Sally Kern Returns To Blame America’s ‘Economic Woes’ On ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ And ‘Abortion’
Sally Kern Returns To Blame America’s ‘Economic Woes’ On ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ And ‘Abortion’
Last year, Oklahoma state legislator Sally Kern (R) drew well-deserved criticism for an outlandish rant against the gay community, in which she compared homosexuality to “toe cancer” and said “it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.” “Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country,” said Kern. Listen here:
Though activists responded to her comments with protests, Oklahoma conservatives rallied around her, saying that they “stand with and support Sally.” Now, Kern is back, once again sparking controversy for her attacks on the LGBT community.
Kern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery”:
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;
Though Kern denies that her proclamation is timed to coincide with gay pride celebrations across the country, critics say otherwise. Kern’s proclamation specifically criticizes President Obama for recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month. “Whereas, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior,” reads the proclamation.
Watch an Oklahoma News 9 report on Kern’s proclamation:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I wasn’t aware that we lived in a theocracy. These people seem to really need something or someone to fear. Must suck to be them. Always afraid.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:07 amJust your standard every day run of the mill compassionately conservative “christian.” Next.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:07 amConfessions of a Wall Street Banker…you know i wouldn’t have leveraged the crap out of the company with sub prime assets, if I wasn’t watching porn on the internet,and fearing my marriage would crumble, because the two guys on the fourth floor were wanting to get married…
June 30th, 2009 at 10:08 amThe problems in this country are legion. We are on the verge of collapse with our burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, gridlocked freeways, ridiculous pay inequities, and most of all our changing climate which may very well do us all in.
But these sorts need to focus on the intimate lives of a minority group who happened to be born different than themselves.
They have no shame.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:08 amA whole nation just sits and waits for these old bigots to die off.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:10 amI can’t decide whether to be amused or annoyed by Sally Kern. The idea that this kind of resolution would do anything is comical. However, it is always disturbing when a lawmaker feels the need to single out a minority for special censure. Ultimately, I am confident that our nation will see fit to embrace civil rights over the small minded bigotry of Sally Kern and her ilk.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:10 am“Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country,” said Kern.
Idiot
Homosexuality and the Ancient Greeks
June 30th, 2009 at 10:10 amI find it ironic that a supposed (c)hristian utters such nonsense of hate and prejudice, when Christ himself said we should LOVE our neighbor.
Maybe teaching LOVE, RESPECT, and ACCEPTANCE would make our nation a better country, no?
Besides, homosexuality and abortions did not cause our current economic woes. Everyone knows that the only negative effect they had was causing the Lions dismal 0-16 record last year.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:14 amSeriously.
Look it up.
It’s fact!
That stupid cow is the personification of the dangerous mix of politics and religion rampant within the repiggie ranks.
By the way, history has shown countless times the danger of enshrining religious dogma as civil law. One need only look at the freak show in the Middle East these days. Poor Iran is suffering horribly because of the theocratic monster.
Please, gentle readers, continue to vote against any repiggie, even for local office.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:15 amThey are all in on the idea of an evangelical theocracy in this nation. They nearly got one during the Bush/Cheney regnum.
Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country, said Kern
Ironically enough, the same studies have shown that no society that has TOTALLY embraced heterosexuality has lasted more than, ya know, a few decades.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:17 amShe’s ugly.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:17 amFunny, I thought our economics problems resulted from greed. That greed was tolerated and even fostered by an abdication of regulatory authority by the federal government. That federal government was in the hands of a Republican Party dominated by a voting block dominated by fear, prejudice, ignorance and superstition, i.e. by people like Sally Kern. Go condemn yourself Sally.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:17 amThat woman seriously needs the help of gay boys with her “look.”
Holy rollerism is tough on the body.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:19 amI noticed adultery was not in there. Considering that is one of the original Ten Commandments and homosexuality is not, I propose that we add that unless, of course, that would disqualify most of the family values A-hole crowd. Just sayin.
Oh, and Sally. GO F-k yourself. You could use it.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:23 amI wonder if her own husband has a honey stash on the side. So many older repiggies do. It helps to relieve the stress of having to defend the “sanctity of traditional marriage” day in and day out.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:27 amI guess I’m really tiring of both the MSM and the leftosphere focusing more on conservatives than progressives. Really, who are we to blame for right wing domination of the airwaves? When we get our own publishing tools we do the same damn thing!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:27 amWhat these people call “Christianity” is just becoming a bizarre millenial sex-and-death cult. They’re less rational and more dangerous than Scientology by now.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:28 ampromoting abortion? Um, no…promoting Choice. Look it up, there’s a difference.
pornography? See Utah for that issue. They seem to be the current record holders, those Godly people!
same sex marriage? Iowa seems to be doing just fine, thank you very much!
sex trafficking? I HATE when I get stuck in a sex traffic jam on the way to my divorce.
illegitimate births? Ms. Palin would like a word with you in Alaska.
child abuse? Whereas there no direct corelation between this and the demise of the economy, props to you for being SO all-inclusive.
many other forms of debauchery? Your concern has been forwarded to Mssrs. Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Gingrich, McCain, Limbaugh, et al.
Thank you for playing, Ms. Kern…we have some love parting gifts.
Now, GTFO.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:31 amOklahoma is OK as long as you are an intolerant, prudish and self-righteous religous fanatic with sadistic voyueristic tendencies and the guns to back it up. I’m calling my travel agency right away to book ” a ticket to paradise” and I’m sure there will be 70 virgins available for my pleasure if I just follow God’s plan here in America.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:32 amWHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moron crisis; and
WHEREAS, this State of Oklahoma has become a world leader in promoting stupidity, ignorance, theocracy, reactionary ideology, greed, and many other forms of mendacity;
We demand that Texas take these idiots with them when they secede. Which, by the way, they are taking their own sweet time doing after all the threats and bloviation. Just go!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:32 amsex trafficking? I HATE when I get stuck in a sex traffic jam on the way to my divorce.
Especially when behind you is a big fat cigar smoking insecure white guy in a hummer!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:33 amevangenital says: That woman seriously needs the help of gay boys with her “look.”
How can she be taken seriously by the other holy roller ladies without some Vestal Goodman style high hair?
After all, the higher the hair, the closer to god, right?
June 30th, 2009 at 10:33 amOddly the newscasters seemed to be mocking her. I don’t believe they do the same to Michelle Bachmann but they should.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:34 amYeah doodlebug, this woman is giving Bachman a run for her money in the batsh!t crazy competition…
June 30th, 2009 at 10:36 amWHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;
“Promoting” abortion is a fallacy.
We all know which states are the largest consumers of pornography.
This nation is leader a “leader” in same-sex marriage. Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain, even repressive ol’ South Africa do so on a national scale and have for years.
I don’t know about “sex trafficking” but as far as divorce goes, once again, red states generally have higher divorce rates than blue states.
In fact, red states lead the nation in out-of-wedlock births and births to teen mothers as well.
Now… let’s talk about the direct causal connection between these “moral failings” and the collapse of the housing market, the job market, manufacturing and overall prosperity engineered by Republican George W. Bush…
June 30th, 2009 at 10:37 amSorry… that should be “this nation is HARDLY a leader in same-sex marriage”.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:38 amHow many babies has that abortion foe adopted?
Zero…
Just like so many evangelicaloids…
They can’t walk their own talk.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:39 amThat’s right, gay marriage destroys traditional marriage.
And Gay Divorce destroys traditional divorce!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:39 am“Studies show that no society that has continuously re-elected do-nothing, know-nothing one-issue zealots like me has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country,” said Kern.
There. Fixed it for ya, Sally old girl!
Fortunately, Silly Sally is a state legislator so maybe just Oklahoma will implode. Oh, yeah, I forgot . . . Bimbo Bachmann, Chinless Mitch, Wailing Johnny Boehner, I’m-an-idiot Inhofe . . .
