My wife has been saying the very same thing, and the more I think about all the consequences of divorce, it just makes more sense that gay couples are on the same page as hetero couples when it comes to all the messiness of divorce. I'll give it about 5 years before we start seeing all these stories pop up about how gay couples should have a different set of divorce rules......
Why is defending traditional marriage archaic? If society "needs to move on" from archaic defense of traditional marriage, what is the next move and why is that move "right"? If what makes the next move "right" is supported by the "it's what makes people happy" logic, then why is Adolf Hitler seen as a madman if he found happiness in murdering millions of Jews? Why is there a criminal system in our country if raping children is what makes someone happy? Why are there speed limits if driving 100 MPH is fun to me? Why do I have to pay bills if I find happiness in making and keeping my money?
What about homosexuality makes it okay in our society only because it means some couple is happy? Are there no further implications about that? What is the acceptance of homosexuality saying about the rules of survival in biology (that relationships between male and female of a species ensure the future of that species)? What about the moral implications about sexuality in general? Is there no limit to sexuality in our society? What about children? How will we teach them that, no, a man does not always have sexual intercourse with a woman, even though biologically every single person is born wired to be attracted to the opposite sex?
Why is the move to accepting homosexuality considered a benefit to society? What does such moral liberalism imply about how we gauge the ethics of issues in our society?
Why the hell do I even try to ask these questions of a stupid and decaying society?
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: You know, I'm sort of curious, we have only this snippet of [the tape of Mitt Romney], and I always want the whole thing so that I’m satisfied I can put it in context. But what's interesting is that what he said was in part, and I realize it's only part, “I think what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government actually can be effective at all.” In the last past four years has [Obama] resuscitated the notion that the government actually can be effective?
PAT BUCHANAN: No. Let's take one example. Food stamps. I grew up in D.C. 800,000 people here in D.C., born in the ’30s during the depression, grew up in the ’50s. Nobody in D.C. of those 800,000 was on food stamps. City’s now 600,000. One in every five people are on food stamps.
VAN SUSTEREN: What happened?
BUCHANAN: This is just it. The whole idea, we used to have, read FDR about, you know, relief being a narcotic – a subtle destroyer of the spirit. We got to get off this welfare is what he said. In that sense, if it's a narcotic, Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare. He wants permanent dependency, in my judgment, of all these folks on the federal, somehow getting benefits, benefits, benefits, and paying no taxes.
Now, I think you've got, Gov. Romney is the complete opposite. We believe in temporary help for anybody that's in trouble. You should have a floor of decency under any family. Unemployment should be temporary. Unemployment benefits should be. Food stamps should be temporary. What are we doing with 47 million people permanently have to be fed by the government?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's much easier to move people off food stamps and move them off unemployment if the economy is revved up and going, so they had some place to go.
BUCHANAN: It is indeed, but look at what we did in the ’90s, the Republicans and Bill Clinton did. They said, okay, two years on welfare and then off. You got to get Workfair. You got to go get a job. I mean, you cannot, look, the society cannot carry forever a huge, vast, and growing class of folks who are permanently dependent upon the government of the United States and state and local government while you are shrinking the number of people that are contributing and paying the taxes. When the tax consumers outnumber the taxpayers, it is all over for the GOP, and it is all over, I think, for this republic.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Thursday spent 22 minutes covering the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina's state house. The liberal anchor obsessed on minor Republican opposition in the state, minimizing the overwhelming GOP support to remove the flag.
Maddow vaguely insisted, "They put that flag up at the state capital in South Carolina in 1961. It hasn't been flying since the Civil War. They put it up in 1961. They put it up months after a group of activists were jailed for their sit-in to try to integrate an all white lunch counter in Rock Hill, South Carolina." Who's "they?" "They" were the Democratic governor in the state and the Democratic legislature.
Maddow declared, "That flag was put up in 1961. It was kept up thereafter as a rejection for civil rights for black people in South Carolina in the 20th century." Who made that rejection? Maddow didn't say. She also ignored a point made by the Associated Press: "[Republican Governor David] Beasley lost his bid for re-election in 1998 after advocating for [the flag's] removal."
Maddow focused on Republican attempts to save the flag, highlighting: "But the strategy of the Republican Confederate flag defenders, people who want to keep the flag up, their strategy was to pile amendments on the bill, to slow down, ultimately try to stop it. It was not clear until very, very late whether or not that strategy would work."
She didn't note that the South Carolina State Senate voted 36-3 to remove the flag. The State House voted 94-20. Overwhelmingly, both Republicans and Democrats chose to remove the flag. Republican Governor Nikki Haley led the charge.
