The American Spectator : Obama Comes Full Circle

Text Size

Obama Comes Full Circle

By Janice Shaw Crouse on 5.11.12 @ 6:09AM

Surprise, surprise! He’s for same-sex “marriage.”

In yet another move designed to distract attention from his abysmal record, the sluggish recovery, and continuing dismal unemployment data, President Obama confirmed what anyone who paid any attention to his actions and past statements already knew: the president supports same-sex “marriage.”

Mr. Obama’s historic announcement is a watershed moment for the nation. Across cultures and throughout history, marriage between a man and a woman has been, as Cicero put it, the “first bond of society.” Never before has a president endorsed a position that would so “fundamentally transform” America. But wait, that is what he promised to do in his 2008 campaign. His first term as president has been evidence of fundamental alteration of the basic aspects of American culture and society. Some think that Vice President Biden jumped the gun — that Mr. Obama might have preferred to time his announcement a bit differently. President Obama might possibly have preferred to wait until after his hoped-for re-election before publicly embracing such a controversial issue, but things are not going so well in his 2012 campaign, what with him drawing only half-full stadiums and lagging contributions. Plus, even Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post was calling the president “weak and evasive” as he tried to avoid stating the obvious.

It was an open secret that the president supported legalization of same-sex “marriage” — on the record — as early as 1996, so his comments about his position “evolving” put him in an untenably wishy-washy position vis-à-vis his LGBT supporters. Further, his 2010 statements about the “sacred” nature of marriage and the importance of God being “in the mix” ring hollow in light of his actions undermining marriage: He overturned “don’t ask, don’t tell,” signed “hate crimes” legislation, stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act, and extended domestic benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. If he is re-elected, the sad undermining of holy matrimony and the disintegration of the family will continue until these pillars of American society shrivel into weak ruins of their former strength.

Clearly, the president had no choice but to “come out” for same-sex “marriage”; it had become a matter of character and integrity. Even his staunchest supporters were tired of the “wink-wink and nod-nod.” Others believe the big announcement was carefully orchestrated. First, he sent out Vice President Biden to test the waters and extend the media life of his announcement. Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, quickly chimed in to agree. David Axelrod, the president’s campaign manager, affirmed that the president did, indeed, agree with the vice president. When the president spoke (typically, out of both sides of his mouth and trying to have it both ways), he also said it was a matter for the individual states (in conflict with his position of not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act). And, of course, reporters like Amy Walter, ABC’s political director, quickly declared the decision to be a personal one, not one with a “political agenda.”

Sorry, Amy. The politics of the decision are clear. The president is having a hard time raising money and generating enthusiasm for 2012. At this point, he needs a big boost in both money and enthusiasm.

After his big announcement — which was news to no one — he raised $1 million in 90 minutes, not exactly chump change, but not an avalanche either when he’s looking to raise a billion dollars to fund his campaign. Analysts say that one in six of the president’s major fundraisers is openly homosexual. Obviously, homosexual activists will work even harder and will dig deeper into their deep pockets to ensure his re-election. Andrew Tobias, treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, said, “Within minutes, people were calling with their credit cards. They’re thrilled.”

Some pundits are trying to claim that the president’s calculated endorsement of the homosexual agenda will not hurt him with black voters. The latest polls, though, confirm that blacks and Latinos are among the strongest supporters of traditional marriage. Further, traditional marriage has prevailed in all 32 states where the issue has been put to a vote before the general public. In those states where same-sex “marriage” has been instituted, it was either by judicial fiat or legislative action. The president and all his advisors might just discover that the nation is more pro-marriage than the elites would like to think.

The president claimed that the marriage issue is “generational” (older working-aged people, having gained both wisdom and self-sufficiency, are not among Obama’s base). Sadly, Mr. Obama used members of the military and his daughters as emotional fodder for his televised statement, claiming that their desire for equality is “the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.” The president also linked his endorsement of homosexual “marriage” to his campaign theme of “forward” by claiming that the presumptive GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, would “take us back.” In contrast, Mr. Romney, during one of the televised primary debates, said, “3,000 years of human history shouldn’t be discarded so quickly.”

The nation’s “progressive” elites think that they should be allowed to re-write cultural mores and morals to suit their more enlightened “change of perspective.” The risks of further deterioration of marriage are clear in the social science research. With 41 percent of the nation’s children being born out of wedlock, America is reaping the whirlwind from the very predictable negative outcomes of the decline in marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family — nowhere more evident than on display on a drive through Detroit or other major cities. It is a very sad day for America when our president chooses to put his short-run, short-lived benefit of getting re-elected ahead of the long-run well-being of the nation’s priceless children who will bear the brunt of his support for the unleashing of rapacious special interest groups whose appetites for self-indulgence knows no limits.

About the Author

Janice Shaw Crouse, author of Children at Risk and Marriage Matters, is senior fellow at Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (263) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.11.12 @ 6:18AM

The government destroys everything it touches or controls. One has to wonder why so many people want to come under government control. In essence, it's a death wish.

On another note , I would now like for Obama to come out of the closet on rights for terrorists. He has supported them secretly for years. Now it's time for him to go public.

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:26AM

hahahaha! it would be interesting to see how he can once again invoke his daughters for political cover

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.11.12 @ 6:32AM

Or better still, "Michelle and Hillary are rubbing each other down in the Licoln Bedroom and I see nothing wrong with it.".

chuck| 5.11.12 @ 8:17AM

Yuck!

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 8:28AM

Don't want that visual. eeek! This is what the 60s have brought us and I'm still not convinced obama isn't gay. He's waaaay to feminine the way he sits like a girl with his scrawney legs crossed.

TLP| 5.11.12 @ 8:57AM

How about this one?

I wonder. If there was a rumble, between Hillary and the Michelle? Do you think that Hillary would lick Michelle? Or, Michelle would lick Hillary?

Then again, they might be so evenly matched that they'd end up licking each other, until one of them passed out. AND, if the fight gets too boring? We can have Ellen jump in to the Ring, and she can lick both of them, at the same time.

Now, if you'll excuse me.

I need to take a Shower.

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 10:27AM

Yikes!!!! Hey Bill & Tim, you boys have been watching too much on line porn. That is ONE UGLY picture you boys have painted. Talk about "Ebony and Ivory".
But as to Obozo, I ask again, does anybody remember what ever happened to the tall, thin black Illinois state senator who used to frequent the gay baths?
Isn't it funny that the whores in the MSM, and the militant gay community, who are still gushing about "historic" revelations from Obozo, refuse to "out" Obozo about his sexual orientation?
Gee, if being in favor of gay marriage is such an historic, breath taking decision, imagine what being America's first gay president would be?
Oh yeah, I forgot, they're part of the Obozo team.
"Outting" is reserved only for conservative Rs. Silly me.

vtwin| 5.11.12 @ 10:43AM

“Does anybody remember what ever happened to the tall, thin black Illinois state senator who used to frequent the gay baths?” Damn Anthony, I thought your only fetish was sweaty tattooed male bikers wearing only motor oil.

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 11:09AM

Hey vtwin, you're alive!!! We haven't heard from you in a while. I was beginning to think those Oakland gang members who recently ransacked your city by the bay, got a hold of you too!!
Speaking of fetishes, I bet you and your San Fran biker boys like hoodie gang members from Oakland, kinda like a sister city sort of thing.

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:45AM

Vtwin: even tho we frequently disagree, I hope your mom is still alive and that she had a great mom's day. She raised a nice kid.

Perfect Harmony???| 5.11.12 @ 12:47PM

Are, in fact, Ebony and Ivory female?

Who's gonna verify?

And, is it any coincidence Ozero was first on record for same sex 'marriage' in, of all years, 1996?

"Reerect our country's black, married to a transsexual, president, for only the second time in our country's history, ever!"

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 1:44PM

""Outting" is reserved only for conservative Rs. Silly me."

YUP---SILLY YOU, INDEED..!

"Outting" is generally used to illustrate the HYPOCRACY you dinosaurs show, when you screech about "fire and brimstone" in one breathe, and get serviced by your boy-toys, in the next.

Archade| 5.11.12 @ 1:55PM

Silly,
the readers spurned 'you' when you were 'jharp',
they spurned 'you' when you were 'fckewe',
they have spurned 'you' whoever 'you' have pretended to 'be',
and they will spurn 'you' now.

I ought to know.

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 2:20PM

Hey Pelleass, you shour didn't learn much in yoour Head Start program, now did ya boy?
You ain't one to talk about HYPOCRISY, don't ya know, cuz you can't spel for sheet.
And boy, you sure as hell ain't one to taulk about no "fire and brimstone" neither. We knows what your BREATH is like after a nite at the baths.
So careful boy, or next time this dinosaur will stomp on yo sorry ass.

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 2:49PM

Great--YOU can spell.. BUT ya sure can't THINK..!!

REMEMBER the fate of the dinosaurs?-- your time is rapidly approaching their same (un-missed) ending, thank-the goddess..!

Archade| 5.11.12 @ 2:59PM

Silly 'jharp', I mean 'fckewe', I mean 'Pelleas', spurned by men too.

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 3:32PM

You poor sap Pelleass. When will you realize that Obozo, Axelrod and all the other D hacks are laughing themselves silly because they have useful idiots like you who swallow it whole!!!
You're a fool, and apparently a willing one at that.
Boy, it will not be conservatives who will be the first ones to go under Obozo, it will be the useful fools who are no longer needed. Do think about extracting your head from your ass before it's too late.
Enough, play time is over. I have a 4:00 tee time, and unlike Obozo, I hit em straight.

TrueBlue | 5.11.12 @ 5:57PM

Funny since it's the openly "Liberal" population that is in decline rather than the conservatives...

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:46AM

The dinosaurs lasted for4 hundreds of millions of years---a lot longer than "Progressives" will. You see, in order to go on, you have to BREED.

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:47AM

sorry--"for"

RCV| 5.11.12 @ 5:26PM

Surely YOU must remember who that guy was Anthony.

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:29AM

Little Anthony and the Imperialists

RCV| 5.13.12 @ 3:37PM

LOL

Alan Brooks| 5.11.12 @ 8:26PM

"Or better still, 'Michelle and Hillary are rubbing each other down in the Licoln Bedroom and I see nothing wrong with it.' "

Whatever turns you on, whatever floats your boat, whatever turns your CRANK.

Dustoff| 5.11.12 @ 9:34AM

Remember Jimmy Carter asking his daughter about nukes.

He was toast right after that.

Jack in Wi.| 5.11.12 @ 6:46AM

Hussain I agree with you about that. Obama is a disaster. The trouble is that we have a candidate who has a lot of the same flaws. Romney care cancels out Obama care. Romney did little to fight gay marriage in Massacusetts, which was imposed by the courts in his state while he was governor. He has always been wishy washy on the issue. He was pro choice for decades before his sudden miraculous conversion. He was for TARP before he was against it. The same is true of the bailout of General Motors. His neocon , chickenhawk warmongering makes Obama look like a peacenik. The country by huge majorities wants out of these wars and wasteful military spending.

Then we have gay marriage. The Republican elites have been tapp dancing around the issue for a long time. We have Cheney and his bull dyke daughter pushing it. We have one of the Bush daughters doing it as well. I think Laura Bush did too. Then we have Megan McCain pushing it. The Republicans used to stand for family values.

Now we have Romney stating that homosexuals should be able to adopt, if I heard him right in a debate. To me the most disgusting thing all this pro homosexual movement has done is promote the concept of homosexuality being normal and healthy among the young. I think it is very telling that Obama's Secretary of Education came out for this. They are in our schools pushing this down the throats of our children. This is nothing but a crime against humanity. Homosexuals should never be able to adopt. There is no way kids raised in that enviroment will not be damaged in some way.

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 8:36AM

Boy, you really are a homophobe, aren't you???

