Ted Nugent, Butt Pirate?!

Yeah it looks like someone wants attention. And apparently Ted Nugent didn't commit suicide in 2012 like he promised. Eye roll.

Well... President Obama did attend Trinity United Church of Christ for around 16 years...  so yay excuse to republish this image!

And remember to yo ho blow the man down, just not Ted Nugent. The idea of him naked makes my dick shrivel and my asshole clench.


Liam '15

The Correct Answer is No

Ben Carson on Meet the Press August 2, 2015 fails to answer a softball of a question: 

Simple question, does the Bible hold authority over the Constitution? Simple answer: no. According to U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.: 

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Want further proof. Good. U.S. Const. amend. I. states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Fundamental civics fail. Perhaps the Republican Primary could function like a season of Top Chef. There's enough of these asshats. Anyway, if it were a competition, please pack your knives...sashay away or whatever trite reality catchphrase floats your boat. Just leave.



Liam '15

Oops, Wrong Side

Sometimes I hear someone, and my mind reels at the lack of self-awareness. Often times it comes in the form of cognitive dissonance.

Case in point Mat Staver.

As shown in this video posted to YouTube via Right Wing Watch, on Saturday April 25, 2015 Liberty Council founder Mat Staver addressed a march organized by NOM:

As someone who's argued before the United States Supreme Court, I certainly have respect for this court, but I have no respect and cannot respect a lawless decision. This court has not always been right on the issue of marriage. 

In the 1800s it issued the infamous Dred Scott decision, and Justice Taney said, “sorry Dred, no rights for you here at this high court,” because they said blacks were inferior human beings.

How racist and bigoted was that? How contrary to the natural law of God is that decision?

It is no decision worth respecting today, and It was no decision worth respecting then.

In 1927 the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the infamous words, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Saying to Carrie Buck, the Commonwealth Virginia can forcibly sterilize you to get rid of your population, because you have low IQ.

That was a racist bigoted decision flies in the face of the dignity of every person created in the image of God.

No one will defend it now and no one should have defended then.

I say now as we are standing on the precipice this major decision before the United States Supreme Court, these leaders that came together in this marriage pledge, that I hope you sign on it at defendmarriage.org are saying this, “Supreme Court of the United States with all due respect, we warn you, do not cross this line.”

As much as I am an attorney, and I respect the rule of law, I also respect a higher law. And when an earthly law collides with a higher law, we have no choice to obey higher law. We cannot comply Caesar's demands that are in direct conflict with a higher law, and that's what the Doctor Martin Luther King wrote in a letter from a Birmingham jail. There are two kinds of laws just and unjust. You have to obey the just laws, but the unjust laws are no laws at all, and we cannot obey those.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. As a policy matter any other union says that God’s design is flawed. As a policy matter any other unions say that boys don't need fathers and girls don't need mothers, and we know that God’s creation the divine architect that infused into the natural created order, knows what's best for the family. Children need mothers and fathers.

This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage.

Mat, honey, the connection between Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and Baker v. Nelson was an unjust denial of the Due Process Clause. Or in other words, Americans are afforded the rights to life, liberty, and property.

In fact, the denial of the 5th Amendment in Dred Scott was a major point for the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that all people are afforded due process protections by both the States as well as the Federal Government.

I know in 2014 your Liberty University had a first time bar passer rate of 50% in Virginia: so I have a feeling you might not be teaching this, but based on the concept of substantive due process the right to marry is a condition of life, liberty, and property as enumerated in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley.

In your own analogy, you are on the wrong side of history. You're not arguing for Dred Scott or Carrie Buck. You're on the side that wants to deny liberty and substantive due process. But thanks for playing and proving why your school is garbage.

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to bet that Mat knows that he is on the wrong side of history, as much of his speech reads nearly perfectly as a pro-LGBT. But quite frankly in the end I don't care.

I am curious though how Mat is going to perform civil disobedience in regards to same-sex marriage.
For civil disobedience, which MLK, Jr. prescribed, the government has to be doing something and your non-compliance is therefore disruptive. For example not paying your taxes. Or sit-ins in Government or public locations.

The only thing I can think that vaguely would qualify, is that Mat won't get married to a dude. Not much of protest there as not getting married affects nothing.

Or perhaps he will get a boyfriend and then won't get married as some sort of fucked-up, bizarro, psycho-sexual protest that only Mat Staver knows about or would makes sense to.

I have heard of people doing weirder things.

The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates

It's either that or impotent rage. And impotent rage is never attractive.

The very last point I want to touch on is when Mat says, "This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage."

You do realize that gay people exist, right? And that many of us have kids? And that would be a part of god's order, right? I'm not saying existence is right or wrong, but I am saying that existence is nature. If god didn't want gay people, then why do we exist.

Where do they get off speaking for god. That's pretty fucking arrogant.


Liam '15

Green Shirt

This last week, Mary Cheney posted on her Facebook page:

"Why is it socially acceptable — as a form of entertainment — for men to put on dresses, make-up and high heels and act out every offensive stereotype of women (bitchy, catty, dumb, slutty, etc.) — but it is not socially acceptable — as a form of entertainment — for a white person to put on blackface and act out offensive stereotypes of African Americans?" she asked. "Shouldn't both be OK or neither?"

Advocating blackface?! Yeah that was cheap of me, but zero shits are given on my end.

Earlier this week I was thinking of responding, but why speak as an advocate when you can post a response from a member of the community:

I cannot resist posting the top comment, which was posted by Betty Bowers:

Sorry, once again I couldn't resist.

I'm planning to post later on advocacy, because there are too many issue that I want to write about that cannot fit here. But if I can't find the words I won't.