Instead, Maddow highlighted a battle in Congress over Confederate flags in national parks.
RACHEL MADDOW: On Wednesday, John Boehner had a freak out on his hands from his own Republicans. Nobody wanted to say who it was specifically but some Republican members of the House from the South apparently decided they were outraged by this plan and they demanded that it be undone. And so, John Boehner tried to undo it. Yesterday, he put up another amendment that would restore Confederate flags to national parks.
In June, the networks also omitted how the Democratic governor of South Carolina raised the Confederate flag.
On the June 22 Special Report With Bret Baier, the anchor explained
BRET BAIER: It's important historical context. I mean, the flag was raised over the state capitol by Democrat Fritz Hollings – then governor, in 1961. It was taken off the state capitol by Republican David Beasley after pressure in 1998 and put on the state grounds.
Wednesday's New Day shut out social conservatives from a panel discussion on Senator Marco Rubio's Tuesday remark that "if you do not support same-sex marriage, you're labeled a homophobe and a hater," and that "the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity – the Catechism of the Catholic Church – is hate speech." Instead, the CNN morning show brought on a Republican and Democrat – Ana Navarro and Donna Brazile – who both blasted Rubio for his warning.
Navarro, who supports same-sex "marriage," had a blunt response to the Republican presidential candidate's comments: "Frankly, they made me cringe. I am very uncomfortable and disappointed with him....I just don't think this kind of rhetoric – stoking the flames – is helpful." Brazile replied to Senator Rubio by underling how it was "discouraging to hear that, somehow or another...being supportive of marriage equality is, somehow or another, an attack on religious freedom or faith." [video below]
Anchor Chris Cuomo previewed the Navarro/Brazile segment by noting the "big issue percolating for the 2016 race...is religion under attack? Are people of faith under attack? Senator Marco Rubio has just taken this to a whole new level. We'll tell you what he said, and what it means to his chances." An on-screen graphic hinted at what CNN thought of what Rubio's remarks are doing for his "chances" by wondering, "Bump In The Road For Rubio?"
Co-anchor Alisyn Camerota played the clip of the Florida senator's "hate speech" comments, and asked Navarro, "What did you think of his comments?" The socially liberal Republican strategist replied with her "made me cringe" reaction, and attacked the fringes of "both sides" of the marriage debate.
[...]
Navarro continued with a compliment for Pope Francis's perceived approach for handling social issues. Cuomo responded with his own kudos for the pontiff:
[...]
The liberal anchor, who is known for acting like an activist on LGBT issues, then asserted that social conservatives, including Rubio, were spinning the push for same-sex "marriage" as a campaign against Christianity. Brazile answered by echoing much of what Navarro said earlier.
[...]
To her credit, Camerota followed up by asking a question that actually presented social conservatives' concern for religious freedom. However, Navarro returned to her targeting of the polarization on both sides of the issue. She continued by trumpeting Ireland's passage of same-sex "marriage" by popular vote
[...]
It should be pointed out that as much as the anchors and guests touted Pope Francis's "approach," the most senior official at the Vatican after the Pope himself, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, condemned the Irish vote in favor of same-sex "marriage" as a "disaster for humanity." According to a Wednesday report in the Irish Times, the Vatican's spokesman later "not only confirmed that Cardinal Parolin had used these words but he also indicated that the Vatican was sticking by them, word for word."
Near the end of the segment, Cuomo repeated his contention that social conservatives were "spinning" the issue. Brazile replied by expressing her hope that the issue would just be settled to her side's favor – blanket support for the LGBT agenda across society.
Cameras swarmed around abortion supporters trying to interrupt this year’s annual March for Life, but will journalists report an event that shows groups like Planned Parenthood in a bad light?
During the 2016 March for Life Friday, a few dozen pro-abortion activists staged a “die-in” by lying down outside the U.S. Supreme Court to represent women dying from back-alley abortions. It was the second year straight where radical protesters tried to halt the thousands who came to D.C. to speak for the voiceless. Last year, the group’s behavior caused arrests at the march.
The group Stop Patriarchy took credit for this year’s event. Surrounded by tens of thousands of marching pro-lifers as well as police, abortion supporters wearing white pants stained with red dye dropped down on the sidewalk.
The pro-abortion demonstration, held on the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, ironically followed in the footsteps of the pro-life movement, which often organizes die-ins for the millions of babies destroyed by abortion since United States legalized abortion.
While women who had endured having abortions shared stories of regret into a microphone, the pro-abortion activists tried to drown them out with a megaphone. The radical protesters couldn’t dedicate a second of respectful silence to the women in grief from losing their babies.