Sweetie, I've seen your type before. It's called self-loathing. In other words, to paraphrase the Bard (and I just LOVE theater!):

"The Lady doth protest too much..."

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 12:00PM

Headlines we'd like to see:

"Obama bends over for gay vote"

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:32AM

whatta think we are French CROQUETTES?

Paul Kotik| 5.11.12 @ 11:02AM

When I was a doctoral student in psychology at an Ivy League university in the mid-1970's, the psychology establishment suddenly removed homosexuality from the standard manual of psychopathologies ( DSM II). No science whatsoever underlying the change. My department chairman, a very distinguished psychologist of the Greatest Generation vintage, noted this change in a seminar and said that he would still not admit a candidate to his doctoral program knowing the candidate to be homosexual.

As late as 1975, virtually everybody knew that (contrary to the famous Seinfeld gag line) there IS something wrong with that. Almost everybody, including Oscar Wilde, had known there's something wrong with that since time immemorial.

But all of a sudden, overnight, with no basis in new data - poof! Suddenly "not that there's anything wrong with that."

In my mind, that's the day the music died. That's the day the progressive elite took over. They just edited a book, and nobody complained.

Boar Hunter| 5.11.12 @ 12:05PM

Homosexuality is merely an outward manifestation (more visible) of more deeply rooted psychological ills.

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:35AM

I' mus be de Debil hisself.
Dat ol' Debil Moon.

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 1:47PM

"We have Cheney and his bull dyke daughter pushing it."

Actually, you need to get out in the real world a little, --Mary Cheney is not what our community thinks of as being a "bull Dyke ", in the slightest!

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 2:49PM

You have to remember...

In Jack's world, any woman with an opinion who's not afraid to voice it is a "bull dyke."

He's a misogynist.

Clint| 5.12.12 @ 8:51AM

Jack Says Dr. Reich's Driven By A Ate A Puss Complex.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:23AM

Spoken like a true anti-Semite!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 5.12.12 @ 8:22PM

Uh Oh !
Up To "r" In Alzheimer's, Fart Man Attempts To Play His Four Years Older Than Dirt, Dog Eared Anti-Semite Card On Tea Party Clint.

Tell The Nurse To Change Your Adult Pampers, Fart Man.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 9:56PM

As is said, THE TRUTH HURTS ......doesn't Media Matters Boytoy????????? Quick run.....Barry is calling!!!!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:38AM

Oldefarte is Romney's Kept Boy-
Romney's private closet-stash

Clint| 5.13.12 @ 9:08AM

They Don't Call The Fart Man, Mittens' Kitten For Nothin'.

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"

"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:49AM

Well, Clint, calling Jews "SandMonkeys" counts in MY book as an antisemitic comment, you loathsome piece of jihadist smegma.

TLP| 5.11.12 @ 8:46AM

He was accused, by other GUYS, of making Sexual Advances towards them, when he was at The Harvard Review. (or, whatever the Hell it's called) Of course he's in to all this Homo stuff.

As tha Koran commands him: 'It is his DUTY to Lie, if it advances his position. If it advances Islam.'

He's thisclose to facilitating the Destruction of the Jewish State, and the Return of Jerusalem to the Muslims. But he's not there, yet. A Mitt Romney win would RUIN EVERYTHING that he's accomplished. He has handed EGYPT over to his Brothers. He has Slain Khaddafi, and sent his Soldiers in to Africa, to do battle with CHRISTAINS, who are giving one of his Muslim brethren, over there, a hard time, while doing NOTHING, as the last remnants of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION in the Middle East, are Eliminated in a Holocaust of Murder and Fire.

He has Leaked Military Information to Iran. He single handedly, VETOED the plans of The Arab League, to Arm the Resistance in Syria. Think about that. When did the ARAB LEAGUE start taking orders from an American President, and why does HAMAS believe that "The Messiah" is "THE DELIVEROR"?

The backing of the Homosexual and the Lesbian, is just one more addition to his Army of Freaks and Losers, and Deviants. The Base of the Democrat Party is, literally, made up of the Dregs of Society. Those who's every action in their lives, is an affront to Rules of behavior that GOD has set down for us to live by: Honesty. Charachter. Honour and Fidelity. Mercy, Kindness, and Charity. With every word from his MOUTH ("And he was given a mouth, to speak haughty and blasphemous words.") he tells us who he is. With every proclamation, he aims to TEAR DOWN another part of the Fabric, that separates us, from the Animals.

"It's Historic!"

"We've finally entered the 21st Century!"

Actually, if you know Anything about History, you'd know that "Anything Goes" is a step BACKWARDS, in time. Back to Rome, Athens, Babylon, Persia, and everywhere else in the Ancient PAGAN World.

No. We have not made ourselves in to a Brave New World, where "Enlightenment" is defined by our ability to look accept the things that are Unacceptable. Not at all.

We're on the road to SODDOM and GHAMMORA. And, we all know how that turned out.

But, then.............That's the idea, isn't it?

backwoods| 5.11.12 @ 8:59AM

Right on TLP! You got my thought almost to the letter>

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 10:44AM

That step backwards that you speak of Tim, is why I referr to them a "regressive liberals"
They are anything but progressive.

Jim| 5.11.12 @ 11:05AM

Well, it makes sense he is gay, since there are no past girlfriends, and gays are NOT going to out him...

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 11:56AM

Obama...gay???

I WISH!!

But seriously, dearies...you're all out on a limb with this one. He's as straight as an arrow.

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 12:41PM

Alex baby, who are you kidding, not even Obozo's tee shots are straight.

Drewell, Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 1:36PM

Brucey, and let's not forget how straight the strike and the spare attempts to evolve a score of 120, or of a six bounce first pitch. Seriously, you know, deep, deep, deep, deep deep down, that he is, darling.

SUBVET| 5.13.12 @ 12:23PM

Hey.....ABS-D.......who is Reggie Love?

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 12:10PM

There are a few women who have surfaced in Obozo's life. First, there is that little girl Obozo pushed around in Ayer's err, Obozo's "Dreams". At least Romney pushed around boys. Ain't it just like Obozo to push around a girl?
And then there is Miss Composite from Columbia.
But you're right, Obozo won't be outed by the gay community, unless vtwin comes clean.

Drewell, Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 1:37PM

Or Bill Ayers does. Think about it.

SUBVET| 5.13.12 @ 12:25PM

Wasen't the "boy" a member of some bath house ?

RCV| 5.13.12 @ 3:39PM

Only in the ever fervent imagination of the nuts on the right.

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 1:50PM

"He was accused, by other GUYS, of making Sexual Advances towards them, when he was at The Harvard Review"

OH, REALLY...??---WHO MADE THESE "ACCUSATIONS" that only YOU have "imagined" in your warped pin-head?

You ARE aware of "libel" and "slander", I assume..?

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 2:36PM

You sorry ass fool Pelleass, Obozo is the last person to bring an action for libel and slander. It would require him to enter a courtroom and testify under oath. And we know how difficult that is for Democrats, the list of D liars being longer than Pelleass's memory.
And there is something called discovery, which means Obozo would be subject to depositions under oath, where a good lawyer would have a field day with Obozo. Hell, I'd go on for days!!!
Obozo's stutterings would make Hillary's famous, "I don't recall" 50 times appear to be a font of information.
And remember, there are no teleprompters in the court room!!!

SUBVET| 5.11.12 @ 9:35AM

Maybe HE should come out of the closet.......

sirbourbon| 5.11.12 @ 10:48AM

Is the NDAA the anti-Terrorist side of him or is he planning on using congress' latest attack on civil liberites via the addendum to Patriot Act to put his american critics in GITMO as Rush Limbaugh quipped when Obama backed down on closing down Torture R Us in the Carribean?

Appleby| 5.11.12 @ 6:26AM

I have been saying that even Satan is tired of King Zero. I think his late floundering and flouncing shows his increasing difficulty getting his calls returned from the Underworld.

Pardon me while I go trim my wicks, fill my lamps, and settle down to wait for the return of the King....

Darin| 5.11.12 @ 6:35AM

Will anyone ask him his position on other "non-traditional" marriage like polygamy, polyamory, incestuous, and adult-child marriage? If gay marriage is OK, he's got little ground to stand on to say he does not support these (and others).

Appleby| 5.11.12 @ 6:51AM

Mitt Romney is probably laughing right now, as Obama can't possibly bring up polygamy or any of the other odd customs of Mormons under the circumstances...

Dr. X| 5.11.12 @ 7:52AM

Obama's father was a polygamist. Two of his half-relatives are ILLEGAL ALIENS in the U.S. One is on welfare and disability and the other got a DUI.

Does that answer your question?

Clint| 5.11.12 @ 6:38AM

This Is Not Surprising, Considerin' Obama Is Married To Chewbacca.

Herb| 5.11.12 @ 8:05AM

I think it cruel to refer to Michelle O. as the First Wookiee. After all, Chewbacca was a competent spaceship mechanic and one of the good guys fighting against the Evil Empire. He deserves more respect.

Clint| 5.11.12 @ 8:18AM

How ' Bout Obama Is Married To Chewbacca's Evil Twin, Chewthejohnson"

Mike Hawk| 5.11.12 @ 8:22AM

Gotta give you credit for two choice comments. I got a chuckle.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:25AM

Isn't that your MIDDLE NAME????????

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 8:23AM

You're both rude, rude, RUDE!

Michelle is a woman of impeccable taste; she's the most fashionable first Lady since the Divine Jackie Kennedy.

Yes, ok...she's got a little too much junk in that trunk, but that's a Black thaaaaang, so you wouldn't understand!

And just look who's been First Lady since Jackie left! Ladybird Johnson?? Puh-lease! Anyone named "Ladybird" is automatically disqualified from a fashion register! Nancy Reagan? Uggh! Bourgeois sentimentality wrapped in chiffon!! Hillary??? Sorry, dears, but cankles, pant suits, and middle-aged lesbian chic may work on college campuses, but it just ain't makin' it in Manhattan!

So you leave Michelle and her male-model husband alone, or you'll be stuck with Anne Romney and the Mormons, and they all dress like undertakers!!

Just thinking about it is making me upset. I need a cocktail...

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 8:30AM

Thanks for that! I needed that chuckle.

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 8:42AM

Fashion and good taste is no laughing matter!

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 10:40AM

You're a funny boy, Alex. I look forward to your future musings. Welcome to TAS, home of the free and land of the brave.

Mike Hawk| 5.11.12 @ 12:02PM

Who writes your stuff, SNL??

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 2:55PM

Puh-LEASE!!!

SNL is sooooooooo over! They haven't been funny since 1979!

Dick Nome| 5.11.12 @ 12:04PM

Gee Alex, I guess for you big butts are fashionable.

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 2:54PM

Listen, Dick (L just LOVE saying that!)...

Except when it comes to fashion, I have no use for the feminine derriere, big or otherwise.

And I assure you, Dicky...when it comes to buns, I like mine toasty and hard!

Pete| 5.11.12 @ 8:50AM

But for all his body hair, he was still quite slim. No lazy eye though.

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 8:09AM

I made a comment on Politico about moochelle being the most embarrassing first lady we've ever had and do you know the pulled it and sent me an email saying it was "inappropriate". All the while the page was being filled with trip about Ann Romney. We are lucky we can pretty much unload about the obamas as we want on AS.

Lawrence Boccardi| 5.11.12 @ 6:41AM

I don't really care what Obama thinks about anything. I cannot watch him or listen to him. However, the startling disclosure is that "one in six of the President's major fundraisers, is openly homosexual"!!

gearjammer| 5.11.12 @ 7:28AM

These people want to destroy all traditional culture and American heritage. Middle class virtue and virtuosity are their target. They make billions in the area of media the industry-an industry that is not free enterprise and charges gouging prices for its product. Too many overpaid people in hollywood doing damage and we can't escape feeding them big dollars if we wanna watch a few shows on tv here and there.

