

Sharpton called on Murdoch to come up with a plan for increasing diversity in his newsrooms. He said he's meeting with Federal Communications Commission members Wednesday to discuss the waiver that lets the Australian tycoon own several media outlets in the city.

Murdoch published his apology in The Post on Tuesday, declaring, "The buck stops with me."

"I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you, without a doubt, that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation," he said.

"It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

"Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted."

Mayor Bloomberg also weighed in, saying the apology was "the right thing to do," but adding that he hopes the community can move on.

An HCD Research poll of self-reported Democrats, Republicans and independents showed that a majority of voters in all three groups believe the cartoon had racist undertones.

More than half (61%) of those questioned felt it was directed toward Obama and that the editor who approved it should be held responsible.

[vector7]

Obama as Hitler

Kevin McCullough
Sunday, March 01, 2009

This week in a bold move the President broke a barrier that his supporters should be quite concerned about. For in doing so he has broken a barrier that should always be seen as sacred. However, this will likely be marginalized by the leftist media that offers it’s blind support regardless of any mastery of facts.

Case and point... Rachel Maddow.



She is MSNBC's less funny and perhaps more butch version of Keith Olbermann. And on this past Friday night she did an entire "bit" on anyone who would compare Obama's policies to socialism as "not very serious people." Of course people seeing the “bit” were a good deal uncertain of Maddow as she herself kept interchanging the terms socialist and communist. But liberals often are confused by facts and frequently either do not understand what they are discussing, or discuss it purposefully with deception. Whatever the case Maddow thought herself witty.

We're supposed to believe her because... ...well... ...she said it. It does not matter to Maddow if President Obama’s policies are in substance moving us towards centralized control where the Government becomes the caretaker/nanny and the individual is lulled into mind-numbing moronic infancy suckling off the government's “all-sufficient” teet.

But if she got that worked up over a few people calling Obama’s socialist policies by name, imagine what she will say about the title of this column?
And yet simply because Maddow, and others who defend their loyalty to Obama in irrational ways, still contend that he produces nothing but rainbows, ponies, and butterflies, doesn't mean we shouldn't compare what Obama is doing with others in history who have already tried those policies.

Which brings us to this point: This week President Obama exercised for the first time a policy decision that shares a trait held in common with Adolf Hitler.

The headline was leaked late in the Friday afternoon news cycle so that as few people as possible would pay attention, but here's the crux of a very real problem: President Obama is moving policy on public health into the direction of doctors being forced to act against their conscience. (For liberals educated in public schools, a conscience is that little voice inside you that used to inform you as to what was right or wrong.)

President Obama wants them performing abortions, whether they believe it to be an immoral thing or not. And while the comparisons to Hitler are made either on eugenist or racist grounds--but you cannot escape the impact.

In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly.

Friday, Ms. Maddow, President Obama took a demonstrable step in the shoes, actions, and example of Adolf Hitler.

What have you to say about that?

[vector7]

From The Times
April 8, 2009
Tony Blair tells the Pope: you're wrong on homosexuality


(L'Osservatore Romano/AP)

The Pope greets Tony Blair during a private audience with him and his wife Cherie at the Vatican

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.

Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.

Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”

The Pope, who is 82, remains firmly opposed to any relaxation of the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality, contraception or any other area of human sexuality. He has described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”.

Related Links

• Pope courts controversy on condoms and Aids
• Harvard Aids expert says Pope 'correct' on condoms and spread of
• The Pope looks ill educated or ill intentioned

Mr Blair, who now travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to promote understanding of the main religions, left the Church of England for Rome soon after leaving office in 2007.

In the interview Mr Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.

“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a wellattended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.

He also thought that in Islam there would eventually be a change of heart.

“I believe that, ultimately, people will find their way to a sensible reformation of attitudes.”

People’s thinking had changed fundamentally, he added. “Now, that doesn’t mean to say there’s not still a lot of homophobia and a lot of things to be done. But the fact that it is unacceptable for any mainstream political party to be anything other than on the side of equality and respect is, in a way, the biggest change. The items of individual legislation matter a lot, but I think it’s the general shift in climate that is perhaps the most important point.”

He said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”

He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.”

No change in the Catholic Church’s stance is likely under the present leadership. The Church in England and Wales, which has been more liberal, is expected to move rightwards under the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, who has become increasingly conservative since becoming a bishop and archbishop.

