Nom de plume: Rivrdog

A tale of two anti-discrimination Movements

The big news this week has been over a Bill in the AZ Legislature which would have allowed businesses to act as individuals and claim religious "rights" to discriminate based on their chosen religious tenets. It was a bad bill, and deserved veto, for no other reason that the Founders granted INDIVIDUALS certain rights, and corporations only the right to exist. Making corporations legally equal to individuals leads to corporate oligarchy, and needs to be fought at every turn.

So, huge pressure was put on the conservative Governor of AZ, Jan Brewer, and we had to again witness the ugly spectacle of "gay pride" being paraded before the cameras. When the Federally-protected corporation known as the NFL chimed in with dark threats to cancel the next Super Bowl, scheduled for Glendale AZ, Gov. Brewer knuckled under and vetoed the bill.

This got your blogger to thinking, and posing himself a "what-if":

What if the early attempts to integrate the races in the USA had proceeded on the "gay pride" model, instead of the model of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr?

Let's look at this.

The "gay pride" model tell us that gays are SOOOO different, and this is accentuated by the outlandish clothing, the dyed hair, the suggested or actual sexual contact before the cameras. It's all "in your face", and it sends the INTENDED message of  "we're here, we're queer, get used to us". I, like most other conservatives, don't give a rip what you do in the privacy of your homes, but I also believe that ANY conduct on the order of what passes for "gay pride" should not get public exhibition in a civilized society.

Dr. King's model. Having the exact same problem of selling a skeptical public on the acceptance of "different" people, Dr. King said: MINIMIZE THE DIFFERENCES, ACCENTUATE THE SIMILARITIES to the majority society.

Dr. King succeeded with his message, and the queers have failed with theirs.

Consider: What do you think would have happened if the blacks of the 1950's had used the "gay pride" model to get their desire for integration heard? Malcolm X and Huey Newton tried with this model and failed, BTW.

Answer, we would still have Jim Crow laws, that's what. Our society would not have made the last 60 years of racial-acceptance progress.

Christie FUBAR, again!

The 2A-stomping, Mafia-acting Governor of New Jersey, our favorite large bully, has done another stomping of the Constitution.

This hasn't made the MSM yet, and probably won't, considering said media are in bed with the homosexual lobby, but you can read it in World Net Daily, right here.

You have to RTWT, because this Christie turd is in the next-to-last paragraph.

To sum up, Chris Christie has now stomped on the First AND Second Amendments, his staff has adopted Mafia tactics to help their Godfather get re-elected, and the Godfather/Governor has yet to account for billions in Federal hurricane relief funds (not spent, not returned to the Treasury, and the moolah doesn't show on the Joisey books).

Is there ANYONE outside of NJ, who dares to call themselves an American, who would vote for this lump of a rumpkin?

I'll answer that: a lot of Democrats would. Maybe the real reason the Hildebeestie won't declare for POTUS is that the (D)onkeys are going to draft Christie...

Sandhill cranes

Where's P.E.T.A. on this? The Sandhill Crane, a large wading bird, is now designated by our Government to decorate homosexual veterans' gravestones, at individual request. Wanna bet how long it takes for the fish-eating bird to become a de-facto LGBT symbol, now that an activist LGBT veteran couple (the surviving half) wants it that way?

I'm a speciesist (believe in the primacy of the human species), but I'll be the first to admit that on the good-to-evil continuum, most lesser species score a solid good and humans have a problem there.

I haven't read that the Sandhill Crane is observed to be a homosexual creature, queerness is seldom noted in the lesser species, so where is the animal-rights justice in this decision?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Time for "Marriage Masada" ?

The secular progressives have just succeeded in destroying the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage between heterosexuals. That's a fact, and there's no getting around it, at least in the First Republic.

Going backwards in our Nation's history, this is a mistake, understandable for the time, but a mistake nonetheless that the Forefathers made. The Forefathers assumed that we could have our cake and eat it too, regarding the concept of adopting Judeo-Christian ideals as Civil Law, but declaring that we are open to all religious concepts at the same time. What they never imagined, but should have, was that Atheism would have to be tolerated under the concept of freedom of religions. Atheism, of course, is at the root of homosexual "marriage". Both the Christian and Jewish religions refuse to accept the idea that homosexuals may be joined in the eyes of God,and Christians go so far as to say that such joining is an act of the Devil. Take it or leave it, that's what the Bible says. This means that the only argument left open to Jews and Christians is to claim that the Forefathers erred, and that they would have preferred no religious marriage at all to the concept of un-Christian marriage. In other words, they would have agreed that the State may only sanction civil unions, and the Churches would have to sanction the religious end called marriage.