June 30th, 2009 at 10:39 amPsychoChristians are beset with deep moral issues.
They blame those around them for their own inadequacies, yet feel righteous enough to judge others.
Ironically, they ignore scriptures in the Name of scripture.
Look what Theocracy has done in Iran. Do we want this in America?
Our Forefathers wisely separated Church & State. PsychoChristians want to upend that.
gummble-bee-itch, I support your resolution and 2nd that notion!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:40 amIncidentally, folks, one of the links I found notes that Oklahoma ranks fifth in the nation in per capita divorce rate. Right behind Nevada (natch), Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama.
And the link is FROM the state of Oklahoma.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:41 amWill she be getting her own show on FoxNews?
She is just the sort of cretin that they hire to host talk shows.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:41 amGeez, my computer seriously “bogs” down and is extremely slow on this thread.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:43 amBut just this one. Others are fine.
Anyone else?
Twitching and writhing
June 30th, 2009 at 10:44 amDragged from caverns of darkness
Pink, sightless wigglers
Well here’s and ABSOLUTE NOBODY on the political landscape – probably someone most in her own state cannot identify by first and last name.
Glad to see you are starting the parade of ignorance by featuring irrelevant backwash.
Heaven forbid we actually communicate about people and issues that face the rest of America!!!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:46 amOklahoma leads or is at the top of every one of those debacharies. They won’t allow same-sex marriage, but OK has one of the highest percent of gays in the country.
With all the religious nuts, if her words had any truth, Oklahoma would be rank lowest in crime rate, teen births, etc.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:47 amAnother batshit crazy official who people actually voted for. Amazing. Way to go OK.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:50 amAt least Mark Sanford is doing his part to recuscitate the economy with no less than two current heterosexual relationships. If one of his sons knocks up his girlfriend, we’d really be in business.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:51 amralph the wonder locust Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:51 amOkie is also 5th in online porn subscriptions.
how in the hell can this Christin Terrorist say, she “understands the separation of church and state?”
June 30th, 2009 at 10:55 amThe biggest threats to the country are the fear mongers and the radical right wing, not gay marriages and abortion. They need to create an enemy so that they can cover up the fact that they crave power and control over the people. The fear mongers and neocons would prefer to reduce civil liberties to maintain their power while extolling the benefits of a sham democracy.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:58 amEvangelicals could not do a better job of destroying any appeal their religion might have by turning out “graduates” like Sally Kern, Mark Sanford and Ralph Reed.
Has that whole cult been taken over by the monumentally stupid and nasty?
They have fled as a whole to the far ‘burbs because of the non-white “menace”
they encountered in the cities.
That cult lacks basic human decency and civility. Their is no evidence of the kindness and unqualified love of Jesus, according to their own scriptures.
That whole cult has overdosed on the crazy pill.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:58 amIs this woman for real??? Blaming our economic woes on gay marriage and abortion….really??? Why I had no idea that the banksters and crooksters on Wall Street were into gay marriage and having abortions? Bastards!
How quaint of this nutbag to use the two popular wedge issues of the religious right as the sole blame for our country’s economic woes…phuckin’ brilliant!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:58 amI’m pretty sure gay people in Oklahoma know who she is. But if this post makes you unhappy maybe you should skip it.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:00 amPlease President Obama, if you really want to save our country you need to push a bill that makes it illegal and punishable by death for republicans to breed.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:00 amThis kind of strikes me as less of saying how important she thinks teh gays are as of saying how unimportant she thinks all of the other problems facing America are. Yet another Republican official neglecting their duty…
June 30th, 2009 at 11:01 amHonestly folks, keep in mind that Sally Kern, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson (list too long to complete) are not representative of the Christian faith but the right wing. I get tired of having to defend my faith by saying “I am not one of them”. I mean really, the same people who are constantly busting on Christianity because of obnoxiously pious A-holes like the ones mentioned above are intelligent enough not to group all Muslims in the terrorist category. True believers are more likely to fall into a more moderate social and political standard. And “YES” some of us are very liberal, so will you lay off the “All Christians are right wing nut jobs” noise.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:02 amLike I’ve always said. The republican party is the party of family values….the Charles Manson family values.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:03 amI agree bsober! Just as there are extremists in the Muslim religion there are also extremists in the Christian religion. Which ones are more dangerous to our country?
June 30th, 2009 at 11:04 am“WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis…”
____________________________________________________________
Let’s see, the “sins” outlined in this ridiculous proclamation are responsible for our economic woes. Even more so than greed, deregulation, elected officials bought and paid for by well-funded special interest groups, etc.
Does Sally Kerns realize that many of these “sins” are illegal? Or at least illegal in Oklahoma?
Let’s look at them.
Abortion — Oklahoma currently has some of the most restrictive laws against abortion in the entire country. And even abortions that can’t be made illegal (first trimester procedures protected by Roe v. Wade) are discouraged to the point where women seeking them generally go elsewhere.
Pornography — Cannot find current pornography laws for Oklahoma, except that child pornography is illegal (as it is everywhere), and some new legislation is in the works to ban video games with suggestive themes.
Same-sex marriage — illegal in Oklahoma.
Sex trafficking — illegal in Oklahoma (and everywhere else).
Divorce — presumably legal in Oklahoma, but don’t know how difficult to obtain. Oklahoma is no Nevada, though.
Illegitimate births — probably as prevalent in Oklahoma as anywhere else. Maybe even more so, when you consider the difficulty of obtaining an abortion.
Child abuse — presumably as illegal in Oklahoma as it is everywhere else.
Many other forms of debauchery — too vague to analyze.
So looking at Oklahoma, one can surmise they have done what they reasonably can to make illegal (or unobtainable) that which they consider to be morally incorrect. Therefore, since there’s a direct link between “morality” and the economy, Oklahoma should be booming — right? They should be receiving all the benefits of God’s favor right about now while the rest of the country is collectively wailing and gnashing their teeth.
Except that Oklahoma is kind of in the middle of the pack when it comes to home foreclosures, and doing only slightly better than the rest of the country when it comes to unemployment (in fact, Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — has a lower unemployment rate than Oklahoma). However, Oklahoma makes up for their lower unemployment rate by having a HIGHER rate of residents who have no health insurance than the national average.
Does Kerns have any economic indicators that show a connection between celibacy (which is what she’s really going for here) and economic prosperity? Anywhere in Oklahoma? Anywhere in the country?
Sally Kerns really needs to sit down, shut up, and keep her sex obsession to herself.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:08 amTo be fair just remember the Nazis had their Jews to blame for all the world’s problems so the Christian Fundies, in order to keep up, have the gays.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am“Kern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery””
i agree!
June 30th, 2009 at 11:12 amthe goddamn republican party is destroying america!
If this woman wants to use the Bible as a standard, then I’d like to see her submit to her husband, which the Bible calls for.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:12 am‘I’ve never had fun, never been happy, never been laid and so because I’m getting to the age where none of these things are ever likely to happen (especially since I try so hard to keep it that way), I’m going to pee in everybody else’s punch bowl.’
(Excerpt from Sally Kern’s diary)
June 30th, 2009 at 11:13 amShayne, I’m beginning to think Another Joe’s last name is Lieberman.
Same kind of sanctimonious scold, same delight in demonstrating how “independent” he is.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:14 amAJ hasn’t figured it out yet. He’s being gaslighted.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:20 amThose who obsess over societal decline often cause more harm than the claimed concept of societal decline. However, since Kern’s bigotry is based from non-factual right-wing “concerns”, the harm-to-worry ratio is 100 to 0.
I can see it now: A madman taken into custody after yet ANOTHER extremist shooting, yelling “I had to do it for the morality of America!” He will cite Kern’s words, which Kern will deny, continuing to use those same words without regard for the consequences. A tragic prediction, but entirely possible.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:21 amtoe cancer?! Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha…..