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 8:20AM

Sure you can. Get rid of you tv and don't go to movies.
I meet more and more folks who have gotten rid of their television service.

Russel| 5.11.12 @ 10:37AM

That's all it is - another ploy to corner some votes . Everything he does has campaign / re-election written into it . His voting base is dwindling , so let's have some fun watching him get more and more desperate and the gimmicks get more amusing .

Mike G| 5.11.12 @ 10:56AM

No, it's not just another ploy to get some votes. Look at his actions. He really does support gay marriage, and has for years! I wouldn't put it past him to try and mandate it with an executive order during his second term. He believes he can do anything--the law means nothing to him.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 1:15PM

Well, duh - welcome to politics.

aware| 5.11.12 @ 6:50AM

Come December 31st the moment of what David Stockman calls "fiscal triple witching" will arrive. The tax cuts expire, defense cuts go into place and we hit the debt ceiling. This will be a milestone in the Great Unraveling.

But distractions like gay marriage, save Rush, and the current rage " Vote for the liberal or you're not a conservative"(Romney apologists) are the only things you hear about.

I have no doubt that the Criminal Class, which is politicians of both "parties", will sink to the occasion and attempt to apply the same old band aid to this new severed limb. But how long until the bond vigilantes show up? My guess is as soon as they are finished with Europe(or rather when Europe is finished). Then the Great Unraveling will hit hyper speed and no one will doubt we have been led by fools for nearly a century.

chuck| 5.11.12 @ 7:35AM

Obama wants the distractions.

Romney's answer should have been: "That's nice that the president is now for same-sex marriage, but that is not going to help a single unemployed person find a job."

Do not let them change the subject! It's about jobs and the economy!

1-2 Punch| 5.11.12 @ 7:02AM

I have been in a "same-sex marriage". Same women, same sex, going on nine years now. Very happy.

Frank Drackman| 5.11.12 @ 8:27AM

"Same Women"
for 9 years!?!?!?!?!?!?
DATS WAT I'M TALKIN' BOUT!!!!!!!
(High Five's)
1: are you Bill Clinton?
2: How'd you get your wife to go along with that?..

Frank "Shake it, don't brake it" Drackman

Boar Hunter| 5.11.12 @ 12:48PM

That was friggin hilarious!

Based on your analogy, I have been in a same sex marriage for about the last 10 years. Although admittedly I have been married to the same woman for 34.

Dick Nome| 5.11.12 @ 9:34PM

My Ex-wife did not have a problem with sex before marraige. It was afterward she had the problem.

Dr. X| 5.11.12 @ 7:50AM

First, gay marriage will NOT hurt Obama AT ALL among black voters and he knows it. Don't think his pollsters haven't already figured this out. Blacks will vote for the half-white man "without a black bone in his body" who spent a lifetime trying to "become black." The trick worked and will continue to work. Count on him getting another 95% of the black vote in 2012.

Second, do not assume that the gay marriage thing is merely a "short-term" stunt to raise money in an election year. Obama is an unreconstructed 1960s subversive Leftist whose goal is to undermine ALL traditional institutions in American society.

So far he's doing an excellent job of that.

Clint| 5.11.12 @ 8:10AM

Also, Axelrod/Obama Want That Homosexual Campaign Bundlers Money

However, Blacks Ain't To Fired Up About Comparin' Blacks To Homosexuals.

Richard Ryan| 5.11.12 @ 9:10AM

Obama and Axlerod are not worried about the black vote. In this situation, a poll tells you most are against gay marriage. Thats when a person is directly asked a question. I believe, however, that most have no idea this issue is even being discussed. It's going to have minimal if any impact on voting.

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 2:58PM

You sure do talk about gays a lot.

And your nom de plume - "Clint" - Sorry, sweetie, but that's tres butch!

Are you into barebacking, cowboy? If so, I may have to look you up some day!

Clint| 5.11.12 @ 8:28PM

Jay Jay, why don't you go cruise some sailors?

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:27AM

Just like Father Ron wants your MISSION-NEWSLETTERS MONEY ?????????

Clint| 5.12.12 @ 8:24PM

WTF ?

Have The Nurse Change Your Adult Pampers, Fart Man.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 10:00PM

Hey BARNEY THE CATHOLIC, quit fixating on my underware and go hang with Your Catholic comrades-in-political-arms PILOSI, KERRY, KENNEDYS, ETC!!!!! PS: Travolta is calling you.....maybe wants a massage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 10:01PM

PS: Maybe you are a Catholic afterall, and was an altar boy that the priests GOT TO, huh?????

Clint| 5.13.12 @ 8:36AM

Interesting, That You're Another Anti-Catholic Israel Fistaer Smear Bund Goebbels Propaganda BibiBot Mittens Kitten.

We Are Being Set Up By These Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Israel Firsters, Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Clint| 5.13.12 @ 8:33AM

Then, Quit Crappin' In Your Adult Pamper, Deliverance Banjo Pickin' River Sex Inbrd, Fart Pants.

cuban pete| 5.11.12 @ 9:01AM

No further comments necessary.
Dr.X nailed it.
Have a great weekend.
cp

Von Mises Jr| 5.11.12 @ 8:12AM

Has Barako Obamo taken a wide stance on gay sex?

On a serious note:
This is all about socialism. During the Age of Reason, Rousseau's "Noble Savage" was a concept that man is inherently perfectible. Society had taught men to be combative, violent, greedy and selfish. But if people such as Rousseau, Hegel and Nietzsche could reform society with their superior intelligence and reason, we could have Utopia.
So the first tenet of Utopian socialism is to break down all traditions, customs and morals. Then they could create their Orwellian "Big Brother" and "Brave new World" where the collective is not only preferable, but the only way. This is why liberals love big government. Whether they know it or not, they are being pasteurized.

Al Adab| 5.11.12 @ 11:18AM

Jr:
Chuck above notes that this is another distraction from real issues. That it is. It is also another example of the Left treating voters as members of blocs rather than as individuals. He has identified another voting bloc which will now support him fully. The thing here though is that this one helps in states he already has locked up. Lets not tell him though and fight for the electoral votes we need to rid the country of this abomination, and I refer to the person and his policies, not to this issue abominable as it is.

Von Mises Jr| 5.11.12 @ 11:36AM

It is also a veiled insult to intimidate people from opposing him and his agenda. If you don't go along with his "wide stance" on gay sex, then you are a homophobe. And of course, let's not forget "racist."

DRed| 5.11.12 @ 3:54PM

No homophobes here!

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.11.12 @ 4:27PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know nobody here has an irrational fear of you - but rather disgust - if you were at all Bright.

Von Mises Jr| 5.12.12 @ 7:44AM

DRed named himself after his Red Canadian Mounties’ jacket. He is an absent-minded Canadian Mounties who got off his whistle and ...........?

DRed| 5.12.12 @ 12:52PM

"It is faggotry, queerdom, fudgepacking and carpet munching."

"Homosexuality is merely an outward manifestation (more visible) of more deeply rooted psychological ills."

"Michelle and Hillary are rubbing each other down in the Licoln Bedroom and I see nothing wrong with it."

"We have Cheney and his bull dyke daughter pushing it."

"Then again, they might be so evenly matched that they'd end up licking each other, until one of them passed out. AND, if the fight gets too boring? We can have Ellen jump in to the Ring, and she can lick both of them, at the same time."

"could there be a time magazine cover shot of lil' berry hussein soetoro dunham davis sucking on the teet of "fisting" czar kevin jennings in the near future "

You sure there's no homophobia here? Look, you can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe. But homophobia isn't some leftist fantasy-it exists. You can see it here whenever someone mentions anything about homosexuals. I have no idea if you're a homophobe. You might be gay yourself for all I know. Is this really the type of ignorant garbage you want to be associated with? What's your argument against civil recognition of gay marriage?

Lively & Carefree . . .| 5.12.12 @ 1:43PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know the difference between irrational fear and disgust - not to mention the meaning of disingenuous - if you were at all Bright.

You would know to not feign ignorance of multitudes of posts you've read arguing exactly why recognition of homosexual unions is detrimental financially, socially, physically, emotionally, mentally, and spritually to homosexuals individually and to society as a whole collectively - not to mention the rational inherent disgust that rational common sense inherently associates with irrational homosexuality - if you were at all Bright.

Von Mises Jr| 5.12.12 @ 1:54PM

Very insensitive. You hurt my little feelings.

DRed| 5.12.12 @ 4:03PM

Pathetic Von. You can't even acknowledge homophobia exists?

So what's your reason for opposing homosexual marriage? You run away every time I challenge you.

Livel & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.12.12 @ 5:02PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know it is self-evidently preposterous to be illogically uneasy about detestable - or in other of among many many other words obscene and sickening and vile and wicked - sexually deviant perverted degenerate sexual behavior if you were at all Bright.

Von Mises Jr| 5.13.12 @ 9:14AM

DRed,
Marriage is an institution. And who wants to live in an institution?

Actually marriage is constructed to protect children. It imposes obligations on the parents to protect and care for their children. That is why you have alimony and child support. The alimony provides for the woman who often takes responsibility for the home, and child support to pay for little Johnny.
Moreover, it is a framework of laws that are consistent from state to state. If you leave your wife and move to another state, the other state recognizes the marriage and enforces alimony and child support payments.
Other than that, basically anything can be contractually agreed upon without marriage. Sometimes there are pre-nuptial agreements that add to the basic marriage law.

Canadian Mounties such as you should simply own a horse, not marry them. It makes things unnecessarily complicated.

DRed| 5.13.12 @ 4:14PM

You haven't said anything about homosexual marriage, though.

Von Mises Jr| 5.13.12 @ 4:19PM

I thought you wanted to marry your stallion? Why limit the discussion to human homosexuality?

Pete| 5.13.12 @ 2:52PM

Unless you are Muslim of course.

Mike 3/505| 5.11.12 @ 8:15AM

We won't win this fight unless we take command of the terminology.

President Obama is wasting energy best used on job creation. He is focusing the energy of the Federal government in mandating that state governments give full faith, sanction and economic encouragement to men who wish to insert their penises into the anuses of other men. Say it like it is. he is encouraging state sanction for perverse acts. The problem is, we continue to talk around the subject.

Pete| 5.13.12 @ 2:53PM

Yep, call Obama a Tea Party Phobe.

wsr| 5.11.12 @ 8:18AM

If the constitution was not frustrating for Obama, this would have been settled a long time ago. In a living constitutional system, he wouldn't have had the chance to be elected. There have been more than one president that had delusions of grandeur .

Denver todd| 5.11.12 @ 8:31AM

Obama uses his kids for emotional fodder for certain issues. He would trade them in for a new model if this stopped working.

Louis Jenkins| 5.11.12 @ 8:46AM

My spouse, who happens to work with rabid Obama supporters, said they were mumly looking at their computers yesterday and taking in the news. You shall know a tree by the fruit it bares. And Obama's fruit(s) sure are hanging low.

The Big E| 5.11.12 @ 8:48AM

Obama "switching" his stance on gay "marriage" is just about the dumbest political move I've ever seen. I've said since Iowa that a Romney nomination equalled an Obama re-election because I felt that Romney would be unable to energize his conservative base, and therefore would not get enough support from the right to win. In short, many conservatives just didn't see enough difference between the two to energize them to support someone they didn't like anyway.

By coming out in favor of gay "marriage," Obama just did for Romney what I felt Romeny would be unable to do for himself. Obama has now given conservatives a reason to vote FOR Romney. He's created daylight between them on an issue which conservatives care about.

kwan| 5.11.12 @ 9:08AM

"Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad". Madness in this case is the Democrat Party's belief that the electorate is going to support the "fundamental transformation" of the United States into Cuba.