While some converts become more conservative than those born to Roman Catholicism, the interview with Attitude’s Johann Hari shows that Mr Blair has allied himself firmly with the Church’s liberal wing.

Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, he said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”

He also claimed that the mood was changing in evangelical circles, which have been long been anti-gay — the source of the dispute that has taken the worldwide Anglican Communion to the brink of schism.

Referring to his contacts with evangelical groups in the US and elsewhere through the foundation, he said: “I think there is a generational shift that is happening. If you talk to the older generation, yes, you will still get a lot of pushback, and parts of the Bible quoted, and so on. But if you look at the younger generation of evangelicals, this is increasingly for them something that they wish to be out of — at least in terms of having their position confined to being anti-gay.”

[vector7]

Vermont becomes 4th U.S. state to allow gay marriage

Tue Apr 7, 2009 6:10pm EDT










Related News

FACTBOX: U.S. laws on gay marriage, civil unions
07 Apr 2009

By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - Vermont legalized gay marriage on Tuesday after lawmakers overrode a veto from the governor by a wafer-thin margin, making the New England state the fourth in the United States where gays can wed.

The vote, nine years after Vermont was first in the United States to adopt a same-sex civil-union law, also makes the tiny state of 624,000 people the first in the nation to introduce gay marriage through legislative action instead of the courts.

"We've shown that truth and fairness and justice and love are more powerful than one man's veto pen," same-sex marriage advocate Beth Robinson said to cheers from supporters in the state capital of Montpelier after Vermont's House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote.

Known for picturesque foliage, quaint dairy farms and a counter-culture spirit, Vermont joins New England neighbors Connecticut and Massachusetts in allowing gay marriage. Iowa legalized gay marriage last week.

Lawmakers in next-door New Hampshire and Maine are also considering bills to allow gay marriage, putting New England at the heart of a divisive national debate over the issue.

Washington D.C. extended new rights to gay couples on Tuesday, too, with a unanimous City Council vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the district. Some city lawmakers lauded the move as a prelude to legal same-sex marriage in the U.S. capital.

OVERRIDES GOVERNOR'S VETO
Vermont's bill, which becomes law on September 1, looked in peril after a 95-52 vote on Thursday in the Democratic-controlled House that was five votes short of the support needed to clear a veto from Republican Governor Jim Douglas.

Douglas vetoed the bill on Monday, urging lawmakers to focus on the economy instead. Supporters needed two-thirds of the votes in each chamber to override his veto. They got that easily in the state Senate, which passed the bill 23-5 earlier on Tuesday.

The vote came just four days after Iowa's Supreme Court struck down a decade-old law that barred gays from marrying. The surprise ruling, which made Iowa the first in the heartland to allow same-sex marriages, may have influenced some Vermont lawmakers to change their vote, gay marriage advocates said.

California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

The group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which helped to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, has set a goal of expanding such marriages to all New England states by 2012. Maine and New Hampshire already offer same-sex couples some form of legal recognition.

Forty-three U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
(Editing by Chris Wilson)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

[Ryan Ruck]

Man Arrested for Throwing Tomatoes at Sarah Palin, Police Say

December 07, 2009

A man was arrested for allegedly throwing two tomatoes at Sarah Palin from the second floor balcony during a book signing event at the Mall of America in Minnesota, MyFoxTwinCities.com. reported.

Neither tomato came close hitting the former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, but did hit a police officer in the face, the station reported.

The unidentified man may face charges for assaulting a police officer, according to the station.

Die-hard supporters treated the event like another Black Friday, lining up outside in freezing weather before the mall doors opened at 5 a.m.

Emily Calhoon, a high school junior from Minnetonka, took the day off school with a group of fellow students and arrived at 4:45 a.m. Calhoon, 16, said she likes Palin's conservatism.

"She's a lot more relatable than the stereotypical old rich white male," said Calhoon as she waited in line, clutching a copy of Palin's memoir of her life and political career, "Going Rogue."

The former Alaska governor arrived just before noon. Wearing her trademark red, she took the stage joined by her husband Todd and carrying their son, Trig.

Palin did not address the crowd and did not take questions from the large contingent of reporters. She started signing books immediately.