Please save us from the Okies. Calling Oral Roberts…this is planet zoom zoom….return home now….commander Sally Kern has arrived to relieve you….
June 30th, 2009 at 11:22 amDoes this Entire Month of Immoral Behaviour come with a party, cause I’m there!
June 30th, 2009 at 11:22 amHoodathunktick, Sally does look pretty butch, maybe that’s where all her bottled up hostility comes from.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:22 amHopefully when Texas secedes they’ll take Oklahoma with them.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:23 amIt amazes me how intolerant supposed ‘religious’ people really are. My question to them is WHO APPOINTED YOU JUDGE AND JURY?
June 30th, 2009 at 11:25 amGod is the ONLY one that has the right to judge. Humans are imperfect and therefore should not judge others.
Kern is a bigot, a homophobe, & a moron. With insane statements such as this, she should only appear on Fox “news”, where truth & sense are never necessary.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am“Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country,” said Kern
Thats funny, we in Canada have legalized same sex marriage four years ago and to this point, the only thing that has disrupted Canadian life is the US fiancial institutions and a capitalistic US society. Other then that, we have the murder rates (500 on average through out the entire county), same divorce rates, same amount of pot smokers, same amount of attendance at the Toronto gay pride parade (over 1million), same SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE…etc.
I just laugh…thank god all the wacko’s are south of our border…..lol.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amStupid Cow sez: WHEREAS, we believe…
There’s your problem, Sally. Believe all you want, but keep it to yourself. Kthnxbai.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:29 amI personally don’t care what two consenting adults do. But to slap the label of marriage on it is just wrong. We have lost our morals as a nation and in doing so go against everything the framers of our Constitution stood for and everything generations of Americans died for.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:31 amI think people should flood her email message page with their reactions to her hate spewing crap….
http://repsallykern.com/html/contact.php
June 30th, 2009 at 11:32 amjrzguy Says:
I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do. But to slap the label of marriage on it is just wrong. We have lost our morals as a nation and in doing so go against everything the framers of our Constitution stood for and everything generations of Americans died for.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Yeah right, thanks for your concern.
I’m sure the families of the troops in Iraq really appreciate that their loved ones died, or were maimed for life, for the sake of war profits.
I have a moral problem with that, do you?
June 30th, 2009 at 11:35 ambsober,
I don;t want to get into an argument, byut by the same token you could lay off painting with such a broad brush yourself then, and lay-off inventing quotes.
Sorry you feel your faith has been hijacked ( which it has obviously) but that’s the nature of these things. Every time you label yourself a Christian you inadvertently allow nutjobs like Kerns and Haggard and Roberston and Bachman so forth count YOU as part of their lunatic fold, because THEY demand and get attention.
Is there anything you can do about it? Well maybe you should pray to God and Jesus for some assistance?
And if you don’t think that will actually work, well then I;d guess you a more of a philosophical Christian than a religious one, in which case maybe you rethink how you identify yourself—after all, Christ’s overarching philosophy is the opposite of “God’s” isn’t it? But Christ and God are one and the same aren’t they?
If Christianity is more of a private philosophy for you rather than an identification with organized religion why should anyone else care from what source you derive tolerance and consideration and morality, as long as you are tolerant and considerate of others?
I for one don’t depend on some 2,009 year-old supernatural to inform MY social behavior—it all seems pretty self-evident to me. If however you need the inspiration of some super-being to act like a human being, go ahead, but don;t complain about ill treatment by others when you insist on identifying yourself with a concept that is universally understood to be an undemocratic institution that demands that the ultimate arbiter and judge of human affairs is an invisible creature.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am“Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country,” said Kern
Well, duh, I guess if a society like TOTALLY embraced homosexuality, there would like, you know, be no one engaging in heterosexuality and, you know, there would be like no children and in like four or five decades, there would no longer be a society left, you know.
Sally from the Valley Kern, you are a fool.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:43 amI’d comment on this “lady,” but I’m perusing my newest Playboy.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:44 amtony and lido
jrzguy Says:
I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do. But to slap the label of marriage on it is just wrong. We have lost our morals as a nation and in doing so go against everything the framers of our Constitution stood for and everything generations of Americans died for.
So allowing a few thousand people equal rights is just wrong? And allowing financial institutions to rape, pillage and plunder the funds given to them in good faith is moral? Invading another country, killing thousands on lies is moral? Denying health care to people because they can’t afford to feed the ticks in the health insurance industry is moral?
Obviously, you confuse moral with money. Easily understood since they both begin with m.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:45 amI think we ought to make it a condition of secession.
if they want to go, they have to take their cousins with ‘em.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:48 amSally? Sally Kern? Is that you?
June 30th, 2009 at 11:50 amWe have lost our morals as a nation and in doing so go against everything the framers of our Constitution stood for and everything generations of Americans died for.
Well, another Republican swami, who knows all, and tells just the side of the story that validates his worldview. Imagine that.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:51 amWHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;
So drug and alcohol abuse are now in the also ran column? For Oklahoma that’s true, I guess.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:53 amjrzguy Says:
I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do. But to slap the label of marriage on it is just wrong.
I totally agree. Let’s start a campaign to slap a new label, say “mastermating”, on what consenting heterosexual adults do.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:53 ambsober, when I see the ‘real’ Christians stand up and live their faith, tell the whackadoo types who can’t seem to grasp the concept that Jesus and the NT was meant to supplant the old vengeful God stuff, when I see any portion of Christianity come forward and take umbrage of the hijacking of a sound philosophy by the control freaks, I will not only breath a sigh of relief, I will fall over dead from a shock induced heart attack.
I figure it will happen when the aliens bring Elvis back.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:54 amKern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery”
The real causes of America’s woes are hypocrites like Kern. She’s probably the biggest freaking whore in town. These holy roller, self-righteous bigots are always judging others. When will they learn to mind their own business and stop mixing their crazy religious beliefs with politics?
June 30th, 2009 at 11:54 amI feel like I’m in a time warp. She sound like Phyllis Schlafly or something. Ugh.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:55 amJust stay the phuck outta Okie-dumb.
Leave ‘em to stew in their misanthropic, xenophobic, flying Monkey/Wackloon, anti-intellectual, in-bred genetic stew.
If I 40 didn’t go through it, I’d be able to avoid it forever, which would be my choice…
Oh, my yess. I lived there. I spent 30 years in Norman, between 1994 and 2000…
June 30th, 2009 at 11:55 amHoodathunktick Says: when I see any portion of Christianity come forward and take umbrage of the hijacking of a sound philosophy by the control freaks, I will not only breath a sigh of relief, I will fall over dead from a shock induced heart attack.
Do I need to stop posting? I’d hate to be the cause of your demise and loss to the TP community, hoodathnktick.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:56 amOklahoma has to be one of the few states that make the legs in Florida seem sane.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:56 amOklahoma…..where the nuts roam free.
tony and lido
AlphaLiberal Says:
I guess I’m really tiring of both the MSM and the leftosphere focusing more on conservatives than progressives. Really, who are we to blame for right wing domination of the airwaves? When we get our own publishing tools we do the same damn thing!
Ok then. How about you post evidence of progressives doing wingnut things like this woman is doing. I would be interested in hearing about it.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:56 amWe lose our “morals” as a nation when we cause stupid wars everywhere and allow for the torture of “suspects” detained by our government. We lose our “morals” as a nation when we allow some of our fellow citizens to go without food, shelter and basic medical care, while further rewarding the rich and powerful with even more cash and financial assets.
What is it about that lack of morality that the holy rollers just don’t see?
By the way, I have no problem with whatever adult holy rollers do in the privacy of their own megachurches. I just don’t want the label NORMAL AMERICAN slapped on it.