Dustoff| 5.11.12 @ 9:35AM

So should we call O-dumber (Flipper)

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 9:44AM

Everything about this man is fraudulent and phony. He is a cold blooded huckster who uses a dispicable whorish MSM to promote his cynical politics.
Of course Obozo was previously for gay marriage, any high school news paper editor could have found that out in 20 seconds.
So as the farce plays out, Obozo's team calls ABC and has them send over a Moochelle friend and hack journalist, who happens to be black, so as to to soften the "historic" revelation within the black community, that doesn't cotton to gay marriage.
Then our historic, genius, Nobel Prize winning president, tells America that it was the musing of his 12 year old daughters that opened his eyes on gay marriage.
As I said yesterday, I hope the girls tell daddy at tonight's dinner table about thier views on supply side economics, as daddy sure as hell needs a lesson in economics as well.
All the while, the whores in the MSM deem this pathetic political ploy as historic, and gush with praise, as they are played for the willing fools that they are.
Hey media whores, if this was so historic, why did Obozo take Biden to the woodshed for forcing his hand on the issue, or is this too complicated for you to figure out?
Meanwhile, the media whores focus on Romney when he was in high school allegedly bullying kids, but let's not look at Obozo's college records.
This whole cynical kabuki dance only goes to show how corrupt all of leftism truly is.
It's time to kick ass!!!

Burlington| 5.11.12 @ 9:54AM

The big shoe is going to drop soon. Can't wait!

k962| 5.11.12 @ 10:24AM

This guy lied in 2008 when he said 1 man and 1 woman! You don't "evolve" on matters like that! The man has zero core beliefs only what politically suits his agenda!

Mimi| 5.11.12 @ 10:44AM

No matter what he says, does, takes in all kinds of money, he is a piece of TOAST ! He's OVER!
He went, when the TRUST went! The President as play actor....FAKE. We are right now in a vacuum... we really have no President...only a pathetic candidate, all his effort for naught. No one hears,or listens or even cares....We just want this awful time DONE WITH !!!

Mimi| 5.11.12 @ 10:49AM

AND....SHAME on the news media...They also are irrevolent...The memory of what they have done in their unfair, not vetting will live on in the HEARTS of the AMERICAN PSCHE, for ever!

Joe Callan| 5.11.12 @ 10:52AM

Don't fool yourselves folks, Biden did exactly as he was told in voicing his approval of gay marriage. It gave the liar in chief an opening. This whole thing was cooked up so Obozo could pull as much cash as possible out of Cloony's little Hollywood elite soiree. As always it's all about the bucks.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 12:14PM

Wow - is that what the righties do? How would you ever have thought of that otherwise? It sounds a little extreme and Machiavelan.

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 3:00PM

Maybe...but "Teletubbies" is extreme and Machiavellian to you, so that's not saying much.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:35AM

The only 'extreme' is your liberalistic promotion of the immorality of QUEERISM!!!!!!

Kyle| 5.11.12 @ 10:58AM

So let me get this straight, no pun intended. We have a HUGE tax increase coming in 2013, what better time to endorse gay marriage? I'm so glad the Hollywood 1% can sleep well tonight...

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 11:35AM

And, yet throughout history, except the last 200 years, traditional marriage has been anything but traditional.
The US Constitution guarantees rights for all, not just those we like.

Drunken Sailor| 5.11.12 @ 2:44PM

Please detail where in the Constitution it list Marriage as a right?

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 10:52AM

It doesn't, but it does guarantee Equal Protection Under Law (and marriage is a legal contract, or did you miss that in school? ) - marriage is a state by state matter - but that is only because we chose to do it that way. However, when the equality rights of a group are being trampled on by some of the states, while other States stand up for Equality and Civil Rights, the Federal government should step in on the side of civil rights protection.
Leave the Bible out of it. Separation of Church and State demands it. You are free to believe in whatever religious teaching you favor - and so is everyone else. Stop trying to force everyone to believe what you believe.
If you don't want to marry a man, then don't. But should a gay man stop you from marrying the woman you love? Should you stand in the way of 2 men, or 2 women, who love each other sharing their lives together with all the legal sanctioning of responsibilities and rights to marriage. Of course not - and that's all this is about. Equality and Freedom, protected by the State. Not religion.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:31AM

The NATURAL LAW is the basis for [and gives authority for] MAN'S LAW, DA; and why should taxpayers and corporate stockholders be forced to pay for employee benefits and pensions for two queers wanting to live together???????????

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:14AM

Because in this country we treat people equally. Get with the program.
Employee benefits are not forced, they are granted by employers to recruit and keep good workers. What country do you come from?

chuck| 5.13.12 @ 11:40AM

Purp,

I know it's tough for you, but think about it. When it comes to law about marriage, there is equal protection. The law allows everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex, as long as they are not a family member. The law says nothing about love, only the type of people allowed to marry.

Equal protection under the law.

Still claiming you have a PhD?

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 3:01PM

Meaning what, exactly? Do you have a point?

Dick Nome| 5.11.12 @ 9:38PM

Twurp, you should read there Constitution sometime, but learn to read first. After that read the Bible.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 10:53AM

Try learning to write first before writing. The Bible has nothing to do with Law.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:28AM

Ever heard of the NATURAL LAW, DA???????

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:32AM

The US Constitution is MAN'S LAW, which is derived and receives its authority from the NATURAL LAW!!!!!!!!!!!

junkyard infidel| 5.11.12 @ 11:47AM

could there be a time magazine cover shot of lil' berry hussein soetoro dunham davis sucking on the teet of "fisting" czar kevin jennings in the near future ?

Louis Jenkins| 5.11.12 @ 11:48AM

Wow Purp! Traditional marriage, in your vocabulary, includes men marrying men, dogs and cats sleeping together, we're talking mayhem here. Cannot recall reading about men marrying men in the pre-Constitutional history of the western world. The US Constitution doesn't mean squat anymore. Doubt it? Just take a look at your President and what he's done for the document. Essentially its a rag, to be passed over time and again for decrees, regulations, and requirements, even when the Supreme Court wants to closely examine it concerning health care. Two hundred years is dust according to Obama. Negative rights and all that. And no, the Constitution does not guarantee rights for anyone, anymore, any longer. Just mention something out of line and see who knocks on your cellar door tonight.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 12:33PM

"Just mention something out of line and see who knocks on your cellar door tonight." - you can thank Baby Bush and Darth Cheney for that.
Polygamy - multiple wives for one man or multiple men for one woman is the norm. NOT one man, one woman. And NOT 1:1 for 6000 years. that's bull excrement.
As far as the Constitution - it is used like the Bible - it is interpreted as needed by all sides, including yours. So drop that argument. Your side violates it all the time. You just don't care about that. I mean when someone says "Light Rail is not in the Constitution" you know we've gone to the ridiculous.
The Constitution was meant to be a framework for government and rights protection - and doesn't enumerate all our rights, just the most important ones to the Founders, as noted by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers and pushed by Jefferson (Bill of Rights). Hence, some additional rights protection Amendments were needed. Like Rights to Vote for Blacks and Women, Equal protection under Law, etc.

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 3:05PM

When was the last time "our side" violated the Constitution?

Name the incident, please. With some detail.

The Constitution is NOT a "living document;" it is not a "framework." It is the literal intent of the Founders. It doesn't change, unless amended by a specific, CONSTITUTIONAL process.

Those who ascribe to a post-modernist interpretation of the Constitution are complete fools. They fail to see the inevitability of their own faulty logic.

In other words, if the meaning of the Constitution is NOT absolute, then it has NO meaning.

The left would like that because it would allow them to scheme endlessly, without fear of being held accountable by Law and Constitutional precedent.

You're a joke.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:11AM

Well, let's see - First, and most horrible - Baby Bush invading Iraq when Congress had not declared War. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the right to defer that power or decision to the Executive. Period.
Second, nothing in the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to settle a State's electoral issue (Florida). It was a state matter, and the Florida Supreme Court had the power, not the Supremes. But they did it anyway. Point me to where in the Constitution it says anything about the Supreme Court with regard to the Presidential Election. If anything, Congress has the power to pick president in times of confusion - not the Supremes. But the Conservative did it anyway to appoint Baby Bush as president.
Is that enough for you? Or shall I continue?
Again, you are wrong.
"The framers of the Constitution established the broad structure of government but also left the system flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions. A document of less than 6,000 words, the Constitution is not overly detailed. Over the years, Congresses, presidents, and the courts have reinterpreted to document to meet the needs of the moment." - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.e.....n_menu.cfm
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, the first 3 Presidents all violated the Constitution, out of practicality. THEY did not follow it to the literal extent and did not expect us to either. Jackson, TRoosevelt, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, all violated the Constitution.
And, it has continued.
You don't know what you're talking about - but you've certainly swallowed Karl Rove's backwash.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 8:22AM

Dead wrong on all counts.

You have a plebeian understanding of the Constitution, and very little knowledge of what happened in Florida in 2000.

I'd go into detail, but this is a dead thread.

David| 5.11.12 @ 12:33PM

Purp, I will not even argue with you this. You are an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted moron who wants to shove your immoral behavior down the throats of me and my children and grandchildren.

You are a dangerous SOB and someone should take out you and your ilk.

Go do whatever the f_ck you want to do and leave the rest of us alone.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 12:35PM

I couldn't care less what you and your children and your posterity do or are. That is your right.

"Go do whatever the f_ck you want to do and leave the rest of us alone" - that is a sentiment felt by everyone when you want to impede anyone's right to the way of living you have.
But you want to make others second class citizens don't you? And you call me a moron. Look in the mirror Sunshine.

Lively & Carefree Maybee . . .| 5.11.12 @ 1:04PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know you are a moron - one who just had his ass handed to him in all the May 9 'Gay Old Party' article's illuminating comments of enlightening sunshine - because of your abyssmal failure to credibly argue your position with even a shred of integrity if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 1:14PM

You support "All men are created equal... " "Equal Protection under the Law... " or you don't. It's that simple.
You apparently don't - intelligence has nothing to do with it. You would know that if YOU were bright, Chuckles.

. . . Less Than Likely Too | 5.11.12 @ 1:45PM

You would know this was addressed - in the same article you had your ass handed, well, more fisted really, to you - if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 3:22PM

Fantasyland? Is that where you are?

PURP| 5.11.12 @ 10:27PM

Pathetic Useless Repulsive Prevaricator.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:11AM

well, at least it's creative - wrong - but creative.

PURP| 5.12.12 @ 4:09PM

Giving credit when credit is due even to the devil:

Pathetic Useful-idiot Repulsive Prevaricator

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:16AM

Creative, that is all.

gary siebel| 5.11.12 @ 2:56PM

"All men are created equal" refers solely and specifically to birth rank -- if you would bother to read Common Sense, which was published before the Dec Of Ind , you would know that "created equal" refers to aristocracy and nobility and kings (the context of which has been lost today and hence the misinterpretations so prevalent); that is, everyone is created as if they were the very first, like Adam, created equal, without any prestige of a family name that goes with Kings and nobility -- that's what the Revolution was all about: getting rid of all nobility, including Kings. Human rights must therefore be exactly the same. Marriage is, of course, a privilege rather than a right, and thus"created equal" has no influence upon it.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:31AM

Revolution,partially, Constitution No. That's where you went off the rails.
"In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents" - James Madison to Thomas Jefferson discussing Rights of the People. They were well aware that the majority could oppress a minority - and that's all this is about.
You don't like gay people, so it's okay to deny them the same rights you have vis a vis marriage equality.
Do you actually think the majority of this country thinks they are exercising the privilege of marriage when they marry their sweetheart? Who, might I ask, would we sanction impeding John from marrying Mary, whom he loves, based on privilege? That's ridiculous.
If I want to marry Diane, and she agrees - it is my right, period. No one can stop us (as long as it is LEGAL to marry) . Get it? The LAW is the "decider". That's all gay people want. The right, by law, to marry, equally as you can.
Get past your homophobia - they won't hurt you.
If we want a religious sanction to our marriage, then we seek it. But we can be married with no Church involvement whatsoever.
The Founders would be ashamed of your attitude.

gary siebel| 5.12.12 @ 2:52PM

The Founders would be too polite to laugh you out of the room -- but they wouldn't even give you the time of day after your argument. Note that the Constitution forbids any titles of nobility. You quote (I may be mistaken), from a letter written from Mad to Jeff during the Grand Convention, and you ignore the fact he refers to the rights of the "people," not any special subset. The rights must be uniform to be rights. Once laws against miscegenation were eliminated, the privilege of marrying became uniform.