Fans wanting a signed copy had to purchase it from Barnes & Noble, the event's sponsor. Most in line had two copies.

Barnes & Noble would not reveal the number of books it sold at its Mall of America store for the event.

[Ryan Ruck]

Anti-War Loon Cindy Sheehan Sticks Bullhorn in Face of Elderly Vietnam Vet - Video 11/29/09

Here is video of far-left anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan getting into it with an elderly Vietnam War Veteran after she stuck a bullhorn in his face. The veteran knocked the bullhorn away and was then yelled and screamed at by members of Code Pink, who were there with Sheehan, protesting in front of Travis Air Force Base.

The veteran had it right when he told Sheehan and the others:

"None of you have got the vaguest idea what you are advocating."

[Ryan Ruck]

[Ryan Ruck]

Brutal Attack On Republican Fundraiser And Boyfriend May Have Been Politically Motivated

Apr 16, 2010

Last Friday night, Allee Bautsch, the chief fundraiser for Louisiana's Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, was violently assaulted, along with her boyfriend, outside of a famed New Orleans restaurant. Reports on the incident remain murky, but a source close to Bautsch tells Yahoo! News that Bautch believes they were politically motivated and has been hospitalized for days to treat her injuries.

The incident took place outside the high-end French Quarter eatery Brennan's, where the Louisiana Republican Party was holding a fundraiser to coincide with the Southern Republican Leadership Conference happening in New Orleans that weekend. According to a bulletin put out by the New Orleans Police Department, the fight began around 10:45 p.m., when a group of three to five men made "derogatory comments" of an undisclosed nature to Bautsch about her boyfriend, Joe Brown. When Brown "turned toward" the men making the remarks, he was hit by at least one of them. The report notes that Bautsch "fell to the ground and screamed" and suffered a broken leg when she "attempted to break up the altercation."

In issuing the bulletin, the NOPD sought the public's help in tracking down one of the assailants, whom they described as a "dirty" looking male with long auburn-colored hair styled in a ponytail. And Brown suffered "a mild concussion, broken jaw and broken nose," according to the New Orleans Times Picayune. A bystander's photo showing police officers attending to Bautsch and Brown after the attack was posted to Bobby Jindal's Facebook page yesterday.

Though the nature of the attack has remained a bit of a mystery, some conservative blogs alleged that Bautsch and Brown might have been targeted because they were wearing lapel pins expressing support for Sarah Palin. The former Alaska governor gave an address at the Leadership Conference that same day — but a Jindal spokesperson has since denied that either Bautsch or Brown was wearing a Palin pin.

Yahoo! News spoke to a friend of Allee Bautsch who's been in communication with her since the attack. The friend, who declined to be named because the attackers are still at large, described the group who descended on Bautsch and Brown as "some weird Bobby Jindal protesters" there in opposition to the state's governor. The friend confirmed the earlier reports that Bautsch "got caught in the middle" of the altercation as she tried to break it up. Bautsch's friend also reported that she's in "loads of pain" with "rods in her leg and ankle," but that she was also "released yesterday from the hospital and is resting at her home in Baton Rouge."

While details of the incident are still being fleshed out, blogger Pat Dollard claims that NOPD Public Information Officer Bob Young told him the assault "was of a political nature," and then back-tracked. Though confirming that the question of political motivation is being examined, Young denies confirming that they were and tells Poltico's Ben Smith that Dollard's account is "completely incorrect." However, eyewitnesses to the incident have variably described the assailants as appearing to be left-wing activists or anarchists. While attention has recently focused on threats and anger among conservative activists opposing health care reform, the attack on Bautsch and Brown may be an ugly reminder that vicious behavior exists on all sides of the political spectrum.

Update: This post initially didn't note that, in Dollard's own characterization, NOPD Public Information Officer Bob Young back-tracked on his initial characterization of the attacks "as politically motivated" to say he "wasn't sure." We've added copy to make that clear. We will have more reporting on this later today.

Update: Bob Young, though confirming that the question of political motivation is a part of the investigation, is denying Dollard's report that he said the attacks were of a "political nature" to Politico's Ben Smith and saying Dollard's account of what he said is "completely incorrect."

[Ryan Ruck]

Mother of Beaten Jindal Staffer Breaks Silence to Fox News

04/16/2010

UPDATE: 4:00 P.M. Click here for the Fox News segment from this afternoon.