If Christians now want relief from the thought of having "their" heterosexual marriages put on an equal footing as the heathen/antichrist/devil's unions that they see homosexual marriages to be, then Christians will have to take the Masada approach. That is to say, knowing that their instutution is doomed under the secular/progressive control that is the current Government, the Christians will have to end the concept of "marriage", and then fight to have it ended for the homosexuals as well.

Masada. Mass self-destruction as a religious statement. That's what Christians and Jews are down to now. Either they kill the entire idea of Holy Matrimony off entirely, or they have to live with the idea that homosexuals can, will and have forced their way into the very concept. YOU can call it "evolution", I call it a hijacking. Of course, the homosexuals and secular/progressives are hard at work destroyiing other Judeo-Christian societal concepts, such as age of consent, acceptable sexual activity, religious holdiays, etc.

It comes down to this: if you want your religion intact, you'd better be prepared to die for it and use your death effectively as a weapon. They do this in the religion of Islam, and with just a tiny percentage of that religion practicing Jihad, the small faction which does follow Jihad effectively controls the rest of Islam.

So we see that Judeo-Christian ideals are no different than any other inconvienient concepts which stand in the way of the total domination of our culture by secular progressives. When we aren't prepared to make the campaigns of secular-progressivism costly enough for it's leaders, we will lose. Judeo-Christians are comfort-loving people, generally. Too damn few of us are willing to bring real pain to the other side, so the other side wins, because they can and will bring the pain to us.

Masada. We're down to that. Masada or some form of Crusade, in the full sense of the word.

No Gay Agenda?

Don't think there's a "gay agenda"? Why does Portland's gay community schedule their yearly "pride parade" on Father's Day if there's no agenda?

Tuesday trespass...

...wherein we show some more examples of how the Left tramples on traditional American values.

Example One: Nanny Medicine. Watching the noon news on Channel eight here in Stumptown, I heard the newsbabe try to explain a new definition of "obese", which, BTW, USED to have the meaning of more than 30 pounds over ideal weight. The "new" definition of "obese" apparently means flabby-looking, because the reporter explained that one can be "obese" AT one's ideal weight. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to use scare tactics to scare people into being underweight, or becoming gym rats, or both. I reject it.

Example Two: Qualification of Presidents: Obama does not meet the qualification listed in the Constitution because he is NOT a "natural born citizen" as required, then defined in the SCOTUS case Minor v. Happersett. In that case, a "natural born citizen" was defined as, "all children born in a country of parents who were it's citizens". There is no argument that Barack Hussein Obama was not born of parents who were both citizens. There is argument that he was born here. US District Court Judge Anderson of TN  has cited Minor v. Happersett as being on point. Sheriff Arpaio thinks that this is important enough to let superior courts decide whether Obama should even be on ballots across the country. Read about this new angle on the "birther" controversy here. I support Sheriff Joe in his quest to have the truth come out. This Nation could stand the minor constitutional crisis caused by discovering that Obama was never qualified to hold office, at this point, but if Obama wins another term of office, and THEN a court tells him he is not qualified, there is a high potential for a MAJOR Constitutional crisis. A gun sort of crisis, if you know what I mean, Verne.

Example Three: The Fourth Estate as Obama shills. It seems to me that there are rules about this. At what point do the rules get enforced? When is someone going to start accumulating all the minutes and hours of TeeVee time used strictly to re-elect Obama, and the column-miles of newsprint used for the same reason, and decree that said media either have to give equal time to the Romnizer or be classed for tax purposes and purposes of license renewals as political shills?

Example Four: We're not Los Angeles, and don't need their air pollution rules in Oregon. It seems that City of Portland garbage rates are about to rise by almost 10% just so the garbage collectors can buy new trucks that meet the most stringent emissions rules. Those would be Kalifornica's rules, which are written for the extreme example of the Los Angeles Basin airshed, arguably the worst place a large city has been built, on the entire planet. The topography and local micro-climate makes it impossible to get rid of man OR nature-generated air pollution, and rules for emissions were written to consider those facts, but then, those rules have been foisted off on the entire rest of the Nation, which does not need them because the rest of the Nation does not have the airshed problems that Los Angeles has. No matter, the insane Portland City Council, led by the Gay Pedophile Mayor, Sam Adams, brought in the CA rules, and so all the trucks have to be changed out. No matter that the current trucks still have life left, the haulers must buy new ones, and oh, while you're at it, City Council, did you remember to mandate that those trucks use "bio-diesel" fuel at $7.00+ per gallon? That stupid rule, which the City Fleet is, itself, saddled with, would make the perfect capper for this insane additional expense in an already insanely-expensive city.