Liam '15

Heterophobia Gaysplained

All Michael Sam and No Play Makes Liam a Dull Boy. Blah blah blah, Michael Sam, blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah vibrator blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah Christianist douchebag, blah blah blah blah blah IB Times article written by Greg Price
on May 14 2014:

A Christian lobbyist has launched a boycott against the St. Louis Rams, openly gay defensive end Michael Sam, and credit card giant Visa.

In February, Jack Burkman, who head’s his Washington-based firm JM Burkman & Assoc., vowed to boycott any team or company that works with Sam and he has stayed true to his word. Burkman said the Rams and Sam are violating Christian beliefs, and that he's mobilized a grassroots campaign made up of a coalition of Christian leaders in 27 of the 50 U.S. states, according to The Independent.

“Visa and the Rams will learn that when you trample the Christian community and Christian values, there will be a terrible financial price to pay,” said Burkman.

“Openly gay football players send a terrible message to our youth about morality. Somebody needs to step up because the moral fiber of the nation is eroding.”

Please read the article if you aren't dying from ennui. 

Anyway...

First of all, wow, Jack Burkman has contacts in 27 of the 50 states... good for him... I hope his mom stops for ice cream after soccer practice...  78.5 percent of the nation is Christian. It is positively laughable that his coalition isn't in 48 of the 50. If all non-Christians lived in their own states, they would occupy 10 states. Even if that were the case, he should still be able to find contacts in the remaining 40.

Secondly, how and in what way is Michael Sam playing in the NFL trampling "the Christian community and Christian values." It's just so fucking stupid, res ipsa loquitur. Dear lord my head hurts simply trying to write this article. 

It is my experience that most of the gays that I know are looking forward to day when the act of existence is not viewed as a political statement. 

Blah Blah Blah

So I went to Photoshop and here's what Heterophobia would look like:

And how about this:

Or this:

Have you ever seen this?

What about from prominent gays:

Yeah, I haven't seen that either...

I realize that last one doesn't make a lick of sense, so I fixed it:

Wapow!

I was going to show actual photos that were the result of homophobia, but it was too much. So I posted a bunch of links that shows what homophobia actually looks like.

Warning: the following is far too graphic for this blog.

Mark Carson

Barie Shortell

Kerry Tyler Street (Actually Straight)

Dustin Martin

Ferrucio Silvestro

Wilfred de Bruijn

Sachsenhausen

And so many more, but I just can't go any further...


Liam '14

Sorry Pat. F & U Don't Solve the Puzzle.

As emperor of the gays, I want to congratulate game show host, Pat Sajak, for coming out as a heterosexual.Who would of guessed, he seemed so gay.

Klassy.

But no, I'll be serious for moment. Congratulations for being straight. Congratulations for feeling secure enough to come out. Congratulations for feeling so secure that you can tell your boss that you love a human being without the fear of being being terminated. Congratulations for feeling so secure that you can tell your family that you love a human being without the fear of being ostracized or financially or emotionally reprimanded. Congratulations that you feel so secure that you can tell your siblings that you love a human being without your siblings shielding their children from you, because they might emulate a "deviant lifestyle." Congratulations that you feel secure enough that you can tell your property manager that you live with the person that you love without the fear of being evicted.

Congratulations that your little stunt of trying to become the next right-wing martyr did not succeed, and you still have a job, a wife, a family, and a future.

May your second marriage continue going strong.

And perhaps now that you had the benefit of coming out without repercussions you could champion ENDA, so that no person should have to suffer consequences for saying the words "I love you."

But you won't.


Liam '14

As emporer I command you to kiss my ring

Apparently there are no Men in Gay Marriages

Thursday the 10th Circuit Court heard the oral argument to Kitchen v. Herbert 2: If You Can't Stand the Heat. Coming this Fall.

Kitchen is the groundbreaking decision out of the District Court of Utah that was the first ruling to overturn a marriage ban after the Windsor and Perry rulings. Yes, Utah.. right? But then again the court does what the constitution wants.

After the Kitchen decision, a tsunami of lower court decision, heretofore known as the Gaydal Wave of 2013, gave deference to the 14th amendment, which of course had previously been turned down by the Burger Court in Nelson v. Baker for "want of a substantial federal question."

The post Perry/Windsor victories cropped up in Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, while pending cases in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin all look increasingly promising.

When going through all the material to see on a national scale what marriage looks like, I became interested in how the United States got to this point, legally speaking. Before I read Kitchen, I knew the basics of the history. The basic frame work looks like this Loving v. Virginia, Nelson v. Baker, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor, and Perry. 

In Kitchen there is a great section that summarizes the movement towards equality:

In 1971, two men from Minnesota brought a lawsuit in state court arguing that Minnesota was constitutionally required to allow them to marry. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971). The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Minnesota's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 186-87. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972).

Utah argues that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker is binding on this court and that the present lawsuit should therefore be dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. But the Supreme Court has stated that a summary dismissal is not binding "when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise." Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975).

Here, several doctrinal developments in the Court's analysis of both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay men and lesbians demonstrate that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker has little if any precedential effect today. Not only was Baker decided before the Supreme Court held that sex is a quasi-suspect classification, see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 688 (1973) (plurality op.), but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36 (1996). Moreover, Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that it was unconstitutional for a state to "demean [the] existence [of gay men and lesbians] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). As discussed below, the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence removes a justification that states could formerly cite as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

The State points out that, despite the doctrinal developments in these cases and others, a number of courts have found that Baker survives as controlling precedent and therefore precludes consideration of the issues in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that Baker "limit[s] the arguments to ones that do not presume to rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."); Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002-03 (D. Nev. 2012) (ruling that Baker barred the plaintiffs' equal protection claim). Other courts disagree and have decided substantially similar issues without consideration of Baker. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ruling that California's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). In any event, all of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Windsor.