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly has finally broken the wall of silence on major news coverage of the brutal beating of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s top fundraising staffer. A full transcript follows below.

Della Burning, mother of Jindal staffer Allee Bautsch, confirmed that her daughter had been savagely beaten. She refused to discuss whether or not politics were involved (although at one point in the interview she did say the report was “accurate” when New Orleans Police Information Officer said slurs hurled at her daughter during the attack were “political in nature”).

Burning confirmed her daughter's leg is broken in four places and she has five surgical scars and a steel rod now running from her knee to her ankle with seven screws holding it all in place. She did not fall and break her leg as was reported in the lonely and inaccurate story done by the Associated Press.

Burning also confirmed that the attackers did not rob her daughter or her daughter’s boyfriend.

The attack happened one week ago today as Bautsch and her boyfriend left a $10,000-per-plate Republican fundraiser at Brennan’s Restaurant in the French Quarter where a local group of anarchists, the Iron Rail Collective, were among radical leftist groups that organized a protest outside. Attendees had to run a gauntlet of these aggressive protesters hurling slurs as they left the event. (more details at local news outlet The Hayride)

[A quick transcript, all errors mine.]

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Fox News Alert, breaking news now on a brutal assault in New Orleans and questions over whether it was politically motivated.

It involves a campaign aide to Republican Governor Bobby Jindal. She was attacked after she and her boyfriend attended a GOP fundraiser in New Orleans. There is early word that the attackers were making “political statements” during the attack as they beat the victims.

We have not yet been able to independently confirm those reports. A spokesman at Governor Bobby Jindal’s office says that there is no evidence that those behind the assault were protesters because protesters were seen outside the fundraising event.

Joining me now on the phone is Della Burning. She is the mother of the woman who was attacked. So your daughter is a Republican fundraiser?

DELLA BURNING: That is correct.

KELLY: And she was at this fundraiser for the governor trying to raise money and she comes outside of the event after its over and what happens?

BURNING: She and her boyfriend are walking down the street. Derogatory comments were being made to them. As they turned a corner some areas of the French Quarter are darker than others basically they were attacked in this darker area. It was very difficult to see. It’s more difficult to see from where it is on the street.

KELLY: When you say that derogatory statements were made to them, what do you mean?

BURNING: I don’t want to… it’s easy to mislead the investigation... but I don’t want to get into the political ramifications of them but things were said to my daughter and to her boyfriend that basically everything was about money. From the time they were walking out of the restaurant things were being said to them.

KELLY: Was your daughter robbed? Was she and her boyfriend robbed?

BURNING: No. They were not robbed. She was robbed after, actually, after whoever did this to her, when she was screaming on the ground and the men who did this to her ran off, her purse was stolen.

KELLY: One reporter says that he spoke with the Public Information Officer at the New Orleans Police and that Public Information Officer said that insults of a political nature had been hurled at your daughter and her boyfriend during the attack. Do you have any problem with that report?

BURNING: Honestly this is not a Republican or Democrat problem, this is a problem that a young girl and her boyfriend were attacked and the story hasn’t really come out. And I just want to make sure that these guys are found. That’s the important part of this. There is accuracy in the story. I just think that yes when you do the investigation you do look at the people who were in the area at the time, to be able to bring the right people in for questioning. That’s the really important part.

If the police are doing the ground work and they’re doing the investigation correctly then certain people are definitely going to be brought in.

KELLY: I know that they’re looking at all of the people who were outside of the event at the time. Do you know, did your daughter get a good description of the people who attacked her?

BURNING: They were very average looking kids -- not necessarily kids that you think would harm you. That’s their description of them, but I’m not going to say that they looked like Republicans or Democrats. I’m tired of everybody doing tht.

KELLY: Who looks like a Republican or Democrat?

BURNING: Right.

KELLY: In terms of identifying marks that would help the police track them down?

BURNING: I think what’s more important about this is that everybody stay on track and realize that we’re all Americans and justice just needs to be served. And if the police are following the leads of who was in the area we will get to the bottom of this.

KELLY: We certainly hope so. Della how’s your daughter doing?

BURNING: This was very serious. She has four breaks in her leg. It’s her left leg. She has a rod that goes down the entire center of her leg with seven screws. She has a screw through her entire ankle.

