Bush Provokes Democrats On “Terrorist Appeasement”

May 15, 2008 | Filed Under Activism | 1 Comment 

President Bush seems intent on staying in the spotlight as the general election approaches.  Today, he called Democrats on their policy support that amounts to “appeasing terrorists.”  He further called people who oppose the war “delusional” for thinking that they can negotiate with terrorists.  Joe Biden called Bush’s comments “bullshit”, no doubt Obama and Clinton agree with him on this matter.

What the heck is wrong with ole George W.?   Can the man not go quietly into the night?  Shouldn’t President Bush try and keep a low profile and be glad as heck that he hasn’t been impeached or incarcerated for war crimes?  I guess I’ll never understand politics because it seems that Bush is making a big mistake by coming out and continuing the terrorist fear speech that has helped dip his approval rating to below 20%.

note: I haven’t posted on this blog in a while, time has been a bit tight.  I intend to pick it up and post a bit more frequently, thanks to my readers for continuing to subscribe and support this site.



Bush Hitler Reference, Gotta Love The Irony

May 15, 2008 | Filed Under Activism, Humor, political | 2 Comments 

The man and vision that many “liberals” and “un-Americans” have likened to Hitler and Nazi Germany is now giving lessons to the world on the danger of “appeasing terrorists” like “some” wanted back when Hitler was around.

Here’s a picture that seems more in touch with reality and world opinion.

Bush is Hitler

 President Bush’s values and appeal to nationalism and patriotism are so much more in line with Hitler than any “terrorist-appeasing” Democrat.  Both men resorted to insisting on wars of aggression to deal with “potential threats”.  Both led a movement that divided people based on nationality, party lines and patriotism.  The men are easily among the most delusional we’ve seen reach the highest levels of government and that includes Saddam Hussein.

If you want a bit of more delicious irony, George W. Bush actually has ties (his grandfather) to Hitler’s rise to the top.   I guess the bottom line is this: Bush, no one cares what you have to say, please go to your ranch, get old and die so the rest of us can move on with our lives.



When did gays become second-class citizens?

May 15, 2008 | Filed Under Activism, political, religion | Leave a Comment 

Hot off the presses, it looks like California will continue leading the way on equal rights issues and gay rights.

California Ban On Gays Overturned

The news should take away some of the attention from the national election to the issue of gays and marriage.  The California Supreme Court has overturned the ban on gay marriage, setting a precedent for other states to potentially follow their lead.

According to CNN, the California Supreme Court struck down the State’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.  The case came about when several gay couples joined the city of San Francisco and gay activists in suing to overturn the state law.  The law allows marriage to exist only between a man and a woman.  Essentially, it defined marriage as consistent within the religious meaning of the word rather than one based on individual rights.

Can gay rights make it passed the more recent blurring of church and state lines?

There should be plenty of resistance to this outcome from religious and conservative groups seeking to “preserve the sanctity of matrimony.”  This creates a very interesting political question because it pits two constitutional concepts against one another.  (Religious Freedom vs. Privacy)

Looking at this issue from a religious perspective, the problem with creating a law that defines marriage as anything but a man and a woman goes contrary to biblical teachings.  That is because homosexuality is deemed a sin as per Christian teachings and if the state allows an act illegal in “the eyes of God” then the State Law is contrary to biblical law.

Equality for all, live and let live?

The secular response of course is that religion should have no place in development of laws that govern the people.  This is the stance I’d take, particularly because I appreciate more of a “live and let live” philosophy.

Despite the partisan dialogs that will inevitably take place, should religious leaders simply denounce such unions and move on?Why do religious advocates insist upon government intervention on this issue?  If non-Christians and a part of the Christian base believe the state should stay out of the bedroom and/or provide equal rights for everyone, including gays, why are we so behind as a society on this issue?