My father and my uncles and some of my aunts served in the military during the Second World War in order to stop the onward crush of German and Japanese totalitarianism, not to keep hetero marriage intact.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am“Studies show that threads that totally embrace homosexuality get very bogged down.”
June 30th, 2009 at 11:59 amKern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery”:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm—————————————————————
Ms.Kern did you know that 8 of the top 10 states for divorce are RED states and that RED states also lead the country in porn purchased on the internet and that the great state of UTAH leads the nation in money spent on internet PORN.Your Hypocrisy knows no end from you and your Reich wing nuts that spew forth your hate and bigotry.Get a life or crawl back to the swamps you Reich wing nuts came from and leave us to our progressive ideals.
did anybody mention that laggin Sally’s got a gay son?
just askin’
June 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pmNo, PLC. I have my nitro pills. Hyperbole is dangerous. I know there are good Christians out there. I just wish they would do more to counter balance the Xtian types.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:11 pmPlease explain to me how gays & marriage has caused this economic mess we are in when they pay their taxes and have jobs and spend their money just like everyone else who works and contributes to society.They don`t have cooties and don`t forget your very own Log Cabin republicans who for the likes of of me I`ll never understand their conservative politics, but hey to each their own.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pmWhat poor parenting skills did Sally and her Baptism minister husband use that made their son CHOOSE to be gay? Obviously, they are to blame, right?
June 30th, 2009 at 12:17 pmArticle says they disowned him.
With a fine, upstanding example of womanhood like Sally for a mother, I would think they would be glad he stayed in species.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pmI personally find her behavior “immoral” – do I need issue a proclamation of her ignorance?
June 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pmAB, How do these MAROONS get elected? Do their constituents wear really tight TIN hats?
June 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pmbsober Says:
Honestly folks, keep in mind that Sally Kern, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson (list too long to complete) are not representative of the Christian faith but the right wing. I get tired of having to defend my faith by saying “I am not one of them”.
You are correct that many people are characterizing all Christians as conservative evangelicals. There are many other Christians that have distanced themselves from the views of the conservatives. Unfortunately, these conservatives are the most vocal in the political arena while the moderates are largely ignored by the media. There are many Christians that are out in the real world practicing their faith by deeds rather than pronouncements like the self-appointed conservative leaders. These conservative evangelicals represent the views of many people but not the majority of Christians or even the country. However, these conservatives have found it very financially profitable to espouse their views in the public arena.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pmjrzguy Says
June 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
“I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do.”
– Good. Neither do I. Neither do most of us.
“But to slap the label of marriage on it is just wrong.”
– Well, yes. There are many things consenting adults do that don’t qualify as “marriage”. One night stands, beer-goggle liaisons, cheating on your spouse by boinking co-workers, cruising restrooms for anonymous sex — these don’t qualify as “marriage” by anybody’s definition. But two consenting adults who want to commit themselves to each other in a lifetime monogamous relationship should be entitled to all of the legal rights and responsibilities of such a relationship, whether they are gay or straight. I have no problem calling such an arrangement “marriage” — why do you?
“We have lost our morals as a nation…”
I agree. We have gone from a society that felt an obligation to take care of each other to a society where stomping on your neighbors to get ahead is expected and even admired. We believe we have the right to exhaust the world’s resources just because we’re the biggest bully on the playground. We regard the teachings of Jesus Christ and other religious prophets to be quaint, but not applicable today (except for anything anybody said against sex). And far too many of us obsess about a gay couple in love than we do about crime and greed on Wall Street.
“…and in doing so go against everything the framers of our Constitution stood for…”
– and yet there’s NOTHING in the Constitution about gay sex. You’d think that if our founding fathers felt that fighting a revolution to prevent gay sex was so important, they might have at least mentioned it.
“…and everything generations of Americans died for.”
June 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm– Really? Generations of Americans have died in wars to protect our independence, to preserve our union, to protect our neighboring nations and other nations, to battle political ideologies not consistent with our own, and to ensure a steady supply of oil to our country. And it’s not just the military — many civilians have died in this country fighting for basic civil rights, the right to unionize, and protesting injustice. But I don’t recall “generations of Americans” dying to prevent gay marriage. Perhaps I missed something?
misscoleopteramolly Says: Perhaps I missed something?
Nope, you covered things very well.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:42 pmGah!!! These hateful bigots make me sick. Go home to Jebus, you sanctimonious bag of shite.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pmAt times like this, it’s always helpful to turn to the Bible to see what Christ himself had to say about homosexuality, abortion and pornography.
…
Nothing.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pmWHEREAS, this Publican party has become a world leader in promoting abortion clinic bombings, secret pornography stashes, opposite sex marriage cheating, divorce, Carribean youth sex trafficking, , illegitimate claims of every sort, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery,
it should be outlawed.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pmWhy Annie, you seem to be calling out Darlyy!
June 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pmya think our framers of our consitution did not realize the problems with mixing religion and politics.
the middle east is a classic example of mixing politics and religion.
until we realize that christianity died on the cross nothing much will change in america
atheism can be a religion also.
ouch that hurt many. sorry.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pmThe SNL church lady actually exists in real life!
“can you say….SATAN”
June 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says
“Good. Neither do I. Neither do most of us.”
Well see we have common ground already.
“We regard the teachings of Jesus Christ and other religious prophets to be quaint, but not applicable today (except for anything anybody said against sex). And far too many of us obsess about a gay couple in love than we do about crime and greed on Wall Street.”
Of course you regard religion to be quaint, how else to justify your actions and feel no guilt. I’m not just talking lifestyle, I think you know my opinion on that already. I’m talking about where I society is as a whole. Whose fault is it? Democrats….Republicans? Do you actually think we have gotten to where we are without help from both sides?
“and yet there’s NOTHING in the Constitution about gay sex. You’d think that if our founding fathers felt that fighting a revolution to prevent gay sex was so important, they might have at least mentioned it.”
So you think in your that because the didn’t mention it they gave us all a wink and a nod of silent approval. That’s hilarious. Tell me do you really think they approved of gay marriage?
“But I don’t recall “generations of Americans” dying to prevent gay marriage. Perhaps I missed something?”
No but again you slew the facts. You think young men died in our Nations conflicts to protect a particular lifestyle when there’s nothing further from the truth. I guess you missed a lot!
“There are many things consenting adults do that don’t qualify as “marriage”. One night stands, beer-goggle liaisons, cheating on your spouse by boinking co-workers, cruising restrooms for anonymous sex — these don’t qualify as “marriage” by anybody’s definition. But two consenting adults who want to commit themselves to each other in a lifetime monogamous relationship should be entitled to all of the legal rights and responsibilities of such a relationship, whether they are gay or straight. I have no problem calling such an arrangement “marriage” — why do you?”
yeah actually I do. When two people decide to live in a gay relationship I say, to each his own. When you say, not only will I live this lifestyle, but I expect you to consider it normal, I say…hold on just a minute…religion aside, please don’t expect me to consider it “nomal” it isn’t. Biologically it isn’t normal. And if I consider what marriage is and what the basis for what a normal marriage is (a man and woman need to be there from the start) then a gay relationship falls outside of my definition.
So please don’t give the argument that because people were silent about it in the past that means that it was included all along. That is just a plain lie.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pmSo what? Why do you care what others consider “normal” if you’re as fine with it as you say?
It seems to me that don’t expect me to consider it “nomal” is a weird place to draw the line.
How exactly does it effect your life if two gay men living together simply live together or if they enter into a civil contract that binds their lives and property together in a single family unit and call it “marriage”?
Why is that so much worse than calling it a “civil union”?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pmjrzguy Says:
I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do. But to slap the label of marriage on it is just wrong.
