Rightank

Check out this cartoon. Down with the Main Stream Media (”MSM”)!!!

The ACLU’s fight against the Patriot Act is kicking into full swing now that some of the provisions are up for renewal this legislative session.

Laura Murphy, ACLU Patriot-hater, decries the Patriot Act as “controversial.” It’s controversial only because it makes it easier to incarcerate and prosecute terrorists before they strike.

Interestingly, Murphy lauds the efforts of 371 communities and 4 state legislatures (Hmmm, let me guess: New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont) who have passed resolutions demanding the Patriot Act be “fixed.” Murphy crows that 56 million Americans (371 communities plus 4 state legislatures) support fixing the Patriot Act. Is it just me, or are there almost 5 times as many Americans who do not support (in a representative, not personal way) revising the Patriot Act and actually may even support it? Four state legislatures are a far cry from 50. Fifty-six million are a far cry from 300 million. Reversing the ACLU’s minority-first logic, a super-majority of both Americans and state legislatures like the Patriot Act and support its use in fighting and conducting the War on Terror.

But that doesn’t matter to the ACLU. The ACLU is anti-majoritarian, anti-democratic, and advocates the oppression of the majority because of the choices of a minority. Their fight against the Patriot Act (A stands for Ashcroft) is another example of their Wacko advocacy.

Looks like ex-CNN executive Eason Jordan liked notoriously-fat North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Il so much that he gave him a gift. Perhaps, a lifetime membership to the ACLU?

On a serious note, the situation in North Korea is perplexing. Sure, North Korea has nukes. So what? That’s like hearing the news that North Korea is starving its people (which it is).

The question is: Will China step up to the plate? Answer: probably not. The Chinese seem to be doing whatever they want, whenver they want. The Chinese are still miffed that we recognize Taiwan as a country and are beside themselves that we actually help the Taiwanese out.

The real danger is not if North Korea will unleash a nuke on America (or any other nation-state), but, if North Korea would sell the nuclear arm to Al-Qaeda or another radical terrorist organization bent on harming us or our allies. Can we coerce Dictator Jong-Il to destroy his nukes? Probably not. Perhaps the best strategy would be to bait Dictator Jong-Il with food and other substance (which would hopefully aid the impoverished North Koreans) until we help South Korea peform an old-fashioned (but highly effective) coup d’etat. The U.S. can’t wait until Jong-Il dies. Hopefully, Condi can craft the the plan to ousting Jong-Il. But, will the State Department help Condi or 8-ball her . . . for our sake, I hope the State Department elite are not pool sharks.

A new site launched by David Horowitz and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture called discoverthenetwork.org:

“[Discoverthenetwork.org] is a “‘Guide to the Political Left.’” It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left’s (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.”

I’m sure they’ll be tasty tidbits unearthed on Wackos by DTN.org. I can’t wait.

The Left always complains about how the Right accuses them of being unpatriotic. The Left whines incessantly, claiming that undermining the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq is the same as geniune disagreement with the war and the Bush Administration that directs the war effort.

Well, get this. Since 1978, Yale Law School (”YLS”) has prohibited military recruiters from accessing their Career Development Office on the law campus because the military’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with regard to homosexuality violates the Non-Discrimination Policy promulgated by the Yale Faculty.

Because YLS was not alone in enforcing the pedadogy of military discrimination, Congress passed what is known as the Solomon Amendment, which forces the government to deny funds to institutions of higher education that prevent military recruting on campus. Eventually, the Department of Defense told Yale Law School to either let the military come on campus or we’ll instruct the Department of Education to withhold all federal money given to Yale University ($300 million). After temporarily complying, Yale Law School sued because the military’s policy is hurtful to gays and they cry on their pillow all night long and quiver at the thought of the military being on campus because anyone with camoflauge pants makes them feel yucky inside.

On January 31, 2005, Judge Janet Hall ruled that Yale could keep their Non-Discriminatory Policy and still keep their federal funds even though the Solomon Amendment is constitutional, it’s just not constitutional enough (i.e., not fair) for Yale Law School to be punished financially for thier vallant stand against the U.S. military.

Yale’s reasons for denying the military access are two-fold (apart from the free speech concerns of a Yale prof., but, forget about that theoretical hogwash):

1. YLS would be teaching contrary to its principles of gay love.
2. YLS could not ban all hateful messages that discriminate from the babyish ears and feelings of the Yale Law student and create a gay-friendly environment.

So, Yale ends up semi-victorious, in the sense YLS is allowed to use the Non-Discrimination Policy to foster a friendly academic environment. However, are the YLS faculty a bunch of discriminators? To put it another way, isn’t YLS selectively discriminating when they exclude the military from recruiting on-campus? Further, is YLS using the military’s stance (justifiably so) that discourages homosexuals from enlisting an cover to object to the use of military force in general?

It is really abhorrent that the miltary is selectively tarnished and actively fought against at our Nation’s law schools. Hopefully, this ruling (1) does not stand and (2) is not replicated by other schools who love to coddle with the gay activists and actively promote their radical agenda.

Attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted of giving material support to terrorists (among other hobbies) when she passed messages from everyone’s favorite blind terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman (he masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing).

My take: Good riddance. If you assist a terrorist, you become one yourself. So, congratulations on becoming the first female terrorist convicted in the United States. You supported our enemy, now join ‘em.

The Washington Times today highlighted one of the areas where the our nation’s morals are being barbarously attacked by the gay activists: our public schools.

Apparently, a Virginia county school board has approved of a sex-education curriculum where students are told that (1) Homosexuality is not a choice and (2) Same-sex couples are families just like heterosexual couples are families.