Mocking pro-lifers, they chanted, “pro-life, your name’s a lie, you don’t care if women die,” along with the typical slogan, “abortion on demand and without apology!” They also held up signs reading “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” and “keep your theology out of my biology.”
Last year, eight of the group’s frenzied members were arrested by police after blocking the peaceful march. Major media outlets predictably failed to report it.
No arrests were made this year, but police held out handcuffs while facing the activists, many of whom wore Planned Parenthood and NARAL paraphernalia.
MRC Culture (MRCC) asked one woman with a Planned Parenthood sign, “When you do think a baby becomes a person?”
“I’m not sure,” she responded. “I’m positive I believe in first trimester abortions. And that is when the majority of abortions happen, and that is what I’m here to fight for.”
When asked about third trimester abortions (“Do you think a that the baby is a person then?”), the abortion supporter called abortion a “personal healthcare decision”.
“That’s not my call,” she said. “I think that’s up to the woman and her doctor.”
Another abortion supporter told MRCC, “Raising a child is not a joke. Being pregnant is not enough reason to bring a child into a world where it is not wanted. — We’re not about killing babies. We’re about freedom. We’re about the choice.”
“We’re about the continuation of life, after life already happens,” she continued. “A baby is not a fetus is not baby is not a fetus. Period.”
When asked when the baby does become a person, the woman said, “When a child is born and living outside of its mother.” The woman declined to describe the difference between a baby inside and a baby outside the womb.
A third pro-abortion woman declared, “We’re protesting for every woman’s right to be able to choose what happens with their body and to eliminate the oppression by the patriarchy and the sexist system that we life in.”
She also said she believed a fetus “becomes a baby when it’s born.”
“The baby inside, when most women get an abortion, it is not a child yet, it is a clump of cells,” she insisted. “So you can’t really say that we’re killing babies.”
Fake Hate: 9 False Discrimination Stories the Media Ran With
The left loves to portray the right as bigots who hate minorities, women, Muslims, and gays. So the media latch onto any claim of perceived discrimination or hate, real or not, and report it with glee (forget investigation and due diligence!).
Obviously, crimes do occur that are genuinely motivated by someone’s ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. But many are simply hoaxes committed by liberal activists for the cause of furthering their agenda. The media makes no distinctions in figuring out which ones are real and which are staged.
Just this past week, two more alleged hate crimes were debunked. After a gay bar owner’s business burned down in 2012, he complained he was ‘targeted’ because of his sexual orientation. He finally admitted to committing the act himself and was charged August 4.
In Tennessee last Tuesday, a court ruled that a lesbian couple had spray painted anti-gay slurs on their own garage before burning their house down and blaming it on their neighbor.
It’s not as if this hasn’t been done many times before. In just the past five years alone, two very similar cases attracted the media's attention. In 2011, a lesbian couple from Colorado staged their own anti-gay home vandalism that the media pounced on as a “hate crime.” Again, in 2012, lesbian Charlie Rogers mutilated herself with anti-gay slurs, faked a kidnapping story and burnt her house down in a hate crime hoax that garnered national attention.
Here are nine more (out of many!) fake hate crimes from the past five years that the media fell for and ran with.
(Marsh proceeds to list 9 very real and tragic crimes which she claims are fake)
—..
It pays to be a victim
A common thread the media ignores in these stories is the reputation of the alleged victims. They are nearly always activists who have made false claims in the past and they finally got their ‘big break’ in receiving nation-wide attention for their lie. When their story is found to be a complete fabrication, where does the blame go? Certainly not on them. Nor on the media, who will take any liberal voice at face value, regardless of reputation.
The left-wing sycophants of the Democrat party are wading in that cesspool of crime, murder, drugs and gang activity along with their mentors. Also throw in racism, bigotry, intolerance, hypocrisy, and pure and simple out and out lying! The Civil War was to end slavery (Democrats claim it was economic reasons, but that's a nice way of saying slavery). What Democrats and their sycophants like Madcow here totally ignore is that the South was run by the southern Dixiecrats...a party that faded away into the Democrat Party!!! That it was the rich, Dixiecrat plantation owners who fought to keep slaves. And that it was also the Democrats who came up with the bright idea of forming the KKK!!!
Every single thing the Democrats have ruined in history, they twist it to blame the conservatives/GOP. They take no ownership of their history because their history is no different than their present: they are racists, bigots, intolerant and hateful human beings who lie and manipulate facts in order to keep their minions (the poor, the illegals, the black misfits) enslaved in their socialist policies. They are a despicable group. Donald Trump recognizes their despicability and doesn't turn away from it...he tackles it...and it's scaring the hell out of them!