KELLY: Oh, my goodness…

BURNING: For a mother, it’s a lot… you know the recovery is enormous. She has five different scars that she’ll have from this. So this isn’t just something that, you know, that she was pushed down on the ground or something or that she fell. That is not the case.

KELLY: They were stomping her.

BURNING: Joseph and Allee, it was such a terrible thing that, I think that coming out of it, it took a really long time to even be able to make sense of the whole thing. You can understand when something like that happens to you.

KELLY: I know that the report says she broke her leg in five places, he broke his nose, as well…

BURNING: He has a fractured jaw, a broken nose, a black eye…

KELLY: How old is she, Della?

BURNING: She’s twenty five, she’ll be twenty six in June.

KELLY: I don’t know if you can see the screen but this is your daughter and her boyfriend moments after the attack. There she is on the ground before the rescue crews got to her.

BURNING: Yeah, and you know it’s disturbing to me because everybody has their right to an opinion. If you really look at the photograph up close, she is not smiling… when it’s a very small photograph… she’s gritting her teeth in pain.

KELLY: How could she be smiling, she broke her leg in five places. Is somebody alleging that she enjoyed this or was smiling?

BURNING: Oh, yeah. On some of the websites they’re saying she’s smiling in the picture. She is most definitely not smiling. She’s gritting her teeth. Allee’s really strong and really brave. Her inclination would be to tough it out and be able to bear it until she got some help.

KELLY: You can’t grin and bear it when you’ve got your leg broken in five places. Best of luck to her and to her boyfriend. Nobody deserves this whatever the motivations were our hearts go out to them and we hope they catch who did it.

[Ryan Ruck]

War Memorial Torn Down by Vandals

May 11, 2010

The Mojave Desert War Memorial, which was saved temporarily by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, was torn down by vandals sometime Sunday night. Liberty Institute, which represents longtime memorial caretakers Henry and Wanda Sandoz, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), The American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Ex-Prisoners of War, is offering a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the removal of VFW property.

"This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people's graves," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute. "It's a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed."

The ACLU and its plaintiff originally won a decision to tear down the memorial cross, but that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. The ACLU has stated that, as the case returns to the district court, it still plans to argue for the memorial to be torn down.

"This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," said VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell, Sr. "To think anyone can rationalize the desecration of a war memorial is sickening, and for them to believe they won't be apprehended is very naive.

"The memorial will be rebuilt and the vandals will be caught and prosecuted in federal court, since the crime occurred on government property," said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis. "We hope this horrible act will highlight the importance of resolving this case quickly so that the memorial and land can be transferred to the VFW so that the service and sacrifice of all American war dead will be properly recognized and honored, as originally intended by a group of World War I VFW members 76 years ago."

"Reports that the Mojave Cross was illegally removed overnight are very disturbing," said The American Legion National Commander Clarence E. Hill. "The American Legion expects whoever is responsible for this vile act to be brought to justice. While the memorial has been attacked, the fight will continue to ensure that veterans memorials will remain sacrosanct."

"This was never about one cross," said Hill. "It is about the right to honor our nation's veterans in a manner in which the overwhelming majority supports. The American Legion strongly believes the public has a right to protect its memorials."

Liberty Institute works to uphold Constitutional and First Amendment religious and speech freedoms in the courts. Liberty Institute represented all major veterans groups as amici in the Supreme Court case of Salazar v. Buono involving this 76-year-old war memorial.

For more information or to leave a tip, visit www.donttearmedown.com.

[American Patriot]

If I personally catch someone desecrating a war memorial, I don't think the law will have time to react.

Is that a threat? yes.

Is the "PC Police" going to come after me? Fuck them, let them try.

[Ryan Ruck]

Maher: Obama Not Acting Like A "Real Black" President

May 29, 2010

(NON-EMBEDABLE VIDEO AT THE LINK)

HBO's Bill Maher: "I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt so you can see the gun in his pants. That's -- (in black man voice) 'we've got a motherfu**ing problem here?' Shoot somebody in the foot."

Wow, way to stereotype a race! You stay classy Bill!