Example Five: When the history books tell us that Liquor Prohibition failed as a social-control experiment, let's try it all over again! The self-same insane City of Portland, which has forced foodcart entrepreneurs into what used to be called by the Nazis, "lagers" or concentrations, smarted recently when the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, acting on their legal counsel's advice that such establishments, once forced to tie themselves down, had to be treated, for purposes of liquor licensing, as brick-and-mortar restaurants. They issued a liquor license (beer and wine only) to one food cart, in the lager known locally as "Cartlandia", no doubt, after the TV series "Portlandia". So the city is mightily cheese(burgered)ed off, and has filed suit against the State liquor agency. The Rivrdog blog, no real friend of the OLCC, nevertheless sides with them on this one, and hopes their legal beagles turn into legal pitbulls and rip the City a new one.

That's enuff for today. Suffice it to say I do NOT forgive these trespasses.

How Bromantic!

The "First Gay President" magazine cover.

H/T to Uncle

Okay then, now the realpolitik: this is a lesson in how not to do politics.

First, take this to the bank: the gay community is not a serious asset for the President. He already had them in his pocket, because, except for the few "Log Cabin" gay rethuglicans, they're already dummycrats. He's not converting anyone with this message. Are there any lazy gays who need energizing? Again, maybe a paltry few, but most I know are VERY politically active for the Left already, so the Obumbler didn't pick up many votes by "energizing" that base, either.

Second, he HAS succeeded in energizing the GOP base with this issue, in a way that the Romnizer could only have had wet dreams about, and there may well be some Christian or Jewish undecided voters who will push the Romnoid button for sure because of this. My guess: far more of those than any pro-gay votes just changed loyalties.

Net loss of votes for Obama? Well, we aren't voting this week (except in the primary in OR, and Obummer is not seriously opposed here), but if the national polls are to be believed, the Wahn just lost 7% to Romniddy. More important, five Democratic Senators runnng for re-election have just spent the weekend distancing themselves from The First Gay President.

Many more gems like that, and Obama will retire 1-20-13. If he does, his first term and his campaign for re-election will become THE textbook case of how NOT to do politics.

Now, which one of his Two Left Feet will Romney trip over this week?

It must be an election year...

There's flip-flopping in progress...el Presidente, who was for "traditional marriage" yesterday, isn't for it today.

Look, if you want to declare your love for another person ot even another member of another species, fine. If you want to share your fortune with that person/whatever, fine.

"Marriage" is specifically defined as a union of two humans, of opposite sex, of other appropriate pre-requisites, as approved by the State, and that's where the rub is, that "approved by the State" part. Since the Forefathers could never have forseen the mainstreaming of homosexuality as a cultural norm, we have to forgive them for being so obtuse about what marriage is and isn't.

It's time to update the law to the cultural norm, though. Here's the Rivrdog solution:

Congress needs to send out an Amendment to the US Constitution that wipes the word and meaning of "marriage" off of all law books, substitutes the word and meaning for "union" in it's place, and leaves the definition of unions between peoples up to Congress. This removes religion from the question entirely. 

In the Forefather's day, religion had a place in the moral lives of every American citizen, and the religious definition of marriage was perfectly acceptable. Since Federal courts have given their imprimatur to "civil unions", there is no more place in our culture for a religious definition of them to be the law of the land.

You see, Campers, we have this little clause prohibiting "establishment" of religion into law. There is no better definition of "establishment" than accepting the religious definition of Marriage instead of our constitutional Court definition.

Establishment of religion has it's place, and that place is in our hearts and minds, not our books of Law.

Small fish's in the cooler, now go for the lunker

The Army prosecutors appear to have the case against WikiLeaks snitch Pvt. Bradley Manning firmly in hand, and as a result of their evidence, seem to have solid evidence linking Manning and Julian Assange.

Why isn't Assange in the stockade, here or in Gitmo?

If we hand the Brits a proper extradition request for Assange, are they going to honor it?

Will Anonymous start to have organized fun and games with the DOD cyber-war folks if the Brits put the habeus grabbus on Assange?

Stay tuned. This one WILL get interesting.

Question of the Day

If Herman Cain has such morality-driven baggage that he can't continue in his quest for the White House, how come all those other wannabes are kissing his butt to get his endorsement?

Is there some filter at work here such that having dropped his campaign, all of a sudden the moral affronts which caused him to fall are forgiven, so the endorsements would be wholesome support?

What part of History Revisionism does the GOP think is acceptable to the Right, anyway?

If Slick Willy dries off that member, puts it back into his trou and smiles, have we forgiven him?

How about if Jerry Sandusky rehearses well and puts on a smiling denial of pedophilia for the camera?

If "Lennon read a book of Marx", does that make Marx less of a leftist?

Too many shades of gray.

Life itself has been "photoshopped"