As discussed above, the Court's decision in Windsor does not answer the question presented here, but its reasoning is nevertheless highly relevant and is therefore a significant doctrinal development. Importantly, the Windsor Court foresaw that its ruling would precede a number of lawsuits in state and lower federal courts raising the question of a state's ability to prohibit same-sex marriage, a fact that was noted by two dissenting justices. The Honorable John Roberts wrote that the Court "may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). And Justice Scalia even recommended how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the question that is now before it: "I do not mean to suggest disagreement . . . that lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today's case when the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples." Id. at 2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It is also notable that while the Court declined to reach the merits in Perry v. Hollingsworth because the petitioners lacked standing to pursue the appeal, the Court did not dismiss the case outright for lack of a substantial federal question. See 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). Given the Supreme Court's disposition of both Windsor and Perry, the court finds that there is no longer any doubt that the issue currently before the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial question of federal law.

As a result, Baker v. Nelson is no longer controlling precedent and the court proceeds to address the merits of the question presented here.

The Burger Court's denial of Certiorari in Baker v. Nelson had persistent consequences for the marriage equality movement. No court could accept a 14th Amendment argument except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would then have no lower court decisions to argue over. Essentially until laws fundamentally changed, any decision would have had to been de novo. 

The legal shift happened, incidentally after 3 events occurred:

1. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which were codified under 28 U.S.C. § 1738C and 1 U.S.C. § 7. Among other things, it allowed states to not recognize Gay some marriages. It also forbade the Federal Government from recognizing Gay some marriages.

2. State Constitutional Bans. Under the logic of Baker, the issue at hand applied to statutory bans. So a boost to the advancement of marriage equality came from those who exploited discrimination for political gain. The movement to enact state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage began in 1998 with Alaska and Hawaii amending their constitutions to prohibit gays from  getting all gay with each other, am I right fellas?  

3. Marriage equality in the various states. People were married in one state and later moved to another. The notions of full faith and credit were challenged. Furthermore marriages were not equal at the federal level, due to DOMA.

By the time the courts had reached the Perry/Windsor Era, the legal landscape of America look like the following:

Maximum States Constitutional Bans: 30
States with Marriage Equality at the Time of Perry/Windsor: 9
Maximum States to Ever Have Marriage-Lite: 16 + DC

The legal setting was in place to overturn the Baker v. Nelson precedent.

Which brings me to the oral argument for Kitchen.

Here is copy of the oral argument from the April 10th, 2014 Kitchen v. Herbert hearing. It is three straight white dudes discussing my rights as an individual, so what could be more entertaining and in no way frustratingly patronizing.

The audio file has an issue with the left audio feed, so if it sounds gargled, open your equalizer and push the feed to your right output.

A few quick comments:

What is marriage? Apparently only something that a state has one hundred percent control over (because that's what I concluded from reading Loving v. Virginia.)

According to the defendant, it's better to have all of your rights taken away than to be a second class citizen... great argument.

Why the fuck did the defendants just bring up Maggie Gallagher? Seriously. She is a pointless nobody, with zero credibility. She has no higher degree, no JD, no Phd in psychology, and no expertise. I mean for fuck-sake, why didn't they just cite me or even my mom, or fuck it why not my Westie, who can put together an argument that is more coherent and more germane to the topic than Gallagher.  What a bunch of assholes. fucking fuck fuck. I mean seriously, I am glad this douchebag quoted her, because it is on tape, and he will go down in history as the small-minded bigot who quoted Gallagher and then got his ass handed to him in court and everyone in the world pointed and laughed at his tiny dick.

"[Gay marriage] is too new" to have data on societal effects. And so it will be if we never allow gay marriage.

"The disappearance of the dad." We cannot allow gay marriage because the children won't have a dad.... right. Also did he just try to equate gay couples to single parents?

"'Traditional Marriage'" Yes nice 200 year old tradition in a 400,000 year old species. If I hear traditional marriage one more time, I am going to yak.

DOMA was about states right to define marriage, that does not exclude the ability of the Federal constitution to enforce equal protection. It is not that hard to understand. We do not have any laws prohibiting poor people from getting married. Or ex-convicts. Or people named Trent. All of whom probably should be suspect parents/spouses before gay people.

Why don't conservatives get that gay people can have kids. I don't, but others do.

Why does it always come down to polygamy? A court couldn't simply allow polygamy. The polygamous marriage system wouldn't function without additional legislation to regulate how it would function. Most states have a system where each spouse owns half of the property of the marriage. How would that work in a polygamous system? Answer it wouldn't. Polygamy literally changes the definition of marriage, not who can marry.

So did Kitchen et al sue the right people?


Liam '14

Douchebag of the Day

Today the douche-o-meter goes bust on John Sununu.

Recently Mr. Sununu said:

I'm a giant weiner. Wah wah wah. The president's black and that makes me want to support Hitler. White Power. I John Sununu am definately saying this. Wah.

Sorry I was going to copy and paste the actual quote, but hey I'm drunk and pissed at his actual bullshit comments. It's funny how a communist born in the People's Republic of Cuba can lecture a red blooded American on what it means to be a "real" American. Fuck off! But seriously John Sununu was born in Havana, Cuba, I'm guessing only a crib away from Castro. Why does John Sununu hate America so much that he was born in the terrorist state of Cuba? Because he hates America.

But any way John Sununu definately knows how to be a real American. Listen to his sage like advice:

I'm a giant weiner. Wah wah wah. The president's black and that makes me want to support Hitler. White Power. I John Sununu am definately saying this.Wah.