Two alternatives:
1. Marriage is nothing more than a “label” – in that case, merely “slapping labels on” things is not a moral issue, and you are therefore incorrect.
2. Marriage constitutes a set of important civil rights – in that case, it’s immoral and unconstitutional to deny access to it to any group, and you are therefore incorrect.
There is however a third option…
3. Marriage is a religious institution – if that’s the case, then via the 1st Amendment, the government should not be confirming any marriages at all. Convert all current marriages to civil unions and only allow civil unions thereafter for either gay or straight couples. Whether that union gets called a “marriage” or not is solely up to you and your congegration.
If evangelicals were to push for this option, I would support them in doing so. The fact that they do not suggests that they are less interested in “the sanctity of marriage” than in oppressing other groups.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pmThe jury is still out on that one, jrzguy.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html
From a non-scientific standpoint, my gut tells me that not many people are going to “choose” to be gay, considering the stigma and the very real danger that is part and parcel of being gay.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pmjrzguy Says:
When two people decide to live in a gay relationship I say, to each his own. When you say, not only will I live this lifestyle, but I expect you to consider it normal, I say…hold on just a minute…religion aside, please don’t expect me to consider it “nomal” it isn’t.
Please pay close attention:
NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK.
I don’t think we can stress this enough. Nobody is holding you down and giving you noogies until you admit gay marriage is cool. Nobody gives a rodent’s rectum what your personal opinion on it is. Go ahead and grumble about it behind their backs all you damn well please, but give them their legal rights under the Constitution.
I don’t think it’s normal to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. I believe that it’s harmful to society that people are allowed to raise their children to believe ridiculous things like that. However, I also recognize their right in the U.S.A. to do so.
Get the difference now?
.
jrzguy Says:
Biologically it isn’t normal.
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pmWhy do all right-wingnuts claim to be mind-readers? Not only is this one a mind-reader, he is a time traveling mind-reader. That is quite a trick to tell us what someone was thinking over 200 years ago, about something they never discussed.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pmOnce again ElBruce, you have articulated the heart of the matter in a way that really makes me friggin’ jealous…
June 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pmI don’t think it’s normal to be a right-wing, extremist, fundie, closeted gay, homophobe. But, I won’t hold it against you.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pmBilbo:
You misunderstood. I never said this:
Ok then. How about you post evidence of progressives doing wingnut things like this woman is doing.
I was talking about TP highlighting this nutjob and the overall focus we have on such hijinks from the right wing. It’s a pattern that reflects MSM biased coverage of the right far more than the left.
Actually, I thought it was clear when I wrote it the first time.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pmjrzguy Says
June 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“So you think in your that because the didn’t mention it they gave us all a wink and a nod of silent approval. That’s hilarious. Tell me do you really think they approved of gay marriage?”
– I’m saying that whether they personally approved of gay marriage or not is irrelevant. The Constitution doesn’t mention it at all. They did, however, make a fair amount of noise about concepts like “freedom” and “liberty”. YOU’RE the one who made the claim that supporting gay marriage went “against everything the framers of our Constitution stood for”. And you have yet to back that up with anything other than your own imagination.
“No but again you slew the facts. You think young men died in our Nations conflicts to protect a particular lifestyle when there’s nothing further from the truth. I guess you missed a lot!”
– No, you misunderstand my point. I made no such claim that our soldiers died in wars to protect “a particular lifestyle”, just as they didn’t die in wars to condemn or ban that same lifestyle. Again, YOU’RE the one who made the claim that gay marriage goes against “everything generations of Americans died for”. And again, you have nothing to suggest that our military ever fought a battle against homosexuality.
“When two people decide to live in a gay relationship I say, to each his own.”
– You say “decide” as if being gay is a choice. Do you use the word “decide” to describe heterosexual relationships? Or do you recognize that being gay isn’t a choice, but “deciding” not to be celibate and having a committed relationship with someone is? Is this decision-making process the same for straight couples?
“I say…hold on just a minute…religion aside, please don’t expect me to consider it “nomal” it isn’t. Biologically it isn’t normal.”
– To gays, it’s normal. To gays, heterosexuality isn’t normal. Not for them. By the way, did you know the argument you’re trying to make — “it isn’t normal” — was used to establish bans against interracial marriage once upon a time?
“And if I consider what marriage is and what the basis for what a normal marriage is (a man and woman need to be there from the start) then a gay relationship falls outside of my definition.”
– And because this is what you think, you believe gays should just remain celibate. Or in the closet. Or if they want to shack up together, they shouldn’t enjoy any of the legal protections and rights that heterosexuals do. Just because of YOUR beliefs. How would you feel if it was the other way around?
“So please don’t give the argument that because people were silent about it in the past that means that it was included all along. That is just a plain lie.”
– I gave no such argument. I never said that the founding fathers supported gay marriage, and I never claimed our soldiers died for it. I did say that gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) wasn’t an issue when it came to fighting for our independence, establishing our constitution, and fighting in several wars during our history. You’re the one who made claims that the founding fathers and “generations of Americans who died” were against it to the point that it affected their actions. And you have yet to back that up.
No, I doubt anything I say would ever convince you that A) being gay isn’t a choice, that B) gays fall in love and want lifetime committed monogamous relationships just like straights do, that C) there are a host of privileges and protections married couples get with our laws that unmarried couples don’t, and that D) straight marriages don’t break up just because gays marry. You will think what you want to think (and that IS one of the rights you have that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers sacrified for you to have).
But the train’s coming. Canada’s already legalized gay marriage. And straight marriage hasn’t changed up there. A number of U.S. states have legalized gay marriage and it hasn’t triggered Armageddon. There will be more to come. You have the choice of getting on board the train or getting off the tracks to avoid getting run over.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
It seems to me that don’t expect me to consider it “nomal” is a weird place to draw the line.
Why is that? You don’t see a difference between tolerance and acceptance? Not just in this context, but even things in your every day life, there are things that you wouldn’t incorporate into you lifestyle. It could run the whole scale from food to political ideas. Marriage is an institution that is between a man and woman. That is a value set in as much tradition as every religion. And there lies the problem. If you demean tradition and attack religion to the point where it’s “quaint” then the end justifies the means, right? It doesn’t matter what the majority want, just what you want. That is in a nutshell what is really wrong with the society we’ve become. Hey, you can lobby all you want for the values you believe in but why is it that when you are in the majority its “majority rules” but when the majority works against you its called “disenfranchisement”? Kinda silly right?
How exactly does it effect your life if two gay men living together simply live together or if they enter into a civil contract that binds their lives and property together in a single family unit and call it “marriage”?
Why is that so much worse than calling it a “civil union”?
It doesn’t affect me at all. However the effect is that it takes away from the core values of our society as a whole, along with the accepted moral decline as a whole. Not just in gay marriage, but what the perceived acceptance of things that I believe this country was founded on. Capitalism (I know, I said a dirty word ;-) ) the ideal of honesty (almost dead as I see it)and the right to reap the rewards of your labor (taxed out of existence). As I see it a civil union was a middle ground, but that just ain’t enough is it.
And lets be honest shall we. Start back a few years ago when all we heard was that gay couples just wanted the right to adopt. Remember? Well I applaud those that did so out of wanting to give a child a good home. But do you really think there wasn’t another motive behind it? Be very honest with yourself now….don’t you think the natural progression of things from that point is, well we need to be recognized as married for the sake of the child so that we can provide the same benefits as a man and woman? Did the gay movement use children to advance their own cause? I know, I know, how dare I. But its kinda funny how that all fell into place ain’t it.
Suddenly that seems darker than any neocalophragalisticexpealodotios plan the “right wingers” could make. You do them proud.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:19 pmThis country was founded on homophobia?
June 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pmDo the core values of this nation include racism, torture and unprovoked invasions?