When John wanted to marry Mary, he had to ASK her to marry him. According to your logic, if she had said "NO," she would have violated his so called RIGHT to marry. Utterly absurd! Devoid of logic! I couldn't marry Madonna (good looking old babe who stays in shape!) unless she agreed to it. Shall I sue her for denial of my "right" to marry if she refuses? According to your reasoning (?), one could bring an action at law for denial of the "right" to marry his sister!

Two people agreeing to something may create a contract, but not a human RIGHT -- those are innate, and hence exactly the same -- equal -- for everyone. Marriage falls under the category of privilege. It is requested nowadays, not demanded.

Consider this: let us suppose that the entire world were to pair off in couples, but someone were left out? What then, of their so-called EQUAL "right" to marry? Or, suppose you ask all the girls in the world to marry you and they all turn you down? What then of your so-called "right" to marry? You are not arguing on the basis of equality, you are arguing on the basis of sympathy.

The problem with making law based upon sympathy instead of logic is that it leads to inconsistency -- everybody can point to something in their life to demonstrate they deserve sympathy -- even Hitler -- but if you make law on that basis the redress provided must have a specific beginning and end point, not just go on indefinitely because you feel sorry for somebody. While the discrimination against homosexuals has often been blatant, marriage is not an example of it. Marriage is, in itself, an act of discrimination -- you choose one above all others.

To repeat, explain why civil unions would not take care of the issue?

It's hard to keep track of these disjointed postings.

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:23AM

Call it a right, a privilege, a contract - whatever you call it, you take it for granted it is yours to marry whom you wish, legally, and gay people are denied that same grant, legally, except in some enlightened States. This is wrong and needs to be righted. Period.
By your own words, women granted the power of voting wasn't logical, it was due to sympathy, right? And the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act - both due to sympathy? Get over yourself.
When one group of people is treated differently than another (a group created by birth, not behavior) that is discrimination and needs to be overturned. And so it is with gays. (Don't throw the "gay" is a behavior - unless you think you loving a woman is behavior, not born in you)
Why do you even care if gays can marry? What business is it of yours?

gary siebel| 5.13.12 @ 3:14PM

Well, you are obviously incapable of reasoning your way out of paper bag, even if it's open on one end. LOL
YOU CANNOT MARRY WHOMSOEVER YOU WISH, and it has always been that way. I usually don't resort to name calling but in this matter you are nothing short of doltish. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT MARRIAGE IS THE RESULT OF A REQUEST FULFILLED RATHER THAN A DEMAND OBEYED! before it registers with you? Get that through your thick skull, then maybe you can present a sensible argument (I have no idea what that would be, however).

And where did I say granting women the right to vote was out of sympathy? It was most certainly NOT an act of sympathy, it was a blunt, overdue recognition of truth. Dude, you are just so wrong! LOL And just try telling black folk that to deny men the right to marry other men is THE SAME as denying the civil rights of African Americans because they are black.

I knew you would eventually get around to the claim homosexuality is a function of genetics instead of preference because that's what this is really all about isn't it? (It's not my fault! I was made this way! I was just following orders!) Yet the evidence points quite clearly to the contrary -- there is no way all the aboriginal behavior of Africans and Australians, in which young males engage in homosexual activity as a matter of routine, could be genetic based if they eventually graduate to women, which they always do! Do their genes change at puberty?

What I care about is the direct attack on the meaning of both equality and human rights, both of which have been diluted to nonsense by liberals in this matter. This is very bad because liberals are expected to defend certain rights, and conservatives are expected to defend others, and between the two we manage to muddle our way through. The homosexual marriage argument upsets the liberal apple cart and turns their foundation to sand.

Note that with the rise of money in SF and Marin coincided the decline of unions, as well as Dems concern for workers -- because wealthy liberals are so overwhelmed with sympathy for homosexuals they took their eye off the ball. The rich, elite Dems are now every bit as bad as the rich, elite Repubs. They would rather help people on some other continent than our own, even though there are plenty of people hungry right here. Ohhhhh, but the poor (they're not) homosexuals have just been soooooo oppressed the liberals can assuage their guilt trip by granting the privilege of marriage to them. Meanwhile, Rome has been burning!

Joe Callan| 5.13.12 @ 9:14AM

Purp, you're entire argument is based on the fact that the Founders didn't explicitly ban gay marriage in the Constitution. I can guarantee you that it's not because the Founders thought gay marriage was a good thing. In fact I doubt they considered it at all. 18th century mores being what they were , the idea of sanctioning homosexuality in any form would have had most of them asking for smelling salts.

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:27AM

Let's not judge our culture today by the mores of the 18th century, shall we ?
Anyone voting other than landowners would have had them asking for smelling salts. Many of the Founders wouldn't sanction freedom from slavery either. Or women voting, let alone blacks voting.
That is the progress toward a more perfect union the Constitution espouses. We aren't perfect, but we've moved further in the course of human rights and freedom than any country ever has. Be proud to be American and allow one of the last oppressed people to enjoy what we all take for granted. It is the right thing to do.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.13.12 @ 12:02PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know you are espousing a less perfect union, sabotaging justice, endangering domestic tranquility, preventing the common defence, hurting the general welfare, and endangering the blessings of liberty -oppressing the liberty for ourselves and our posterity unconstitutionally - if you were at all Bright.

gary siebel| 5.13.12 @ 3:19PM

Perp ....HA!. Got you on an obvious historical error!

Check Madison's Notes, Aug 10 (?) 1787, in which Ben Franklin utterly crushed the move to require property qualifications for voters. It was defeated by such a general NO! that the roll did not even need to be taken!

To repeat, you are in over your head on this one.

gary siebel| 5.11.12 @ 3:06PM

Furthermore, "equal protection of the law" has been severely twisted in this issue because of the double error of claiming marriage as a right instead of the privilege that it is, leading to the additional error that homosexuals are being denied the "right" to marry and hence equal protection of the law, when in point of fact they have precisely the same "right" to marry possessed by all, and to exactly the same degree, but they refuse to exercise it. The only "equal right" connected to marriage is that of requesting it, not the actual getting of it, and homosexuals have precisely the same right (free speech) to make the request as any other. No rights are abrogated or denied by the State denying men the privilege of "marrying" men.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:16AM

Yeah, okay - try exercising that request in North Carolina ... you are so offbase.
Explain how your convoluted logic fits the landscape that some States have granted the right to marry and marriage equality to their gay populations, but other states have not? A marriage license must be granted by the State, which has a legal basis behind it. Should we grant the right to have children - like China does? Or is that simply a request, as you put it?
Your logic is convoluted and I don't buy it.

gary siebel| 5.12.12 @ 2:06PM

My logic is straightforward -- you are without any logic on the matter at all. What you call "marriage equality" is actually an attack on the very foundation of human rights; an attempt to shift from the word "equal" to the word "equivalent." The right to marry was uniform, based on equality of man. Homosexual marriage shifts that foundation from equality to mere preference. Because they prefer sex with their own gender, a right has been fabricated out of whole cloth that never existed before, to satisfy liberals overwhelming sympathy for those whom they feel are oppressed.

According to your argument, if a single State were to grant some special group a special deal, the rest of the States would be forced to follow suit. You are placing the cart before the horse.

Few States have actually passed laws allowing for the use of the word "marriage" in homosexual cohabitation -- it has mostly been courts that have done it. The argument could be made that those are the States that are violating the principle of "equal protection," not the ones that by popular vote declare marriage is just between a man and a woman.

Perhaps you can explain, if possible, why civil unions would not satisfy the claims about discrimination? In point of fact, the discrimination, which is economic (taxes) is against ALL single people, of which homosexuals are a subset. Civil unions would take care of that problem just fine.

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:36AM

"According to your argument, if a single State were to grant some special group a special deal, the rest of the States would be forced to follow suit. " - that, Sir, is enshrined in the US Constitution. The laws of one state are recognized in all others. It's the "full faith and credit" section, Article IV of the Constitution.
A federal Civil Unions Law would go a long way to getting this stupid issue behind us. A "Civil Union Marriage License" would be just fine.
Religion can deal with it their own way - or not, the law would make all people equal under the law.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.13.12 @ 12:08PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know that according to your asinine argument that child molesters, animal sodomizers, and rapists - 'Purps' of every stripe - would be 'equal' under the law if you were at all Bright.

gary siebel| 5.13.12 @ 3:24PM

LOL Logic is not your strong point. So if a State were to allow a father to marry his daughter, the rest of the States would have to follow suit?

Civil unions, OK-- but you don't get to use the word "marriage."

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 3:22PM

What should he say about you?

You know NOT of what you speak. You blather endless cliches and talking points from the DNC. You have no insight whatsoever.

One is left to wonder why you're here. You'd probably say something like "Because it's my job to tweak you right-wingers, and I like my job!" or something inane like that.

But if that's true, then I hate to tell you, but you stink at your job.

If you're going to make sport of your opposition, you have to be clever...and you're simply not. Nor are you creative, imaginative, or funny.

You're simply annoying.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:35AM

Actually, I use the Constitution, the Declaration, the Rights of Man, the Constitutional Conventions, the Bible, the Founders letters to each other, their actual acts in office, the Federalist Papers, Adam Smith, F. Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, multiple presidents and great thinkers in history.
Talking points? Nope. Of course, I am well aware of current events and news items - talking points come from somewhere - right wing cess pools, Karl Rove's arse, ya know.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.13.12 @ 1:09PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know your posts in the comments of articles in American Spectator over time actually reveal that you have consistently proven that you lack credibility as well as integrity on topics of the economic and of the scientific - not just on the topics of the social and of the political and of the religious that are the topics of this article - if you were at all Bright.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:39AM

No one has to be a 'second class citizen' as there are laws on the books that protect everyone. We simply want homosexuals to GO BACK INSIDE THEIR CLOSETS and not flaunt their sexual activites [and that goes for HETEROSEXUALS as well]. It's called MORALITY!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:38AM

Most gay people don't "flaunt" anything. But they do have to fight for what they are denied, as have every other oppressed race, creed, sex, or orientation.
As far as flaunting, straight people flaunt way more than any gay group does. We're all equal, remember?

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.13.12 @ 12:12PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know that according to your asinine argument that necrophiliacs, polygamists, and masochists - 'Purps' of every stripe - would be 'equal' under the law if you were at all Bright.

Conserdude| 5.11.12 @ 12:33PM

Obama's latest position on gay marriage reveals him to be worse than a flip-flopper. He's a deceiver. He's always supported this position, but pretended otherwise when he ran statewide in Illinois in 2004 and nationwide in 2008. Gay marriage is one of many issues in which the president is dishonest toward the public.

Buck Ofama| 5.11.12 @ 3:13PM

Oblowme the c0cksucker has no conviction about anything other than self-promotion... and, of course, bowing and sucking arab cock.

Ron| 5.11.12 @ 12:40PM

G-D, my country is a freaking wreck!!!!!!!!