[Ryan Ruck]

Dem Group Launches 'F*Ck Tea' Campaign

August 12, 2010

Last summer, Democrats argued that the tea party movement was the AstroTurf creation of corporate groups. Now that the grass-roots conservative resurgence has emerged as a clear force on the right, the left is making a different case: that tea parties are simply the enemy.

To that end, the Agenda Project, a new, progressive group with roots in New York's fundraising scene and a goal of strengthening the progressive movement, has launched the "F*ck Tea" project, which is aimed, the group's founder Erica Payne wrote in an e-mail this morning, "to dismiss the tea party and promote the progressive cause."

""We will be launching new products in the next several months to help people all over the country F*ck Tea," Payne told POLITICO. "Products like a Glenn Beck Bowl Buddy (Beck B Scrubbin) and others are perfect holiday gifts or just a great way to say, 'I love you and our country' to your spouse, friend or family."

Payne, a veteran consultant to progressive groups, is a co-founder of the Democracy Alliance, the low-profile group of liberal mega-donors who helped build the Center for American Progress and other new organizations that grew in the Bush years.

The new project, so far, features merchandise, polling statistics aimed to paint tea party members as ignorant and a mocking video.

[Ryan Ruck]

New Hampshire Democrat Wishes Sarah Palin Was On The Plane That Crashed In Alaska

August 11, 2010

First and foremost let me offer my condolences to the family of Ted Stevens and everyone else that lost a loved one on the plane that crashed in the Alaska wilderness.

According to the New Hampshire GOP website, Democrat candidate for the New Hampshire House–Keith Halloran–is also sorry about the plane crash, albeit for different reasons. According to an entry that he made on Facebook, Keith Halloran’s biggest regret is the fact that Sarah Palin and Levi Johnston were not on the plane as well.

The NHGOP released a statement about this vile statement:

Mr. Halloran’s outrageous comments are a new low, even by the standards of the New Hampshire Democrat Party,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “His publicly stated death wish for Governor Palin and her family is abhorrent, and has no place in our public discourse. Governor Lynch and Ann McLane Kuster need to immediately denounce Mr. Halloran’s hateful remarks and demand that he personally apologize to the Palin family

As of this moment there has been no reaction from the New Hampshire Democrat party or Governor John Lynch. The Republican party has asked the governor to denounce Halloran’s comment, but in my opinion we all know that there is no way in hell that the governor or the Democrat party as a whole agree with such an outrageous and insensitive statement so a denouncement is not necessary. Right?

However, what is necessary is for Governor John Lynch and the New Hampshire Democrat party to call for Keith Halloran to drop out of the race. There is no way that the Democrat party in New Hampshire can tolerate this type of venom from one of its members. To ignore Keith Halloran’s statement in the hope that this controversy will disappear would be to put partizan politics above doing what is right and what is honorable. So while they may not condone the sentiment, they may be willing to overlook it in the hopes that it doesn’t become a black eye for their party in November.

So far the local media–print and electronic–have ignored this story; it appears as if the state Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media are hoping that this story will blow over and that is what I find to be the most deplorable aspect of this story. Perhaps even more deplorable than the original statement itself.

There is no way that Keith Halloran should be allowed to continue to run for office. If he is not asked to quite the race we will see exactly where the state Democrats’ priorities are.

[Ryan Ruck]

Pacific Grove Police: Military Personnel Assaulted At Beach

July 14, 2010

Pacific Grove police officers arrested a 20-year-old man who they say assaulted a group of military students late Tuesday night at Asilomar Beach.

Police said Tyler Tirado, of Monterey, had confronted the group of Defense Language Institute students, called them “baby killers” and struck a 20-year-old woman in the head with a beer bottle.

Officers responded around 11:50 p.m. on the 1800 block of Sunset Drive to reports of a woman with a one-inch cut to her scalp.

The victim and about a dozen of her friends, police said, were gathering on Asilomar Beach when they were confronted by another group who began making derogatory comments towards them.

To avoid any further altercation, officials said, the DLI student started to leave the beach.

As the victim’s group left, police said, Tirado threw a beer bottle and struck the woman. She was taken to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula where she required staples to close the wound.

Using previous mug shots, Cmdr. John Miller said, Tirado was identified in a photo lineup as the suspect.

Police arrested Tirado around 9:30 a.m. today in Monterey. He was booked into the Monterey County Jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and assault on military personnel. His bail is set at $30,000.