What is it about certain men and their total obsession with male/male sex?
My ladyfriend and I have chosen not to marry.
Same-sex couples should have that same choice – no ifs, ands or buts.
Religious biases and dogmas have no place in an open, civil society.
That stuff is private, and should remain so.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pmAnd lets be honest shall we. Start back a few years ago when all we heard was that gay couples just wanted the right to adopt. Remember? Well I applaud those that did so out of wanting to give a child a good home. But do you really think there wasn’t another motive behind it? Be very honest with yourself now….don’t you think the natural progression of things from that point is, well we need to be recognized as married for the sake of the child so that we can provide the same benefits as a man and woman? Did the gay movement use children to advance their own cause? I know, I know, how dare I. But its kinda funny how that all fell into place ain’t it.
Exactly. Just like how those Negroes just wanted a seat on the bus and the next you know, one of them is in the White House! Pretty sneaky.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pmJRZguy is typical of the reactive, over-emotive non-thinking going on within repiggie ranks these days. For far too long, religious bigotries like his have had far too much influence on life in this nation.
The name of Jesus is never once mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution of the United States. Our citizenship does not automatically come with evangelical caveats.
Keep in mind that it is the white evangelicals that have been the biggest obstacle to full civil rights for non-whites, and they still continue in their bad behavior by fleeing the urban areas in order to construct expensive whites-only exurbs, where they build their grotesquely ugly McChurches.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pmIf you demean tradition and attack religion to the point where it’s “quaint” then the end justifies the means, right? It doesn’t matter what the majority want, just what you want. That is in a nutshell what is really wrong with the society we’ve become.
Religion is doing that itself, very nicely, without any help from us. And majority rule, untouchable by the judiciary is a recipe for totalitarianism. Your warped view, and that of others like you, is what is really wrong with this country. You talk as if you have a moral highground, when in fact, your standing in a moral ditch.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:46 pmHomosexuality in Nature (Hint: “Nature” means biological.)
Also, it seems that many don’t know the difference between the two forms of marriage in this country. There’s religious marriage, (which I agree, shouldn’t be forced into performing ceremonies) and legal marriage. The fight isn’t for religious marriage, it’s for legal marriage. The idea that any two people in a committed relationship should be able to enter a legal agreement between the two that offers innumerable protections & benefits under the law of the United States of America.
The inability for some morons to distinguish between the two is what makes this so infuriating to those who believe in equal rights.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pmWow I guess I really hit a nerve. Take a deep breath now, relax, mind you blood pressure now. Of course here come the Bible thumping rants.
republicans hate facts Says:
Ah, how PREDICTABLE! Another BIBLE QUACK that doesn’t understand that our FOUNDING FATHERS *REJECTED* RELIGIOUS VALUES and founded our country on the PRINCIPLES of the “ENLIGHTENMENT”… YAWN.
Really, you honestly believe that tell me how many times it mentions God in the Declaration of Independence.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pmDoes it say God is a homophobe?
June 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pmI blame ‘opposite-sex’ marriage for Sally Kern.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pmhey look I gotta run. The beach is calling. This in my view is just in the spirit of debate. I haven’t name called anyone and my position is founded in the secular as biblical. We’ll talk more later. Peace.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pmA big, fat, heartfelt HEAR HEAR to MissMolly at 119.
Brilliant!!!
p.s. jrzguy, “Marriage” is nothing more than a CONTRACT. A legal contract between two consenting ADULTS governing property, inheritance, medical power of attorney, etc.
That’s all.
All the rest of it is religous frippery, and as such, irrelevant.
All – ALL – competent adults have the right in this nation to enter into legal contracts whether you and your bigoted homophobic ilk like it or not. Period.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pmReally, you honestly believe that tell me how many times it mentions God in the Declaration of Independence.
1. That God was the God of the Enlightenment, the God of the Deists. Check your history and you will see that Jefferson was often ridiculed by his political rivals as anti-Christian.
2. The “god-given rights of individuals” was a concept directly in opposition to the “divine right of kings to rule”. In some ways, the Founding Fathers were talking the language of the day and turning it on its ear. If the Founding Fathers intended to make this a Christian Nation, they would have done so explicitly. The fact that they didn’t so intend is evidenced by the lack of religious language in the Constitution.
3. The word “king” is mentioned often in the Declaration of Independence, but that does not mean the Founding Fathers meant to oppose one king and set up a competing kingdom.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pmOh and I meant peace as in “later” not in peace be with you. I don’t want to offend.
One last thing for PatrioticLiberalChristian, how do you explain away “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator“
June 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pmWith all that talk about how men are endowed, sounds to me like God is gay.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pmThe word God was mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence, but it was mention in this context:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, ……”
Using Creator does not constitute as a use of God, especially knowing the author is Jeferson.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pmAh, so Jefferson was actually writing about this god.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pmHere is a pretty good retort to this whack job Kern.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=1981
June 30th, 2009 at 3:48 pmjrzguy Says: One last thing for PatrioticLiberalChristian, how do you explain away “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator”
I guess I have to quote myself: 2. The “god-given rights of individuals” was a concept directly in opposition to the “divine right of kings to rule”. In the Declaration of Independence, there is a social-political argument being made to justify separation of the colonies from Great Britain and to stir up the populace to be ready for war. This document was not to establish the government. The Constitution, which lacks any reference to God and only limits the intermingling of church and state, is the document which established our government structure and dynamics. So, again, if the Founding Fathers really wanted to establish the US as a Christian Nation, they would have done so in the Constitution, which they did not.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:54 pmThe crux of the issue is where to draw the line between religion and government. There is no “bright line” that delineates each interest. The line has been moved many times. Our beliefs about slavery evolved from only a moral issue to also a secular civil rights issue. The current battles over gay marriage and abortion are thorny issues that the religious and secular have staked out their respective positions and the government must decide where religion ends in both issues. These issues can trace their parenthood to the US Supreme Court decision about prayer in the public schools. The court has consistently held that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. This decision has been attacked by the evangelicals as an affront to our freedom of religion as well as an attack on the “morals” of society. The conservatives have decried these issues as evidence of the decline of the US. However, I would note that the conservatives said the same things about comic books, rock and roll, etc. The line between religion and government has again moved on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. The reason why the line moved is because of our understanding about science on both issues.
The Supreme Court has recognized the rights of women as they relate to a medical procedure that was previously a crime. The common law provided that the line between murder and abortion was the viability of the fetus. Since both were crimes the “moral” issue was not addressed by the law. The abortion decision was not decided on moral grounds, but rather the rights of the woman. I would note that the Judeao-Christian religious concept of life begins at conception is new from a historical standpoint. The anti-abortion groups continue to argue the court was wrong on the abortion decision and that the issue is the moral equivalent of slavery. They refuse to accept this decision as the law just like the prayer decision. The abortion decision was partly based on our understanding of science which is why the court delineated the government interest based on the trimester.
The line regarding gay marriage has also moved because of our understanding the homosexuals do not choose their lifestyle and it is not aberrant behavior. These scientific concepts have changed many people’s perception about the issue. This issue, like abortion, is now being approached as a civil rights issue. Both the religious right and the secular have staked out their positions but are talking about two different issues. The religious issue regarding the morality is not the same as civil rights. Each party is claiming that the other is imposing their views on the other. The religious have been successful in banning gay marriage in the political arena but are now losing ground. There is no factual or legal argument for the religious claiming that they are being forced to accept homosexuality. Quite the contrary is true. But that does stop the religious from pressing their opinions in the political arena, but they are facing a losing battle as public opinion has shifted on this issue.