 Shit. I'm sorry, I did it again. Ok Sununununu nunu nu said:

"I wish this president would learn how to be an American" 

Are you going to teach him how to be a real 'm'rican, eh comrade?

Anyone living in the United States is a real American. They cannot be taught how to be an American. A racist douchebag like John Sununu is just as American as is the president, as is the homelessman begging on the street, as is the banker, as are my grandparents who got off the boat from Latveria or anyone else living in the US. New York, Illinois, California, and Hawaii are just as much a part of America as is Wisconsin, Oklahoma, or Mississippi. So stop it with this shit. We have a vast range of ideas; many horrible, a few great, and we try to wrestle them out through debate and the political process. We get nowhere by trying to disqualify competing ideas by labeling them as anti-American.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Rachel Maddow

For months I have been following the Court Room Epic known as Dean v. Maddow  (Dean v. NBC Universal would be its hypothetical case name), where Axel Rose (not really) gains 50 pounds and goes on homophobic tirades and then sues Rachel Maddow for quoting him. I have read all the available documents from the original Complaint issued by Bradlee Dean, to the Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act, and now the Certification for Recusal or Disqualification of Judge.

I read the other day that the Judge in the case had docketed a judgment in favor of NBC Universal, awarding them attorneys fees. Subsequently the Plaintiffs are now quixotically pursuing a recusal. So in their honor I have gone through the main documents in the case to explain and critic them.  Hopefully the case will make a little bit more sense now.


The Complaint:

Don't Put in a Dollar Amount.

In many jurisdiction putting in an actual dollar amount in a complaint is unprofessional. Secondly 50 Million Dollars is ridiculous and makes you seem without creditability. If you are suing for 50 Million dollars, that is saying, Maddow ruined your reputation to the point where you expected to earn 1 Million dollars per year for the next 50 years. Dean is not Axel Rose so... yeah...

Side Bar Time

If you are suing someone for defamation, you should be mindful of the elements of a Tort. DBCD.  If you are claiming damages to your reputation and business, then making headlines (especially if it's the La Crosse Tribune):

DUNKERTON, Iowa — Administrators, teachers and students did not get what they expected Thursday during an extended school program.

Everyone anticipated the message from Junkyard Prophet, a traveling band based in Minnesota, to be about bullying and making good choices. Instead, junior and senior high students at Dunkerton High School and faculty members said they were assaulted by the group's extreme opinions on homosexuality and images of aborted fetuses.

"They told my daughter, the girls, that they were going to have mud on their wedding dresses if they weren't virgins," said Jennifer Littlefield, a parent upset with the band's performance..

... Littlefield also did not appreciate what she described as gay bashing.

"They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42," she said. "It just blows me away that no one stopped this."

Don't be in the news showing that the Maddow segment didn't affect your career. If you are still getting hired to preform at high schools, it is counter to your argument that you're damaged goods. Worse, if you are the one destroying your own reputation that undercuts the claim that Maddow is the causation. Worst, by saying sufficiently similar things to the alleged defamation, it shows the defamatory statements to be true, which is a defense against defamation.

Reduce the Pages

There are approximately 6 unnecessary pages out of 10. This is a court proceeding not the Newsroom at Fox. Slamming Maddow for being a gay leftist secular atheist will only anger the court because it has nothing to do with the case or the law.

State a Claim

Really why are you suing. If you can't state it in clear, concise words, then perhaps you shouldn't be suing.  Not everything requires a lawsuit.

Proof Read

Yes, hire a high school student if you need to. I'm dyslexic, and I would never, never submit anything without having 2 to 3 pair of eyes reading it, well except this blog because I'm lazy and cheap. Sentences like this should be edited "He is on information and belief a gay activist."  Once again I write a blog, I submit articles that I have proofread. They have spelling errors. If I were before a court I would pay someone to read it over. And get a style guide to learn how to comma properly. I suggest Eats, Shoots & Leaves.


The Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act:

 Like her or hate her, Maddow has great lawyers. Really this motion is pure poetry. Well articulated, coherent and well reasoned. It is never abusive, but release on the law to make legal arguments.It is 51 pages, but if you ever get a chance to read the ant-slapp do it.  This is how a legal document should read.


The Recusal:


Good Faith vs. Bad Faith.

Because you are a Christian does not mean that you always have good faith. For example, if you move to dismiss your own action to bring the case to Federal Court to avoid Anti-SLAPP laws that is known as forum shopping. Forum Shopping is the antithesis of Good Faith. This motion clearly admits Forum Shopping, so it is doubly embarrassing.

While on the subject of good faith, NBC Universal could easily have filed a Motion for a change of venue. By getting a different venue Larry Klayman couldn't represent Dean, and let's face it DC is awkward in this case as Dean is primarily from Minnesota, Maddow Broadcasts from New York, and  NBC Universal is also out of New York.

It takes an Idiot...

When you are trying to get relief from judgment on the basis that the judge was prejudice it would behoove a litigant to do anything but call the judge a "woman scorned." It makes you seem like a jackass. Really why would you write that, all it can do is show that you were being unreasonable. Seriously, fuck, that's stupid.

!ekorts regna na dah tsuj I !ti nmaD

Ok. I'm better. When you are trying to claim prejudice, you yourself do not want to seem in the least bit prejudice. This is kindergarten shit.

It's a (Gay) Trap!

This is not Fox News. The Gay conspiracy doesn't exist. So stop it. It only hurts your argument as you seem unreasonable.