I am soooo fed up I cannot think straight...up is down, left is right, and this abysmal excuse for a POTUS just juts that stupid arrogant jaw out and make pronouncements from on high...

David| 5.11.12 @ 12:45PM

We should all stop calling them "gay". That is as ridiculous a term as pro-choice is to describe someone who is pro-abortion.

They are homosexuals and lesbians - they are not gay. And judging from most of their comments that are completely miserable people.

That doesn't mean we have to call them faggots, or queers, or fudgepackers and fudgepackees, but we do need to stop the "gay" BS. Call it what it is.

I stopped using the term many years ago, just like I don't use pro-choice. I refuse to soften the image of what both groups do or support.

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 2:03PM

Good--then I can stop calling YOU a reasonable, thinking member of the human race--and start referring to you as the imbecilic piece of shit scum of the earth moron that you actually are...nu?

Buck Ofama| 5.11.12 @ 3:10PM

Your whining reply reveals your liberal mental disorder.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 2:32PM

Funny, and yet you called them all the names you said we shouldn't. A bigot's way of signaling his true feelings.
They want to be called "gay", they are "gay". They want to be called "African American", then so be it. Who the h* are you to tell people how to think or what they want to be called.
You can call anyone whatever you want - it's your right. But if you are going to give the other person(s) the respect you deserve, then you respect their wishes - or you don't. Clearly you don't. You have no decency dude - be gone.

Drunken Sailor| 5.11.12 @ 2:49PM

I seem to recall you calling people "Teabaggers , Wingnuts' and Nazi's" on this site. Last I checked no one on here wanted the be called that. Preaching about something you yourself have done. A hypocrite's way of signalling his true feelings.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 4:00PM

Wheeeeeee ............. Not the words I would use, so your memory probably could be helped by getting off the sauce - it's pickled your brain.

Drunken Sailor| 5.11.12 @ 4:35PM

Well Purp, perhaps I owe you a apology. Those are not the words you would use to label a Republican. These are:

Purp| 12.16.11 @ 1:45PM
Then I present you the Republicant Party - the party of Torture, the Party of Hegemony, the Party for the Rich, the Party of Racial Bigots, the Party of Homophobes, the Party of Borrow and Spend, the Party of the 1%, the Party of Union Busters, the Party of Defense Contractors, the Party of War, the Party of World Domination, The Party of the Neocons, the Party to Kill Medicare, the Party of Kill Social Security, the Party of Throw Grandma in the Street .... tell me again why your party even exists?

Face it, the only circle Obama would be involved in involves the work jerk after it and he prefers pivot man.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 7:53PM

Ah, well, at least you got it right this time. No rebuttal, no defense of why you stand for these things - but at least you used my own words. And, I stand by them.
Just this week, your party has proven at least 1/2 of those items true. In just 1 week! Sad, man, sad.

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 3:25PM

To give someone respect, first you have to respect them.

We don't respect you. That includes your opinions, and your intellect. Both are sub-par.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 4:18PM

Quite obvious that you don't - but from YOU I neither desire or require respect or anything else. If you gave it, I would shove it up you a* . As far as others are concerned, there may be some here that have a heart, are Christian, aren't selfish and realize that helping others is their duty, not something to resist.
But for you, I have a nice load of buckshot for you.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.12.12 @ 10:54AM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know Christians follow Christ - with their mind as well as their heart - if you were at all Bright.

You would know Christ said "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" - the Law and the Prophets comprising the Old Testament - if you were at all Bright.

You would know the Law said "Do not lie with a woman as one lies with a man; that is detestable - which Christ explicitly said he did not come to abolish - if you were at all Bright.

You would know "detestable" also means "obnoxious", "obscene", "odious", and "offensive" - just from words starting with the letter "o" alone - if you were at all Bright.

You would know "detestable" also means "repelling", "repugnant", "repulsive", and "revolting" - just from words starting with the letter "r" alone - if you were at all Bright.

You would know "detestable" also means "abominable", "disgusting", "dreadful", "foul", "hateful", "loathsome", "sickening", "vile", and "wicked" - just from a few of the many other words that leave no doubt whatsoever - if you were at all Bright.

You would know "abolish" means "do away with" - meaning Christ said not to think He came to do away with the Law that includes that no man is to detestably lie with a man as one would lie with a woman - if you were at all Bright.

You would know "fulfill" means "put into effect" - meaning Christ said He came to insure and accomplish that the Law that includes no man is to detestably lie with a man as one would lie with a woman is put into effect if you were at all Bright.

You would know there is no commandment to honor your father and your father - and no commandment to honor your mother or your mother - if you were at all Bright.

You would know you are arguing for a right that does not exist - that is not endowed by God - to be legitimately accepted for disgusting and sickening obscene and vile behavior if you were at all Bright.

You would know God the Father as well as Christ the Savior not t mention the conscience that is really the Holy Ghost - each clearly say homosexuality is detestable sin if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:49AM

You would know that God is All Forgiving of Sin and through Jesus Christ our Lord, our sins are washed away. He gave His only son so that all sinners could come to Him, in His grace. He is not vengeful as man is, and so you show it so well how vengeful you are.
You have no right to judge others, but yet you do. That alone is a sin. But continue as you will. You're so bright, you've missed the obvious.
And, for your information - the word detestable is not in the true Bible - it is only in recent translations of the Bible. Neither is half of your pronouncements above. I'll leave it to you to find the actual words of the true Bible - not your Blasphemous tome.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.12.12 @ 12:02PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know you are acknowledging that homosexuality is sin - and that this homosexual sin is in need of forgiveness from Christ the Savior - if you were at all Bright.

You would know that there is no basis for society to legitimately accept the sin of homosexuality - and that there is a basis for society to insure the illegitimacy and unacceptability of the sin of homosexuality - if you were at all Bright.

DRed| 5.12.12 @ 1:42PM

Hey Skippy, what do you do when you find mold on the wall of your house?

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.12.12 @ 1:59PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know liberalism disingenuously requires emoting about intolerant moldophobes - and demanding at a minimum the civil recognition of mold infested households - no matter how detrimental to the household inhabitants and society as a whole - all based on nonexistent rights not to mention nonexistent word definitions - if you were at all Bright.

DRed| 5.12.12 @ 4:10PM

How about we stone some women who weren't virgins when they got married? I'll put it into Skipese so you can understand me.

Bright most definitely not.

You would know Christians follow Christ - with their mind as well as their heart - if you were at all Bright.

You would know the Law said " then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you"- which Christ explicitly said he did not come to abolish - if you were at all Bright.

The thing is skip, you're not very bright at all.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.12.12 @ 4:45PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know your would-be admonishment does not affect the effect of the words of Christ on the Law regarding homosexuality - but rather regarding fornication - any more than your would-be admonishment would affect the effect of the words of the Law regarding "You shall not murder" - if you were at all Bright.

You would know - if you were at all ingenuous - that sin is defined by God not man if you were at all Bright.

Lively & Carefree . . .| 5.13.12 @ 11:44AM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know the detrimental effect the affect of ignoring the Law regarding fornication has had by the effect of 55 million and counting innocent defenseless babies affected by being brutally slaughtered can attest - as of this day in celebration of mothers not fathers through whom all babies are created equal by their Creator with a little assistance from fathers not mothers these babies who are self-evidently endowed with their unalienable right to life by their Creator truthfully and inviolable in this nation as attested by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - as you the staunch champion of nonexistent rights of the falsely oppressed can attest if you were at all Bright.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 10:08PM

No fool, G-D washed away the ORIGINAL SIN of Adam and Eve [not Steve kay] by BECOMING MAN-HUMAN in the form of JC; but G-D creates man/woman with FREE WILL and expects him/her to live according to his WORDS and NATURAL LAW. You're partially correct in that man cannot truly judge other men [that only G-D can and will do at each's death, or their personal JUDGEMENT DAY]!!!!!!!

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:42AM

Nope - Adam and Eve and all sin forever, was Jesus' death ordained. Without which you could never go to heaven - you cannot, no matter what you do as a human, be sin-free. Without complete absolution of all your sins you cannot approach His Grace, the Grace of God.
Can you not say His name? Are you afraid of God? If so, that is sad. He loves you, he does not wish to hurt you. You need to accept Him as eternal and everlasting love. Sad you haven't yet.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:41AM

Moron, for every RIGHT there is an equal RESPONSIBILITY. Homosexuals have the right to be thus, and the equal responsibility to KEEP IT INSIDE THEIR CLOSETS [since society does not wish to view/observe their depravity]!!!!!

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:51AM

I hate your name - take it away. So what?
That's what equality in marriage would grant, fool. Rights and responsibilities to a more stable and loving life. And you are a denier of it? You take for granted that which you did not have to fight for and you denigrate those who have to fight for what you take for granted.
You're an old fool. You will be gone soon, thankfully.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 10:17PM

You worthless little piece of excrement! Dumbars, you cannot grant what does not exist. Homosexual marriage is against and contrary to NATURAL LAW, therefore it is impossible for same to be granted. Homosexuals will burn in hell for their immoral and sinning acts contrary to NL. If you/anyone ''''''STUPIDLY''''' choose to ignore the NL in your human activities, that is your FREE WILL to do so, but you/anyone will pay for same at the time of your death-judgement. Oh, and I'll outlive you dumbars, since no doubt some homosexual friend of yours will do you in over a $quarter [since you're both......TWO-BIT QUEERS]. Understand that, idiot!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:43AM

Boy, did you lose point with the Almighty with that severe judgement. I'll pray for your bony a** to recover from that denigration.

Buck Ofama| 5.11.12 @ 3:09PM

>That doesn't mean we have to call them faggots, or queers, or fudgepackers and fudgepackees, but we do need to stop the "gay" BS. Call it what it is.

OK. It is faggotry, queerdom, fudgepacking and carpet munching.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 4:01PM

You know they say you downgrade that which you are but can't stand being. Are you gay? I mean Queer? Talk about projection. Does your mother know?

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:43AM

Queers [ie homosexuals] have the right to be thus, but THEY WILL BURN IN HADES FOR THEIR IMMORALITY. Hope you're not afraid of fire!!!!!!!

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:52AM

"Judge not, lest ye be judged " - how many points did you lose today?

Lively and Carefree Maybe . . | 5.12.12 @ 2:04PM

. . .Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know the difference between judgement and admonishment - not to mention "Teach and admonish one another with all wisdom" - if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:44AM

He has convicted and predicted punishment - that is NOT just an admonishment - Sunshine.

Lively & Carefree Maybe. . .| 5.13.12 @ 12:50PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know that God told the Law to Moses - the Law that includes in no uncertain terms that a man is not to lie with a man as one would lie with a woman because that is detestable - and you would know that Christ told His disciples that He did not come to abolish the Law told by God to Moses - the Law that includes in no uncertain terms that a man is not to lie with a man as one would lie with a woman because that is detestable - if you were at all Bright.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 10:19PM

I don't have the power to judge, dumbars! Only
G-D does and you/everyone will be judged at death!!!!!!!!!

Petronius| 5.11.12 @ 2:01PM

So the boys in the hood just got pushed to the back of the bus because the boys in the band have fat check books. Now we know what our real choice is in November: Obama, or Obama without the class warfare.

gary siebel| 5.11.12 @ 2:40PM

Well, that's it then. I will be sitting this election out. The Repubs managed to prove their corruption, incompetence, and relentlessly favoring of the rich, in their "glory years" (when they controlled, House, Senate, Presidency, and the Supremes), and continue to demonstrate their unwarranted intransigence today, so I cannot in good conscience vote for them (beside the fact that Obama has proven he has a better grasp of national security than any Repub candidate -- historically odd though that may be for a Dem), but I am absolutely not buying the BS the SF gay boys are trying to push -- that marriage is a Right rather than a privilege -- and I think it is beyond ridiculous for a Prez election to turn upon marriage when the Pres really has no vote in the matter (beyond as a private citizen).