Both issues have been defined as a moral issue by the religious based on the country’s history, to wit, that we are a Christian nation. This concept that our Christian history as a starting point from a legal view was rejected in the public school prayer decision by the Supreme Court. But the religious have never accepted that decision so today we find ourselves battling these issues. These issues are irreconcilable because each side is approaching the issue from a different point. Government has become the battleground for each side to press their views. However, legislative bodies which draw the line between government and religion move based on consensus of opinion without regard to the Christian morality or foundations of this country. The Supreme Court does not decide cases based on Christian morality but rather the US Constitution and our secular beliefs which are constantly shifting in tandem with the line between religion and government.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pmshoeless…I have enjoyed reading books on Jefferson, and I think he would have enjoyed your linked, bravo
June 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pmWhy do I get the feeling that she and Michelle Bachmann take turns sharing the same brain…?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pmYa know, I’m a believer in Federalism its important role in our republican form of government. So here’s a deal for you, Sally. You go ahead and get the good people of OK to back you on a prohibition against divorce. Given that it’s the most widely practiced of the supposed evils on your long list, let’s start with the one most likely to produce the greatest societal change. We’ll see how that one works out, and then we can talk about the rest of your list — ‘kay? Buh-bye, now.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pmAny comments about serial adulterer Mark Sanford, a fellow Bible Believin’ Christian and Republican, Ms Kern?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pmIs he really like King David?
pags2 says “The reason why the line moved is because of our understanding about science on both issues”
Maybe for the some, but for the religious right, the line moved because their fearmongering, hatefilled rhetoric, politics was finally called out by braved men and women who refused to be bullied by the fact that the color of ones skin did not make that person less than, and that fight was not an easy fight simply because the SAME arguments we hear today were being used then. It is pathetic to think that the religous leaders saw that fight as the fight to win, now see this fight as the fight (The gays) to win, yet refuse to see any parallels in history and how wrong they are, unless they believe that they were never wrong in the first fight.
Which is were I stand now with this question; could it be that these same religious fanatics screaming out against the gays, who are of the same ilk who screamed out against the racial equality, really don’t believe that racial equality is God’s will? I will bet they do not
June 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pmThe religious right wing is stuck in the 1950’s attitudes. The country has moved on but they have not. In addition, the evangelical leaders are using “morality” as a vehicle for raising scads of money for themselves and their religious organization.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:30 pmThe Constitution, which lacks any reference to God and only limits the intermingling of church and state, is the document which established our government structure and dynamics. So, again, if the Founding Fathers really wanted to establish the US as a Christian Nation, they would have done so in the Constitution, which they did not.
The writers and signers of the U.S. Constitution never envisioned a time when Christianity would not be the predominant religion in the United States. bit suspects PLC can’t find any documents suggesting that other religions had equal standing to Christianity that are older that twenty-five years; that is, written before 1984.
The U.S. Constitution has three allusions to Christianity….
They are:
The First Amendment itself is an allusion to Christianity and this is made plain in the quote below.
Sunday is not counted as a day of business. Sunday is the Christian day of worship while Saturday is the Jewish day of worship, and Friday is the Islamic day of worship.
‘…In the Year of our Lord…’ which goes with a date referencing the date of Christ’s birth. bit believes other dating techniques were available at that time to the framers.
The following quote is what George Mason, noted by many as the father of the Bill of Rights, proposed as the wording for the amendment:
Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
The establishment clause of the First Amendment is plain even though it is made clearer through this proposed clause. The Federal government was not going to choose a “state” Christian sect as many of the colonies had.
This is from a proposed U.S. House bill dated 2007. This bill never made it out of committee.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=5799
H. RES. 888
If there is some belief, other than Christianity, that has shaped and molded the U.S. in the last two hundred years, what is that belief? If there is some belief, other that Christianity, that will make the U.S. worth preserving for the next two hundred years, what is it?
Any hint above that Thomas Jefferson would have a modern mindset on homosexuality is ludicrous. Jefferson once drafted a law against homosexuality that included mutilation as punishment.
It’s worth noting that Jefferson didn’t sign the U.S. Constitution.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pmThe fact that the country was established by Christians does not obviate the clause in the Constitution regarding the separation of religion and state. The meaning of this concept has changed along with the diversity of the country. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress and the courts to make determinations based on Christian beliefs. The fact that Christians formed this country is irrelevant to the interpretation of laws.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pmI find it interesting that our Right Wing Buddies are qualifying what is marriage. I have noticed the divorce rate among heterosexuals is at an all time high, and we have to prominent Republicans with their pants down recently. This woman is disingenuous at best.
If you have two people who want to give it a shot a being together for a lifetime of commitment, go for it. I can only see a net positive for our communities. Let’s not get caught up in the semantics.
There has been no suggestion the government would force any church or denomination to accept gay marriage.
The Republican’s are so caught up with “sexual deviant behavior”, I wonder how many dirty little secrets there are hiding. They are so preoccupied with this behavior.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:18 pmWe are a country that was founded by men and women who predominetly (sp?) held judeo-christian beliefs, this is a given. But they were smart enought to know, from expreience, that theoracies sucked the lie out of the populace, so they put forth a proprosition that was ground breaking that was a secular document. Yes it has Chrisian overtones, but it carefully leads down a path that is to allow all to be treated equal regardless.
We are a secular nation, with Christians, Jews, Muslims, et al
pags2 got it right, Our founding fathers did not write the laws of this country for Christians, then for others, they are for all of us…whether or not they were all Christians are not.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pmIf there is some belief, other than Christianity, that has shaped and molded the U.S. in the last two hundred years, what is that belief?
The scientific method, silly. No longer would we be governed by dogmatic belief in “God-ordained” leadership. It amazes me that you really think all the different christian sects were intent on coming to America, and establishing another religiously-fostered royalty. Simply astounding.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pmThe real problem with America today is that we have too damn many politicians who are as epically stupid as Sally Kern.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pmseslichat
June 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pmseslichat paneli
ALERT!!!
Remember Adolf Hitler used similar language and similar reasoning when speaking about Jews during the Great Depression.
And don’t we all remember what he ultimately did to them?
June 30th, 2009 at 10:25 pmBitbit is still very stupid, and a bigot. Did you really make an argument about what the first amendment MEANS based on something that DIDNT MAKE IT OUT OF COMITTEE? Why do you think it didnt make it out of comittee you moron? There was also during one of the constitutional conventions an attempt to put that kind of language in the Constitution and it was voted down. You are an idiot. As for this
If there is some belief, other than Christianity, that has shaped and molded the U.S. in the last two hundred years, what is that belief? If there is some belief, other that Christianity, that will make the U.S. worth preserving for the next two hundred years, what is it?
Enlightenment principles as any student of history would know. You are stupid bit. A stupid bigot. Just go away you offer nothing but bigotry, stupidity and propaganda
July 1st, 2009 at 12:12 amI do not consider Bitbit is stupid as he has made the reasonable argument about our Christian roots. However, his concept of the Constitution would chain the Congress and courts to ideas that existed in 1789 without regard to our progress since that time. The Constitution was designed as a restriction on the powers of government and not as a statement of morals. The founders acknowledged the individual rights of the people in the Bill of Rights but they are not based on any religious moral code. They explicitly adopted the common law which they knew evolved over the hundreds of years of its existence. The common law was not tethered to any religious moral code and the founders were aware that the common law changed to meet the needs of justice which concept changed over a long period of time. If the founders wanted to, they could have specifically stated that the document and common law as it existed in 1789 were to be immutable even though there was passage of time. But they did not because they wanted the Constitution to be merely a framework for the federal government and its powers. The Constitution specifically provides that any rights not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. This language clearly indicates that there were more rights other than those enumerated in the document.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:24 ampags2 Says:
The fact that the country was established by Christians does not obviate the clause in the Constitution regarding the separation of religion and state. The meaning of this concept has changed along with the diversity of the country. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress and the courts to make determinations based on Christian beliefs. The fact that Christians formed this country is irrelevant to the interpretation of laws.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
It is not necessary to “…obviate the clause in the Constitution regarding the separation of religion and state,” because there is no clause in the Constitution about the separation of religion and state.