In the end it's real simple, the judge was in her right to order Attorneys' Fees. If you bring a suit forward only to drop it right before commencement you are wasting people's time and money.  What the Judge ordered was fair and reasonable. She could have gone a mile further and order deeper sanctions for wasting not only the defendants' money and time, but also the courts. She may also have been able to sanction Klayman (DC Bar Rule 3.2). This complaint is obviously frivolous because the plaintiff could barely state a claim. Dropping the case seconds before trial to pursue the same lousy case in a different court is a waste of time and money. Money the defendants should not pay.

All in all I am a little comfuzeded by this whole case.  I thought both Klayman and Dean were small government conservatives. So why do they need the Government to solve their problems? And why are they now seeking help from the largest, most gay loving intrusive level of government?

Homersexual Agenda

The Homosexual Agenda a brief history.

In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Antonin Scalia wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

The problem with relying solely on group morality in a constitutional democracy to dictate the laws is that the constitution often interferes with the group morality. When we have penumbras such as privacy and the equal protection clause discrimination based on morality will be . Another way to put it is that our morals are eclipsed by our laws. The large distinction between morality and law is the concept of harm. Many things that are immoral are harmful: murder, theft, breaking-people's-legs. Other things are "immoral" but are not harmful and not illegal: eating bacon, sloppy gay sex, being a douche, etc. There is also another category of harmful but not immoral: jaywalking, speeding, being too awesome.

So obviously there are somethings that are harmful and immoral and those definitively should be against the law. But it is sloppy to say that because something is immoral that it is also illegal. And for good reason. Who's morality are we going to use? And what principles are behind that chosen morality?

The legal approach has its goods and its bads; however, the concept of harm as the basis of all laws is rather non-arbitrary, when compared to morality.

The moral approach is highly arbitrary particularly among religious zealots and literalists. They probably claim that they are the ones who definitely are not arbitrary since they follow every word of the bible, rationality be damned. But that is the problem, what rational reason is there for something to be illegal or immoral without harm. In the bible it often justifies morality by saying it displeases God. Eating cilantro displeases me; however, I don't consider it to be a sin nor think it should be illegal.

Here are somethings that the bible says are immoral:

Shellfish
Pork
Peeing while standing up (seriously 1 Samuel 25:22)
Gay Sex
Wearing Boyfriend-Jeans
Girls wearing pants
Men wearing skirts (Sorry Scotland)
Adultery (Punishable by Stoning)
Sex for Pleasure
Hair cuts
Palm reading
Leather
Polyester
Mixed Fabrics
Having Acne
Not Washing your Shower
Tattoos
Worshiping the wrong god (funny how that's every religion)
Saying Abracadabra
Forgetting the Incense
Simply wanting new things

Arguing with your parents (death penalty)
Wear gold
Shaving
Marring Foreigners
Doing anything on Sunday (goodbye football) 

And here are somethings the bible conveniently forgets:


Slavery
War
Homelessness
Illiteracy
Outsourcing
Tax Evasion (well Jesus said not to evade them)
Land Annexation
Burning of Fossil Fuels
Genocide
Over Population
Pre E-ZPass Toll Booths (evilest of all things)



So why is homosexuality immoral to some, and what is this Scalia-called homosexual agenda?

Morality is arbitrary and often based on religious text or philosophical work based on religious tenants. (As Nietzsche would say in today's parlance "suck it Marx.") Some people guess that religious texts are ancient survival guides and nation building manuals. So in that context perhaps then there was some rationality, but it no longer is applicable.

The homosexual agenda is not some scary menace. There is no conspiracy to convert teens into gays. There is a legal defense fund called Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, and organizations like the SPLC.

These organizations promote issues that actually matter in the lives of gay people and have little impact on the rest of Americans.

The Real Homosexual Agenda's Issues:

1. The right to marry whomever a person chooses.
2. The right to stick it in any consenting hole.
3. The right to continue Health Insurance in cases of HIV.
4. To be protected from acts of physical violence and destruction of property.

Wie schrecklich! It is so menacing to want to marry a person and have legal rights, or to not be arrested for having consenting sex in your own house (or blackmailed for it), or not lose your health insurance from catching a communicable disease, or to ask the police to actually investigate and catch criminals.


Anyway, I was trying to think of how a hick would say homosexual, and I came up with the word homersexual. And then I thought of a gay Homer Simpson, so this is today's disturbing photoshop:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

A Tale of the Map

This is a post that I will probably repost about once a month from now until the subject matter is solved. America is a Federalist Society.  We have a large powerful Federal Government balance by individual state governments.  When working properly, Federalism has one massive advantage over other political systems: a system of trial and error.  States often share similar problems and common questions of governance. The strength of federalism comes when states with similar problems come up with different solutions.  After time passes, the nation as a whole can see how the two varying solutions have worked to solve the particular problem.

That's how federalism should work, anyway.  I have a feeling that it does not often happen. Stubbornness, pride, regionalism, and ignorance can prevent states from enacting proven measures. Furthermore, a practical solution to a perceived problem may interfere with a special interest. Vast amounts of wealth can be spent to change people's beliefs.

A few months ago, when the Republicans were in primary mode, a mini-controversy erupted around the issue of contraceptives. Primarily that they need to change the composition of the Supreme Court so that Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) can be overturned. (Nothing says freedom quite like having your right to privacy utterly stripped away.) I was shock to hear this in the modern era, since I knew that Texas has both a high Teen Pregnancy rate and a poor sex education program.  It was even more disturbing to hear contraceptives being discussed, in general and not only for teens, because I'm an adult and I will place a piece of latex on my penis and have sex with whomever I want. It is insane to think otherwise, especially by people who claim to champion freedom.