I was in SF when Hillary and Obama were competing, and, because of my contacts with a wide variety of people, I had the questionable honor of hearing several gay boys' vicious vituperation and malignant remarks about Hillary because she is ... well... a girl. Male homosexuality is based upon hatred of women, not love of men, especially since so many of them are self-loathing (and probably should be LOL), and I am pleased to say they absolutely hated me and my entirely secular argument that there is no right to marriage. However, I see no hope for the Repubs to win this issue because their insistence upon arguing against gay marriage on religious grounds has allowed the idea to take root that marriage is a right instead of a privilege (name one right that you have to request for it to be a right; there aren't any; rights are demanded, not requested, yet marriage is the result of a request, not a demand -- someone has to agree to marry you, which still does not create a RIGHT -- you still can't marry your sister/brother!), and also prevents their gaining secular allies. Furthermore, because of the generally uptight and hypocritical attitude Repubs so often demonstrate in regards to sex, Romney has already shown he is able to confront the issue only haltingly, when the gays boys should be confronted with their actual behavior in a relentlessly direct manner (and how shall their marriages be consummated? Fisting?)

The unintended consequences of granting the word "marriage" to the cohabitation of homosexuals will be huge (idiot Romney should have gone for civil unions -- those are a good idea anyway on many levels), but the liberals will run away from the results (suburbs! Marin!) and let others deal with the problems they create. Liberals are fun but goofy -- usually their thinking on this issue is predicated by sympathy rather than logic.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 4:15PM

You started out okay, and then you fell off the right side of the cliff - "Male homosexuality is based upon hatred of women, not love of men, especially since so many of them are self-loathing (and probably should be LOL), " - that's ridiculous. Gay men don't hate women. The idea of sex with a woman they may hate, but that's entirely different. Gay men are best friends with many women, because the sex thing never gets in the way. Unless you are gay, you don't have a clue.
"Self-loathing..." - there you have a point. If you're taught from little on that you're strange, different, and not acceptable - how would YOU feel? Fat kids, ugly kids, bullied kids of any kind, gay kids, kids of color , handicapped kids - they all face that kind of put down and hatred. Being gay is one of the last group of people to be oppressed openly, as you can see on this site. Everyone deserves the same respect, rights and privileges as anyone else on this site. Period. Anything less, you are un-American. Period. Take your bigotry and ignorance and go stick it.

"and I am pleased to say they absolutely hated me and my entirely secular argument that there is no right to marriage." - Wow, filled with all the things that make the "All men are created equal..." clause mean so much. "Equal protection under Law" - why, based on law should any one group be excluded from marriage or any other RIGHT. And, make no mistake, marriage is a right, not a privilege like a driver's license. You don't audition for marriage, there is no test for marriage and you don't train for marriage. You ascribe Who we Love to Logic? On that, you are so wrong. I challenge you to name anyone who fell in love as a calculated, logical conclusion - to what?

gary siebel| 5.11.12 @ 6:14PM

Au contraire. By the very definition of homosexuality, the men do NOT love women, and it isn't confined to just intercourse.

You are obviously among the sheltered who have no clue. I pushed a hack in a major west coast city for almost 20 years and I know people a lot better than you, I suspect. Your "gay men are best friends with women," is crap -- it's part of the illusion, the hypocrisy that goes along with pretending to be something you are not -- you should hear how they talk about that "bitch" when she is out of earshot. It is really bad. I was friends with two gay males (haven't seen in awhile) because we happened to have some common interests (architecture for one and the weird past time of watching Sun political talk shows for the other), and both speak of women in the most contemptible manner. Their attitudes are so disgusting they will only reveal them to men. I have heard the contempt repeated infinitely, but they never let on publicly. But just go into gay bars, as I had to do to get passengers, and listen to the extremely vicious manner they talk about women before you talk any more nonsense about it to me. You are the ignorant bigot in this regard, sorry to say.

Your ignorance of history in the matter is also appalling. Marriage has always been controlled. Licenses have been issued in one form or another always. It is, in fact, similar to but not quite the same as a drivers license, because if it were a right you could marry your sister, aunt, mother, or daughter because -- after all -- you claim it is a right rather than a privilege. Marriage is NOT a right. Name one right, even one, that must be requested to be manifest! There aren't any, none, nada, yet marriage must be requested -- unless, of course, you wish to return to the bad old days when rich, powerful men (like Imams) could marry whomsoever they pleased whether she wanted to or not, and all because men had the RIGHT to marry. Is that what you are arguing?

You also confirm my contention that sympathy guides your thoughts in this matter rather than logic, If you were to use reason instead of sympathy you would realize that one does too audition for marriage (called courtship) and that love has only become a significant factor as a cause for marriage in modern times -- whether for good or ill, marriages are still arranged on most of planet Earth. And, as Tina asked, "What's Love Got To Do With It?"

As far as oppression is concerned, what's your point? I mean in regards to marriage? I think civil unions would be appropriate, but the word "marriage" -- no way! Have you forgotten that much of youth is a matter of overcoming difficulties of all sorts? I recommend to you a story by Kurt Vonnegut -- I forget the title at the moment, but it features a United States Handicapper General -- a role you seem eager to fill.

Sp spare me your bigotry AND your nonsense in this matter -- stick to bashing Repubs for the ample reasons they provide because on this one you are in over your head.

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 12:03PM

You either support equal rights for all ( call it privilege if you prefer), treating everyone equally, or you don't. For all your blather - Clearly on this matter, you don't.

gary siebel| 5.12.12 @ 2:10PM

Actually, I am firmly in favor of equal rights. It is you who are interested in fabricating special rights out of whole cloth.

What part of the word "equal" is it that you cannot understand?

And then you resort to the classic absurdity, homophobia, which is fear of homosexuals. LOL, Well, I am old enough now that even in prison I am sure my butt would be safe, but I am dead serious when I tell you that I am revolted by the contempt I have heard male homosexuals repeatedly express about women.

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:47AM

You're funny - you clearly haven't been paying attention in the locker rooms when heterosexual men talk about their women. Or at the poker table or the golf course. Straight men put women down far more than any gay man ever will.
But, since you must be gay to know so much, I guess you knew that already. That's why you've missed the dissing of women by straight men, isn't it? You are gay.

gary siebel| 5.13.12 @ 3:41PM

LOL My dick don't go that way!

I doubt you have ever been in a locker room! Sports are probably not your thing.

In some ways I regret meeting and speaking with so many people of all variety (in addition to pushing a hack for 20 years, I also hitchhiked all over America, and hopped freights too), because it's a bit fragmenting, but I'm not the shy type. At one point, in the 90's, I calculated that I had been in every gay bar in the major west coast city where I pushed the hack. Utterly corrupt places, most of them. I remember one trip, I went inside to get the guy and he was in a full french kiss with some other guy, and then, after he gets in the taxi, he proceeds to tell me that he's not gay. LOL That he is married with two kids! (Shades of a New Jersey Gov.) So, yes, I do know what the hell I'm talking about in this matter. I talk to everybody! (And a friend of mine once accused me of interrogating my passengers instead of conversing with them.)

The likes of you glommed themselves onto the Dem party and are in the process of subverting it's very foundation.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:51AM

No, homosexuals don't hate women, but their lack of self-esteem makes the convenience of homosexual sex more appealing. They simply don't have the courage/guts to be the fulfillment of that which they were created-born. There is no 'right' to marriage, which is a SACRAMENT created by G-d, and His NATURAL LAW forbids homosexual marriage by definitions such as THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S ''''''''WIFE'''''' [ie WOMAN]. You are correct that no one should be bullyied or discriminated, and if so there are laws to deal with same!!!!!!!

Purp| 5.12.12 @ 11:55AM

Wonder where the lack of self-esteem could come from? Perhaps from people like Romney that bullied young gays? And others simply watched him bully them? Or even agreed with him?
Religious sanction of marriage is separate from State sanction of marriage. Why is that such a hard concept for some?

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 9:47PM

Again IDIOT, the NATURAL LAW is the basis for MAN'S LAW [and the former gives authority to the latter; and they are NOT SEPERATE and/or EXCLUSIVE to each other]; man was/is created with FREE WILL and makes his own choices in life; and the final judgement will come for everyone at death as to whether they lived according to the NATURAL LAW!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 9:50PM

PS: No the lack of self-esteem comes from their GUILT OF CONSCIENCE, since even though they choose to do wrong, they KNOW that what they are doing is unjust and contrary to NATURAL LAW!!!!!!

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:49AM

You don't "choose" to be gay. Why in the world would anyone want to be oppressed by the rest of you? How stupid a thought that is.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.13.12 @ 12:22PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know that there is not a shred of scientific evidence that homosexuals are born homosexual if you were at all Bright.

Purp| 5.13.12 @ 11:48AM

Discuss that one with Thomas Jefferson please. No use wasting time talking to me. Talk to the author of the Declaration and the Champion of the Bill of Rights.

Lively & Carefree Maybe . . .| 5.13.12 @ 12:23PM

. . . Jolly & Cheerful less likely - Bright most definitely not.

You would know Thomas Jefferson was of the opionion you should be castrated if you were at all Bright.

Buck Ofama| 5.11.12 @ 3:07PM

Of course Oblowme favors queer "marriage". He's an apologizing, bowing, grovelling c0cksucker.

Purp| 5.11.12 @ 4:16PM

He's a winner and Richie Romney is a LOSER.

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:52AM

He's about as much of a 'winner' as Jeremiah Wright is a man of G-d, or Bill Ayers is a patriot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Kyba| 5.11.12 @ 3:17PM

Hi, I'm a greasy little weasel with a greasy little nickname and I use the word nu because I think it makes me look sophisticated. Here, let's play this stupid game for a sec. "pretentious, vous?" Wow! I am so proud of myself now that I must take some time to contemplate my cleverness. Au revoir!

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 6:02PM

weasel:

There is nothing "sophisticated" about the use of the word "nu"-- other then perhaps to a gap-toothed hill-billy such as yourself.

It is a rather evocative yiddish expression ..often of exasperation.. that is more colorful that just saying "so"?.. or asking for a better answer.

Since I come from a yiddish-speaking family.. it is second-nature for me to use my mama-lochen ( mother tongue) to express myself
nu?

Oldefarte| 5.11.12 @ 5:21PM

After looking around the oval office and seeing the faces of Valerie, Mooch, Nancy, Elizabeth, and Debbie; can anyone with a sane mind possibly doubt his LEANING FORWARD AND TEABAGGINGLY EMBRACING homosexual marriage? Besides, maybe while so observing this WH environment, he was having his substantial earlobes whispered into by the likes of OL MASSACHUSETTS BARNEY perhaps!!!!!!

charles794| 5.11.12 @ 5:22PM

Just heard that tone-deaf people are awaking to their rights. They feel insulted by all the Mozarts, Bachs, Lennons, etc., all of which sounds like cacophony to them. It's demeaning to be called tone-deaf, anyway! The exquisitness of their sound perception must be enjoyed by everybody!!!

Pat| 5.11.12 @ 5:48PM

Conservatives are, let’s face facts, “conservative” in our views. So, buying into gay marriage as perfectly natural and what God intended is not easy. Yet, the Left believes we will someday have a gay couple occupying the White House and, please, no jokes about the First Lady’s Inauguration Ball dress.

In Africa, President Obama is a hero for his support of gay marriage. The persecution of homosexuals in Uganda is being blamed on the Anglican Church for their alleged anti-gay stance – at least Israel is off the hook for a change. In Cameroon, it’s hard to identify who is to blame for similar persecutions – maybe the Cameroons just want to be like the Ugandans. Muslims take their share of blame for gay bashing in the Liberal press and in the case of Muslims, the media claims, the bashing isn’t just rhetorical in nature.