Jefferson phrase’s “…a wall of separation between church and state…” from a short letter to the Danbury CT Baptists has been in three SCOTUS decision. Two of these decisions were in the nineteenth century and both quoted the entire letter, if bit understand correctly. The modern use by the SCOTUS of this phrase was in 1947 Everson vs Board of Education decision where only an idea expressed in the eight words above was quoted.
Jefferson wrote a letter, a short letter. He didn’t sign the U.S. Constitution.
So, how could the meaning of this concept change if it’s not in the U.S. Constitution? Actually that’s an easy one. Since the concept is not in the U.S. Constitution this concept comes to mean whatever one wants it to mean?
And so in modern times that First Amendment has been taken as hostile to Christianity and the U.S. Constitution is said to have been written to support immorality.
————————————————————–
A constant theme of the Founders is that the U.S. Constitution is for a moral and religious people.
Along this line bit believes the U.S. is not a Christian nation, but a nation for a Christian people.
Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).
Samuel Adams said:
Adams, Samuel (1905), The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Cushing (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
Isn’t legislator Kern saying something like this?
Any TPer think that John and Sam were talking about Judaism or Islam? Any TPer think that later generations of citizens have proved John and Sam to be wrong?
James McHenry, signer of the Constitution and Secretary of War under both Washington and Adams, seemed to be saying the same thing Adams said when he said:
Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: The Maryland Bible Society).
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress and the courts to make determinations based on Christian beliefs. The fact that Christians formed this country is irrelevant to the interpretation of laws.
What other beliefs would you choose to predominant?
————————————————————–
Here’s the practical on your “scientific method.”
Robert Winthrop as Speaker of the U.S. House in the 1840s also had an opinion.
Winthrop, Robert (1852), Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).
If this is not plain to you it means that the scientific method will yield as winner whoever has the biggest guns and the most of them.
One can only claim rights under an authority. The “scientific method” is not an authority.
————————————————————–
So why didn’t H. Res 888 make it out of committee?
bit would speculate that the reason this bill, which records numerous aspects of the US’s Christian heritage, didn’t make it out of committee is because the politicians didn’t want to deal with the fact that the US has a Christian heritage. Otherwise, why not pass HR 888? It’s simply filled with notable examples of the expression of Christianity in the US throughout it’s history. HR 888 recognizes Christian heritage; it doesn’t create it.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:21 amYou are so stupid bit. Why do you embarass yourself so. Is there some reason you need to just parade your ignorance? Yeah the term was used in a letter EXPLAINING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. My GOD you are ignorant. Most of our founding fathers were Deists and would never consider themselves to be the kind of Christians you would recognize. Then again you are very stupid. You wouldnt recognize air.
Jefferson wrote often that Christianity had no part of the law of the land and these quotes
“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear”
“Religions are all alike — founded upon fables and mythologies”
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
Notes on Virginia
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter…. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823
In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814; from George Seldes, ed
In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814; from George Seldes, ed
James Madison
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. (James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774,
“In a free government,” Madison declared, “the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.” (James A. Henretta, The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822;
John Adams
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. (John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it. (John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816.
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it. (John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816.
Lighthouses are more useful than churches.
Thomas Paine
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this? (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Paul Blanshard, ed., Classics of Free Thought, Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1977, pp. 134-135.)
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonorable belief against the character of the Divinity, the most destructive to morality and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)
July 1st, 2009 at 4:01 ambit should speculate on why he is so stupid
July 1st, 2009 at 4:04 ambitblt Says:
It is not necessary to “…obviate the clause in the Constitution regarding the separation of religion and state,” because there is no clause in the Constitution about the separation of religion and state……
So, how could the meaning of this concept change if it’s not in the U.S. Constitution? Actually that’s an easy one. Since the concept is not in the U.S. Constitution this concept comes to mean whatever one wants it to mean?
And so in modern times that First Amendment has been taken as hostile to Christianity and the U.S. Constitution is said to have been written to support immorality.
The establishment clause provides “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” This was adopted because the founders were concerned that that the federal government might try to establish a national religion. Hence, this has been distilled to the concept of separation of church and state. At the time the Constitution was adopted there were various Christian sects in the US. Admittedly, the founders did not contemplate that religions other than Christianity would exist in the US. Because there were no other sizable religion other than Christianity, the founders did not speak to the issue about how the establishment clause affected religious freedom for other religions. You will note that nowhere in the discussions and documents the mention of Jesus who is the central figure in Christianity, but they do speak about God. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned is significant because it is the implicit recognition other religious concepts beside Christianity while still believing in God. There is the legal concept to give meaning to all the language in the law, but under your concept the clause would mean nothing. You are arguing that the word religion is restricted to Christianity but there is no support for that interpretation since that issue was never raised in the discussions.
The issue was first presented in the school prayer case which involved atheists who challenged the school boards endorsement of a prayer in a governmental function. The SCOTUS acknowledged the Christian nature of the founders, but did interpret the establishment clause to mean that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Your interpretation of the establishment clause was clearly rejected. The Christian fundamentalists have denounced the holding in this case, but it is the law of the land. There has never been any great support across the US for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the court case. Nor has the SCOTUS indicated that they will entertain the overturning of the holding in this case. It is extremely impossible that the holding will ever be overturned because of the shift in the diversity of religions in the US. Because there is no support of an amendment to overturn the holding, the fundamentalists have tried to overturn the holding by a change in the people of SCOTUS. Even that has failed with the appointment of conservative judges.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:10 amEugeneDebs Says:
You are so stupid bit. Why do you embarass yourself so. Is there some reason you need to just parade your ignorance? Yeah the term was used in a letter EXPLAINING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. My GOD you are ignorant. Most of our founding fathers were Deists and would never consider themselves to be the kind of Christians you would recognize. Then again you are very stupid. You wouldnt recognize air.
I forgot to add that these insults are totally unnecessary. They add nothing to the intelligent discourse and are a waste of bandwidth. When you insult the other posters you denigrate the reasoning of your argument.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:22 pm“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.
The turth will set you free, but first it’s going to tick you off!
July 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pmNo snark:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pmWe need to start giving serious consideration to secession. The majority of voters in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina have made it abundantly clear that their values are not ours. They are not the values of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as they were actually written by the “Founding Fathers,” whom they would now clearly execrate as “Godless liberals.” They’re clearly not the values of the Bill of Rights, except for that 1/2 of the 2nd Amendment to which they’re so attached.
Let ‘em go. We’d be much better off without them.
Every single one of them — no exceptions — gets more in Federal expenditures than they pay in Federal taxes. Most have political impact grossly disproportionate to their populations (via their 2 Senators) relative to blue states.
We’ll even let them take the name that would make them happy: they can call themselves “The Real America” (much like the “Real IRA,” and the analogy is not just linguistic).
They can run their own economies into the ground, and not take us down with them. They can engage in all the military adventurism they want, and bear the costs in blood and treasure, as they should. They can teach “creation science” til their non-evolved cows come home, and they can pollute their own aquifers til they all die (the ones not already shot under “stand-yr-ground” laws). They can cut their taxes to zero; spy on, torture, and imprison each other; and block every book and movie at the border. They can send us all their intelligent people, their unwilling-to-oppress-themselves women, their people of color, their GLBTs, their atheists and agnostics and Hindus and Buddhists (and of course their Muslims, if any are still there), and their union members.
And they can create their own little banana-republic theocracies without any hindrance from the rest of us.
It’s what they want — and every single one of us (and the world at large) will be the better for it: a perfect win / win / win.
Who’s with me?
We can achieve the same or a better result by charging some of the yahoos with treason.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pm