While the Federal Government has a role in Sex Education, primarily through Federal funds distributed to states, the majority of the policies come from the state and local levels.A state can choose to implement comprehensive, abstinence only sex education, or leave it up to local school districts (Texas.)

The following is a series of maps, the majority created by the CDC, which shows  general trends in America based on Health, Education, and Socio-Economics.

The first set of four maps show the basic sexual health of the nation, at a state or county level.

Teen Pregnancy Rates:

Syphilis Rates:

Gonorrhea Map:

Speaking of Sex Education, here is what I think should be shown. It would defiantly help lower teen pregnancy, raise tolerance and awareness. And evangelical christian types really show love my method as it is a perverted version of abstinence only.

I'm joking of course. Obviously nobody should be pressured into being gay, just as nobody should be pressured into being straight.  Attraction is attraction: if you're gay you're gay, if you're bi you're bi, if you're straight then you won't have any fun you're straight. Oh yes, also always wear a condom, always! There is no acceptable reason to not wear one during recreational sex. And if you are having sloppy gay sex, use a non-oil based lube. I digress.

Moving on to something, much, much more serious, here is a map of America based on Heart Disease.
Heart Disease Map:

For shame America, for shame. How can Wisconsin, the land of beer and cheese, be one of the healthier states when it comes to heart disease.. For shame.

Here is what the up coming generation will look like.

High School Obesity:

Compared to heart disease and adult obesity, the government can play a much greater role, in a much simpler fashion in High Schools. From extended PhysEd to low calorie lunch options, home economics, and health courses, states can lower the obesity rate among teens.  Furthermore we can use federalism to find the best solution.

High School Graduation Rates:

Bachelors Degrees:

Prison Population:

Violent Crime Rate:

I was planning to show a Hate Crimes map; however, since it is up to the individual states to define what a hate crime is and to report them to the FBI, I decided to forgo a map. According to the FBI's data center in 2010, Mississippi had one agency  reporting hate crimes while Iowa had fourteen.  Mississippi claimed to have only 11 hate crimes (they claimed only 1 in 2009) while Iowa claimed 14 cases.  

I really have my doubts about the accuracy, since as I said before states define and report hate crimes. Mississippi and Alabama have a long history of hate crimes and a failure to prosecute them.  I question the accuracy for another anecdotal reason; I haven't ever heard of a movie called Iowa Burning. 

SPLC also claims  that there are currently 41 known active hate groups in Mississippi, while there are only 4 in Iowa. But unfortunately this methodology could easily be flawed, since Wyoming, the birth place of hate crime laws has only 2 reported hate groups.

And to be truthful I really am disappointed with the honesty of the numbers, because I wanted to use those statistics to take an honest look at hate crime policies in the US.  I am not fully convinced that the progressive is necessarily the best practical way to solve hate crimes.

For as much as I joke, name call, and argue there is one thing I will not belittle. Perhaps the most telling of all is this one map.

Poverty in America:

 

If there were an omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving god, I cannot think of any greater issue, any greater image that would disturb this god than the poverty map.

 

Maps 1-6, 11 come from the CDC; 7,8 come from the Census; 9,10 come from Wikipedia.

This country and our individual states can only improve when the American people educate themselves. Ask questions of politicians, ask question of journalist, just ask questions. People lie, statistics can be manipulate, and I could be entirely wrong on my assertions, but given what I have I believe we can find a solution to our greatest problems and move forward.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

I think America's Scared to have a Man-Date

Holy shit. Lawrence O'Donnell was really right about something. Based on his background, it should come as no surprise that Lawrence does actually seem to be fairly competent with the USC. Perhaps I simply missed the conversation about what the individual mandate actually is, but when I finally looked it up to verify, I was shocked.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is no such thing as the individual mandate. Wow. Lawrence is absolutely correct.

According to 26 USC § 5000A(g)(2)(A):

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

Under this section of the IRS code, you cannot be thrown in jail for not having health insurance. It is that simple. Well simple is not the right word as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 906 pages long, and even by legal standards is fairly complex. But not going to jail over failure to pay the mandate tax, maybe someone in the Obama Administration should have explained this point, repeatedly.

26 USC § 5000A(g)(2)(B)(i)-(ii):

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—

(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The IRS cannot file a lien or place a levy on a person for failing to pay the penalty created by the individual mandate.  So if Person A doesn't have health insurance, they will be slapped with an approximate $100 tax (fine); however the government cannot put Person A in jail, secure a lien, or place a levy.  Essentially as the law is written, there is no way for the government to get the money.  Therefore, if the individual mandate is the only section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be struck down, it would seem consequence free for the Obama Administration. Yes that's right, the mean over-intrusive federal government is going to force you to have health insurance by doing nothing to force you to have health insurance.

Ass-hats.

I think the Obama Administration should  find an attorney and a cartoonist and have them come up with simple explanations for controversial laws, instead of having people just tune into Fox News where they hear stupid shit like death panels.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Creationism is an Insult to God

If there is a god, this would-be-god would be probably pissed at Americans for pushing to start teaching Creationism again. I took an online Pew Quiz on Religion not too long ago (I scored 15 out of 15, though it was none too hard; I was also disappointed that there were no questions on Zoroastrianism or African Animism), and there was one question in particular that stood out to me.  Erroneously, 77% of the quiz-takers believed that public school teachers cannot read from the bible as an example of literature or as a historical document.

With that statistic in mind, when I was reading this Article from Pew, I had to laugh at all the drool spewing, anger-monkeys who do not know what they're talking about or voting for:

Despite that long series of court decisions, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor looser, not tighter, limits on religion in public schools. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Americans (69%) agree with the notion that “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of the schools and the government.” And a clear majority (58%) favor teaching biblical creationism along with evolution in public schools. 