First, the premise that one is homosexual by default at birth is at worst a lie and at best an unproven theory trumpeted by gays and gay-friendlies to justify their deviant sexual preference. I highly doubt such a disclaimer is added when the instructor is “teaching” the students.

Second, the idea that gay and lesbian couples are a family is fiction masquerading as truth. Family can only be created by the union of husband and wife to create a child. Another other hetro offshoot, (e.g., single mother/father and kids) are not a true family, in the sense that one of the sexes (male or female) is missing. The Oxford American Dictionary (1980) defines a family as “parents and their children.” Not one parent and their children, but both parents and both parents children. Homosexual relationships (not matter how loving or how committed) do not fit within the definition of family. Homosexuals could try make up their own word for their types of relationships, but, just like marriage, family excludes non-hetero relationships.

Advocates for Youth is the organization responsible for urging the school board to add the gay propaganda. It seems that not only are they pro-gay, but anti-abstinence, and pro-abortion. Their organization sounds more like Advocates for Sexual Liberation and Moral Equivalency, rather than for the youth of our nation. Maybe their motto should be: Spreading promiscuity, one kid at a time.

Whether or not the public schools can withstand the barrage of gay zealotry and moral relativism preached by Advocates and other organizations remains to be seen. The attempted homosexualization of our youth is a clear and present danger–and one step closer to the gay activists ultimate goal: the homosexualization of our Nation, including children. Let us not trod down this fateful path.

Discriminatory and mean-spirited. That’s what the ACLU name-callers are labeling Senator Wayne Allard’s introduction of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Why is it discriminatory and mean-spirited? Because it protects traditional marriage of course, and makes the spongy squarepantzed families cry on their pillows all night long because they are not given the protections of marriage they deserve(?) because they love one another and are committed.

The ACLU disguises the truth behind America’s support for traditional marriage when it claims that most Americans support marriage or civil union protections for gay couples. The ACLU cites no factual information supporting their assertion . . . hmmm, I wonder why not? A National Exit Poll (NEP) taken on Election Day 2004 (p. 28 of AEI Study) showed that only 25 percent polled thought gays should be able to marry while 35 percent viewed civil unions as the appropriate gay status and 37 percent said gays and lesbian squarepantzed couples should have no legal recognition. What the ACLU did is add up 25 plus 35 = 60 and now claim Americans give their stamp of approval for gay marriage or gay marriage lite (civil unions). However, if you separate the gay marriage/civil unions question, then Americans overwhelmingly do not support gay marriage. For example, a Gallup poll taken in May 2004 found that 62 percent of Americans felt that gay marriage should not be recognized and only 32 percent felt that gay marriage should be legal (p. 21 of AEI Study). Gotcha.

The ACLU also is quick is usurp the “conservative values of federalism and limited government” when their activist aims like nationalized same-sex marriage are benefited from their application. Also, it is interesting to note that they laud Republicans, including the VP and McCain, who do not support the MPA and speak for them when describing their motives for non-support as derived from these conservative ideals. However, federalism and limited government are just useful facades masking their real interests in refusing to support traditional marriage.

Nice try ACLU. You can’t pawn your lies about traditional marriage, at least, on my watch.

Apparently, Judge Ling-Cohan’s opinion thrusting gay marriage upon New York contradicts three previous New York state court rulings.

Gays in New York City gleefully celebrated a judge’s decision today that found that the state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the New York state constitution.

Judge Doris Ling-Cohan harps on history of miscegnation and slobbers over herself to describe the “loving” relationships of the gays who sued the State of New York in their fight for “equality.” Particularly, the judge uses an example of two lesbians who have lived together and are currently raising a child (yuck!), which she describes as a “momentous responsibility” (note to Judge: the responsibility to raise is a child is that of a man and woman, not of two women or two men).

The Judge, in laying out the facts of the case, plays a familiar gay-friendly tune: If you can be a parent then you should be able to marry (”same sex couples can establish committed, loving relationships and can be fine parents”). Citing Goodridge, the Masschusetts decision gave our Nation gay marriage, the Judge found that marriage is a right, not a privilege given by the State, and as such, shouldn’t be denied to those who desire to choose who they would marry.

Carefully framing the argument to choice, the Judge makes the radical and revisionist leap toward gay marriage: (1) Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that said states cannot criminalize sodomous activity (i.e., loving relationships), says that traditional state mores are irrelevant in deciding whether a particular activity is constitutional then according to the esteemed Judge (2) “It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving [gays] of their right to choose their spouse.” How disgusting. So, basically the Judge is saying that morals of the State do not matter when it comes to the “rights” of gays to marry. But, there’s more tortured logic. The Judge also discounts traditional marriage between man and woman b/c of the millions of lesbian mothers raising children (no citation of any supporting evidence for “millions”) and because lesbians can raise children, then they should be allowed to marry (note to Judge: a gay couple rearing a child is not an “optimal relationship” for that child).

Also, the Judge enthusiastically pens that because there are alot of gays in New York and more busloads to come, that it would be “irrational and perserve” to deny them the benefits of marriage. Relying on the Twin Towers of polygamy and bi-racial marriage, the Judge concludes that marriage is an “evolving” institution and was never intended to describe an exclusive bond between one man and one woman.

The final bit of absurdity (redefinition of marriage):

“Marriage, as it is understood today, is both a partnership of two loving equals who choose to commit themselves to each other and a State institution designed to promote stability for the couple and their children.”

Under this definition of marriage, not only can two gays marry, but three gays, brother and sister, or any such combination would be allowed to marry. How nice.

We, as a Nation, should be very aware and cognizant of the activist Judge’s arguments and gay activists who feed the black-robed mouth. Although this decision is appealable, it continues a disturbing trend of legal decisions that rely on evolving judical sentiment rather than the laws of the land that were established to protect marriage and not redefine it.