Even Germany, with some urging from America, has shown recent interest in publicly flogging themselves for the Homosexual Holocaust brought to us by our favorite villains, the Nazis. A strange cube like structure has been erected in Germany as a memorial to this persecution and where visitors are invited to look through a small viewing window to see two men kissing. Which is weird when you think about it since a vacation trip to San Francisco would provide the same symbolism without having to wait your turn in line for a brief peep.

With all this persecution going on, it’s amazing our LGBT’s wish to exit the closet let alone fill out official forms down at City Hall. Gays and fellow LBT’s are fighting back however – probably emboldened by this new era of tolerance. And if the grandchildren of Nazis have learned tolerance, it’s not hard to understand why they’re so encouraged.

One example of this new militarism by the Gay Panthers is Crystal Dixon, suspended by the University of Toledo when she claimed that homosexuality isn’t a civil right. Being black and a woman, Dixon’s opinion was defended as her alleged right to Free Speech, but apparently gay political correctness trumps the Concerned Women of America organization, various black civil rights groups and the Teacher’s Union – and that’s an impressive exhibition of raw political power.

Conservatives are on notice from the Left that clinging to our guns, bibles and long held traditions is no longer acceptable. So, if you’re invited to a gay wedding, it may be prudent for you to smile, clap and throw rice. But aim that rice well away from the happy couple, you could be brought up on charges of felonious gay bashing in the second degree.

Petronius| 5.11.12 @ 11:56PM

Only if you throw the whole box, unopened.

Tony | 5.11.12 @ 7:43PM

What a liar and a hypocrite! He didn't want to announce his support for gay marriage any more than he wanted to brag about Obamacare. Now he's going to pay the price at the polls.

POST American| 5.11.12 @ 10:38PM

---Wondering just how many of the above
posts are those NSA computer program sock
puppets we're hearing so much about?

We wonder.

POST American| 5.11.12 @ 11:16PM

-----AS reports continue to emerge from
the Japanese press about the potential of
GE reactor #4 to collapse ---releasing radiation
the equivalent of 84 Chernobyls across Canada
--the US ---and northern hemisphere.

"---Don't nothin' fry DNA like radiation!
-----YESSSIRRRREEE!"

-----NOW, back to the EUGENICS
'CULL--chor--ALL' takedown
--'pat downs and patios' op.

This ---TRULY IS --- the 11th hour. . .

shox chaussure | 5.12.12 @ 2:41AM

what?

Dick Nome| 5.12.12 @ 6:44PM

If you haven't read P-A before, he is the resident lunatic. He gets loose now and then and is usually out when the moon is full.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 5.12.12 @ 11:56AM

Conservatives should be rejoicing because Obama has now committed political suicide. Yes it will solidify the far left vote and solidify the youth vote 18-25, but rest assured that he will now lose the rust belt swing states and may even alienate some of the black vote that is completely opposed to homosexual marriage. There are plenty of rust belt Democrats who are staunchly Catholic and believe in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I don't understand this move. Surely James Carville would think that this coming from Obama in an election year is bad timing at the very least. It makes no sense except that Romney is really not much different than Obama and the powerful Wall Street bankers who pay off both sides need something to keep the American public bickering about while they rob us blind while our government inches ever more closer to a Soviet style collapse. That's my take on it. The Wall Street Banksters are going to steal whatever wealth is left and let the whole thing come crumbling down like a mafia "bustout" in the movie Goodfellas . When the Federal Government falls the international corporations will have all the physical assets and they can set themselves up to look like heroes. All current public institutions will be privatized.

Bill| 5.12.12 @ 12:34PM

$1 billion man, Mr. Obama is doomed if the Tea Party wins the ballot.
LGBT cannot save Obama's ass.

David| 5.12.12 @ 3:13PM

Sorry, but the continual use of "quotes" was really "distracting" and "unnecessary", such that I had a difficult "time" reading this "article".

POST American| 5.13.12 @ 10:44AM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

---IT truly -----TRULY is. . .

Mary's Lamb| 5.13.12 @ 11:09AM

Mary had a little lamb
His fleece was white as snow.
And everywhere that Mary went,
The Lamb was sure to go.
He followed her to school each day,
T'wasn't even in the rule.
It made the children laugh and play,
To have a Lamb at school.
And then the rules all changed one day,
illegal it became;
To bring the Lamb of God to school,
Or even speak His Name.
Every day got worse and worse,
And days turned into years.
Instead of hearing children laugh,
We heard gun shots and tears.
What must we do to stop the crime,
That's in our schools today?
Let's let the Lamb come back to school,
And teach our kids to pray!

http://www.wrensworld.com/maryhada.htm

David| 5.13.12 @ 1:04PM

Palleas, Purp, and all the other same sex marriage supporters: You are homos - you are not gay simply because that is what you want to be called.

If a pedophile wants to be called a "Children's Physical Therapist", should we oblige him and say what he does is okay?

If a rapist wants to be called a "Rough Sexer" should we oblige him and say what he does is okay?

Obama thinks he is god, and no doubt loves to be referred to as The One, so do we oblige him and call him God?

You guys are true morons. You have zero logical arguments.

Pelleas| 5.14.12 @ 11:44AM

DAVID

YOU are an ASSHOLE, PAR EXELLANCE-- and not one i would ever care to fuck,either...

what a complete and total jerk you ae!

Helen Whitcomb| 5.13.12 @ 2:39PM

What's not to luv about Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama 'coming out' for gay marriage. Not only do we have an 'imposter' in OUR White House, we have a gay, muslim with a very low IQ who has NOT delivered on his Hope & Change, except for We, The People Hoping we can Change his address in November. His Kenyan birth certificate didn't qualify him to even be president the first time around, we damn sure need to vote his out and charges him with scamming the voters in the USA, while he knew all the time he was not presidential material, and boy he has proven that in the past three years.

Pelleas| 5.14.12 @ 10:14PM

WOW...

After that pitiful rant, one can only wonder about YOUR "very low" I.Q., as well.. along with your backround and heritage--I would imagine that you are the spawn of a baboon and a chimp??

Pete| 5.13.12 @ 2:55PM

Right now in trade has Obama ahead of Romney by about 60 to 40. Remember when the Romneyites looked at Intrade to show Romney was the inevitable GOP Nominee? Now they don't say a word.

BEWAREFALSEGODS| 5.13.12 @ 9:44PM

WHO is checking up on these -Gay- fathers who are adopting minority children, they have a never ending supply of minority children that nobody cares about. These damaged minority kids who nobody will believe are being molested and sodomized and raped etc. every day. Penn State liberal staff allowed minority children to be molested and raped for over twenty years and did nothing about it. Who cares this is not your problem and these children are just minority children and these Homosexuals Pedophilias are not attacking -Your- children -YET-....Fighting -Evil-....

POST American| 5.13.12 @ 11:20PM

---------------------ETERNAL LINE------------------------

-------------------------------------------'KNOW---UH'

POST American| 5.14.12 @ 1:00AM

---FURTHER NOTE---

Just now setting aside those upbeat articles
on capstone EUGENIST David Suzuki
rejoicing over the 'earth positive' after
effects of the Fukishima world nuclear
disaster -----as he himself sits in comfortable,
capstone sponsorship abroad ----

KEY to REAL--eyes, what those with
genuine experience of a genuine life
journey and soul adventure well know

it's ---NOT!--- our hatreds, or even hatred
itself, that's generally the problem.

The ----REAL------enduring problems are
NOT with what we ---HATE--- -but rather, with
what we 'like' ---or, some would say,
-----------------'LOVE'-----------------.

"Love is truly the sickest word
in the english language."
-D H Lawrence

This cuts across the whole host of
rectum worshipping apathies we
are ALWAYS dealing with.

-'CON---sider' CARE---FULLY!

And for those who 'i--Magi---in' that
the capstone is progressive and really
'cares' about your 'happiness' within
their 'sis-stem' ----TAKE HEED AGAIN!

---YOU ARE dealing with the boys who
sodomize sodomy itself----!

"We are living in a PSYCHOPATHIC
system, designed, managed, funded
and directed ------by PSYCHOPATHS."
-Informed online

"Our nativity was in SOD---dumb."
-Jonathan Edwards
1722

IT WAS ---and, in this universe, always
will be.

SO ---WISE UP! -------EVERMORE. . .

gafas de sol baratas | 5.14.12 @ 4:48AM

good!

Rudy | 9.2.12 @ 8:35PM

Say no to Obama.

Latest Headlines

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord|9 comments

Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?

David Catron|2 comments

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin|3 comments

It’s.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky|3 comments

Flatten the IRS

Ray V. Hartwell, III|10 comments

A Nation on the Edge

Joseph A. Harriss|1 comment

Downton’s Class System — and Ours

Tom Bethell|1 comment

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The IRS Scandal: It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature

Mark Meckler | 6:34AM

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Obama Watch

Obama Comes Full Circle

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (263) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.11.12 @ 6:18AM

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:26AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.11.12 @ 6:32AM

chuck| 5.11.12 @ 8:17AM

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 8:28AM

TLP| 5.11.12 @ 8:57AM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 10:27AM

vtwin| 5.11.12 @ 10:43AM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 11:09AM

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:45AM

Perfect Harmony???| 5.11.12 @ 12:47PM

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 1:44PM

Archade| 5.11.12 @ 1:55PM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 2:20PM

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 2:49PM

Archade| 5.11.12 @ 2:59PM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 3:32PM

TrueBlue | 5.11.12 @ 5:57PM

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:46AM

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:47AM

RCV| 5.11.12 @ 5:26PM

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:29AM

RCV| 5.13.12 @ 3:37PM

Alan Brooks| 5.11.12 @ 8:26PM

Dustoff| 5.11.12 @ 9:34AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.11.12 @ 6:46AM

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 8:36AM

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 12:00PM

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:32AM

Paul Kotik| 5.11.12 @ 11:02AM

Boar Hunter| 5.11.12 @ 12:05PM

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:35AM

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 1:47PM

Doctor Right| 5.11.12 @ 2:49PM

Clint| 5.12.12 @ 8:51AM

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:23AM

Clint| 5.12.12 @ 8:22PM

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 9:56PM

Alan Brooks| 5.13.12 @ 12:38AM

Clint| 5.13.12 @ 9:08AM

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 10:49AM

TLP| 5.11.12 @ 8:46AM

backwoods| 5.11.12 @ 8:59AM

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 10:44AM

Jim| 5.11.12 @ 11:05AM

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 11:56AM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 12:41PM

Drewell, Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 1:36PM

SUBVET| 5.13.12 @ 12:23PM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 12:10PM

Drewell, Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 1:37PM

SUBVET| 5.13.12 @ 12:25PM

RCV| 5.13.12 @ 3:39PM

Pelleas| 5.11.12 @ 1:50PM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 2:36PM

SUBVET| 5.11.12 @ 9:35AM

sirbourbon| 5.11.12 @ 10:48AM

Appleby| 5.11.12 @ 6:26AM

Darin| 5.11.12 @ 6:35AM

Appleby| 5.11.12 @ 6:51AM

Dr. X| 5.11.12 @ 7:52AM

Clint| 5.11.12 @ 6:38AM

Herb| 5.11.12 @ 8:05AM

Clint| 5.11.12 @ 8:18AM

Mike Hawk| 5.11.12 @ 8:22AM

Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 11:25AM

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 8:23AM

Teaghan| 5.11.12 @ 8:30AM

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 8:42AM

Anthony| 5.11.12 @ 10:40AM

Mike Hawk| 5.11.12 @ 12:02PM

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 2:55PM

Dick Nome| 5.11.12 @ 12:04PM

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.11.12 @ 2:54PM

Pete| 5.11.12 @ 8:50AM