Do they not understand the whole First Amendment thing, or will shoe stores in the near future stock only Velcro shoes.  The legal history of the Establishment Clause is borne not from  the scourge of Atheism, but the long standing conflict between the Protestant Majority and the powerful Catholic Minority. In State ex rel Weiss v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177 (1890), Catholic parents objected to public schools reading from the King James Bible. They objected to having a different bible being along with the whole anti-Catholic sentiment thingy. The argument is as frequently "which god," as it is "is there a god." This Wisconsin Decision would latter be adopted (after years of Selective Inclusion) by the US Supreme Court. In Schempp and other similar decisions, the Court ruled in a manner that prohibits Compulsory and Established religious instruction.  Essentially, teachers can teach the bible, but they cannot preach the bible.

America is not a Christian Nation. America is a nation where the Majority chooses to be Christian. Our system is one million times greater than any theocracy or any possible right-wing  fantasy, simply because we are allowed a choice. True belief is never forced.

The second portion of the Pew article quote focuses on the teaching of Creationism in Biology classes. 58% of Americans are doing a disservice to their children by supporting Creationism. If there is a god, god created the Universe through the Big Bang, and life follows the principles of evolution.  We know this, we have seen life evolve in front of our eyes, and there is an indisputable fossil record. Saying god created the universe in a myth-like fashion, when we know better seems to me insulting.  The creation myth detracts from the beauty and wonderment of the true universe that god (possibly) created. 

The time between the Big-Bang and  the emergence of humans did not happen in 6 days. If it did, Adam would have been baked alive by the severity of the Cosmic Background Radiation.  And let's face it, every religion and every culture has it's own creation myth. Is the Biblical creation myth any easier to swallow than Heaven and Earth literally fucking us into existence, or a Crow stealing fire from the sun, or Atum masturbating the world into existence. With Cosmic Background Radiation Maps, charted Doppler Shifts in star systems and even galaxies, photos of deep space/ early universe from the Hubble Telescope, and basic understanding of atomic theory, scientists have put forward a more accurate model of the creation of the universe using math.Quel Horreur!

If there is a god, study science and give god proper praise for god's actual accomplishments, not the false nonsense in an ancient book.

Here's My version of the Great Sky Man that should offend:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

What about My Freedom of Religion

I grew up Methodist. I thought for a while that the Church would allow gay-marriages or blessed unions depending on the legality of the state. My parents' pastor is very into gay rights and even holds a support group in a small town in America (scary).  If there were a god I would hope it is his. He is a man of peace, concerned for the poor, and a supporter of a more loving world.

It is a commonly held belief that gay-marriage is an infringement on religious liberty, which is a ridiculous statement that does not even hold up on first glance. Freedom of Association will allow individual churches the right to perform marriage and exclude gays if it is counter to their core beliefs. Many churches and religions outside of Christianity hold that having sex outside of marriage to be a sin while no longer holding homosexuality to be an inherent sin. By barring gay-marriage, Conservatives are pushing gays to choose either a life of abstinence or a life sin in the eye of their religion. The possibly for Christianity to accept homosexuality, and gay-marriage as a consequence, is quite likely.  While the Old Testament has a prohibition on homosexuality, the Gospel does not. In fact, the New Testament mentions the word 'Love' 179 times, while it mentions 'Hate' only 16 times, and 'Homosexuality' 0 times. In fact some Christian sects such the ELCA, individual UCC congregations, Anglican Church, not to mention the Reform Movement in Judaism, and various sects of Buddhism and Hinduism all accept Homosexuality. Many other Christian sects are divided on the issue.

If gay-marriage were actually accepted by the Methodist Church would it be an infringement of my religion to prohibit gay-marriage? Legally, based on past precedence as shown in  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), gay-marriage wouldn't be protected on the grounds of freedom of religion; however, under the logic of Loving, gay-marriage should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause. As a logical argument, preventing gay-marriage would be an infringement of my religion as it prevents me from completing a religious sacrament. Furthermore allowing gay-marriage in no way interferes with anyone-else's rights.

The other common argument I hear against gay-marriage is that it will alter 3,000 years of marriage tradition. This is not a straw-man argument, Mitt Romney actually said that. What is traditional marriage?

According to this Princeton Article  and this Independent Article 1/6 of societies practice legal monogamy currently. Legal monogamy was a rarity during antiquity and even more so in prior eras. Most Christians should understand this, because Judaism of course was historically polygamous. And the Greco-Roman tradition of man on man rumpus wasn't lost to the ages. It wasn't until the merger of Christianity and the Roman Empire that lead to an ascetic marriage tradition. I do have to say though that I'm disappointing with history, and the fact that we didn't end up with a system of polygamous gay-marriage. I think we were kind of close to that possibility.

And once this system of marriage was created, it looked very different from the nuclear family of today.  Forced marriages were common place until the 19th Century. I really don't think anyone wants to go back to that tradition.

So if it isn't tradition or religious liberty, what else is there? Many people have a problem with the gay identity, and how the gayness is the only aspect of gay people's lives.  The way I see it, gay people do not want to be identified as being gay. They are simply people who happen to be attracted to men. Why is that evil? Where is the logic behind the morality?  With the boom in human population, mass starvation (yes people really are starving), and other population related issues, perhaps we should encourage gay people to live as gay (as opposed to living a miserable closeted life and having a family that will one day suffer the consequences.)

Believe it or not, logically gay people have more to gain than the heterosexual community has to lose by granting gay rights. In marriage, gays would gain a whole host of financial, mutual-property, and other legal rights that straight couples enjoy. More marriage is not about having children (which, unfortunately for a certain writer, many gay couples wish to have) but more is a contract for living together and preparing to be divorced. Seriously a lot of the marriage laws are about merger of property, division of property, inheritance, and other depressing aspects of life.

If it weren't for the history of bigotry and hatred there wouldn't really even be a gay culture. If it weren't for being forced into gay neighborhoods, if it weren't for lynchings and murders, if it weren't for the fear of losing one’s job due to outing, if it weren't for the bigotry, gay people wouldn't have formed a separate culture, and they would simply be people. 

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Nature is not so Natural

UPDATE: I found the full video, and to be fair the section of youtube was taken out of context. I'm not going to take down this post because I have heard many of the same arguments made by other people.   So I guess just pretend that Mr. Barber didn't say these things.
 
I stumbled upon this video, and it quickly became apparent that I need to comment on this idiocy. The video was uploaded to Youtube via Right Wing Watch. I found the transcript on Right Wing Watch's site.Not like this isn't a daily occurrence, we get to see Matt Barber make an ass of himself, Liberty Counsel, and thus ""Liberty" "University""(oh wait it actually is ABA accredited).

 

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Let's deconstruct his argument chunk by chunk.

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.

A tyranny of right, that sounds like a tyranny of freedom, which makes perfect sense. I have to give him credit, if you say something that is dumb enough it's like brain Novocaine, that way you won't notice the hate so much.Then he moves to how the act of gay sex is the only thing that identifies us.  It's never the love two people share, the emotional connections, the friendship, the stories, or the day-in-day-out same as strait people lives, it is always about the sloppy butt sex.  Yep for me it is.  I couldn't go to work because I was getting ass-fucked.  I couldn't get the mail because I was getting ass-fucked. Guess why I couldn't walk the dog. I digress.

This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. 

Once again a tyranny of rights.. Is this fucker trying to piss me off, or is does he seriously confuse liberty and oppression. I could live with one of those. Then he says it will replace the enumerated rights, what enumerated right will disappear? Well, tell me jackass. Which one goes bye-bye? That's what I thought.Next he says god wrote our original constitution. Great job on that slavery things asshole. And if you're omnipotent and omniscient why did you allow for amendments..

Ooh here he say's the constitution is predicated upon Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  Yes because there are no such things a gay animals. Nope no such things as gay penguins.  I means seriously has he never been to the monkey section of the zoo. Chimpanzees are always "playing" with each other. Bonobo constantly giving out gay hand-jobs (well technically they are bi hand-jobs.) And just a side note when I end up in hell, I hope it's penguin hell.  He then says being gay violates these Law's of nature and thus the constitution res ipsa loquitur.

Let's look at the constitutional rights he list again:

Religious Liberty: Yes and which God hates the gays. If my God happens to think we all should be gay. Or more likely what if I am Buddhist, Hindu, Reform Jewish, or a Congregationalist.


Freedom of speech: Meh off the top of my head I have nothing clever for this one.

Freedom of association: Dear lord he's an idiot. First off, freedom of association is not a word for word constitutional right.  It is known as a penumbra. A good definition of penumbra come from Lawyers.com, "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication from other rights explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution."  Similar to privacy which was granted Griswold v. Connecticut. if the courts start eating away at the penumbras so goes free association.

Second what can be more of a freedom of association issue than choosing who you want to hang out with, date, love, have sex with,  live with, and eventually marry. Those are what the Gay Rights are all about.

The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Yes of course rights of the people cannot exist with the Constitution. And didn't Jesus say to be a Fish of Men.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Behind the Name

This is a bit of the reason why I titled this blog "Freedom Just For Me."

In 2010 a group of ultra rabid, foaming at the mouth, freedom hating, meh I could go on forever with insults Republicans had their collective Hate-Meters ramped up all the way to Def-Con 6.  The issue at hand was Park51, which they labeled as the Ground-Zero-Victory-Mosque.

Here is the mission statement provided by Park51:

Park51 will be a vibrant and inclusive community center, reflecting the diverse spectrum of cultures and traditions, and serving New York City with programs in education, arts, culture and recreation.

Inspired by Islamic values and Muslim heritage, Park51 will weave the Muslim-American identity into the multicultural fabric of the United States. Park51 aims to foster cooperation and understanding between people of all faiths and backgrounds through relevant programs and initiatives.

Wow that's gutsy as hell of them to quote Osama Bin Laden's First Video. The conservatives, who months prior dressed up in tricorne hats screaming that the government is takin' way all 'em freedumz, were petitioning New York City to make the Burlington Coat Factory a historical cite, thus preventing the construction of the Center. If you want to protest or boycott that is your right as a free citizen, but to take legal action through the Government to prevent people from practicing their religion, and it is especially terrible if you literally are waving a banner that reads "Liberty." I cannot imagine these people taking legal action to prevent a church from being built, or enjoying being on the receiving end of a government order.  They want freedom and the liberty to deny others the freedoms they enjoy.

Glaring hypocrisy aside, the problem with whole Ground Zero Mosque thing is that

A: Park51 is not on Ground Zero. It was previously a Burlington Coat Factory store;

B: Park51 is an inter-religious cultural center not a Mosque. Apparently they have had a workshop teaching children how to make bread. Quel Malheur;

C: By labeling Park51 as a  "Victory Mosque" they are implying Muslim-Americans are somehow in cahoots with Bin Laden.  It's saying that Muslim Americans are taking victory, even though Muslim-Americans were in that area prior to 9/11.

Equating all Muslims with the Al-Qaeda is like say all Americans are just like Fred Phelps. Speaking of the idiot, maybe this should be his next sign.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me