Hitler came to power with the assistance of his Brownshirts. Obama was helped in his election by HIS brownshirts, namely the Black Panther Party, union thugs, ...
Hitler had his SS. Obama wants an internal security force that is equivalent to the military.
Hitler was half Jewish and hated Jews; Obama is half white and hates whites (e.g.comments about the grandmother who raised him). Beck's comment about him not being racist by being anti-colonialist also bears this out.
So, Jer, there are some examples on how he resembles Hitler. I would have to research it more to give you more, and frankly I am not willing to waste my time. I am sure that someone else can give you examples of how he is like Mao Zedong, Stalin, or other tyrants if they want to bother trying. The bigger point is that he resembles Hitler a heck of a lot more that GWB.
However, my opinion is that he and his are closer to the Weimar Republic the way he is running our currency, economy, and country into the ground. Maybe a cross between the Weimar and FDR with some Wilson thrown in?
Again I say - the scheme here is to use the gay issue as pretense for destorying freedom of religion.
If the gay community get some kind of constitutional amendment, like 'It is now illegal to discriminate against gays in any way', then gays would take copies of that amendment and barge into temples and synagogues all over the country saying 'You HAVE to change your doctrine!'
Never mind that fact that most gays are atheists. They have to disbelieve in God or they'd never be able to rationalize their fornications and whoredoms. But for some reason, a lot of them still want to be 'married' by churches that told them gay is a sin. Why? Sour grapes. It's not enough for them to live in sin. They want to force every church in the country to embrace homosexuality, and force churches to change their doctrine at the point of a government bayonet.
On the plus side - when a conservative becomes President, he can just take that Gay amendment and say, "I'm not going to enforce this!" Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like - Barry-boy.
Similar to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in which people choose others to their do own videos, the user nominated "the whole world " to take part in the #BurnISISFlagChallenge.’ The campaign soon went viral, especially in Lebanon following the beheading of one of the country's soldiers by ISIS.”
However, some are not happy with the protest campaign and are calling for those found burning the flag to face the "sternest punishments upon them."
Lebanon's justice minister Ashraf Rifi accused the three who burnt the flag at Sassine Square of insulting Islam since their banner featured the words: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his Prophet," written on it.
"abortion rights" can be summed up in four words. "women's power over men". it has zero to do with any medical needs. zero to do with children. zero to do with anything other than "women's power over men". it's payback time for women who think 100,000 years of patriarchy is just about enough. i watched a movie from the 40's last night. all the women were fawned over from start to finish. what gives? of course 51% of the dead babies are female so that tells me the next giant step could be "gender abortion". that could backfire though. who would do all the heavy lifting?
Continuing the media narrative that climate change is the cause of flooding in Texas, NBC Nightly News did its part on Thursday night in not only accomplishing that but also linking climate change to the drought in California and a “weather whiplash” that’s being seen across the country.
Interim anchor Lester Holt began the segment by observing that “[t]he relentless rain, while enormously destructive, seemed to have helped reverse years of drought in Texas” while Californians now “are wondering” if it’s their turn “for an abrupt weather whiplash of their own from dry to deluge.”
Again touting the flooding as another example of “weather whiplash,” national correspondent Miguel Almaguer noted that the flooding in the southern plains adds to “[a] year of historic floods, fires, tornados, snow and ice” where weather shifts “from one wild extreme to another.”
Almaguer continued by showcasing the effect of the Texas flooding as “n just three weeks, much of the state has gone from extreme drought to crippling flood” as “[l]akes are fuller than they have been in five years.” As opposed to expanding upon on the benefits of this news, Almaguer decided to invoke climate change: “Scientists say climate change is exacerbating the wild swings.”
Those words uttered by the NBC News national correspondent then allowed him to tee up Texas Tech University climate change researcher Kathatrine Hayhoe, who declared that: “These swings are getting wilder. Climate change is stretching out our variability.”
With that established, Almaguer trotted out the other end of the “weather whiplash” in the extreme drought taking hold in California:
In the last 30 days, 2.6 trillion gallons of water have filled Texas reservoirs, enough water to serve California for at least a year and a half, but still only a quarter of what California needs to end its drought. The Golden State parched like never before...The governor says this is just the beginning.
Following a soundbite from California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, Almaguer concluded:
With the powerful el Nino suspected of bringing heavy rain to Texas, experts say it could do the same to California, now bracing for fires and mudslides later this year. The weather whiplash, promising to bring even more dangerous and wild extremes.
Earlier on Thursday, the Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell described the numerous instances in which media sources ranging from MSNBC to the Huffington Post have raised the relevance of climate change in reporting on the Texas flooding over the past week.
...I saw this episode - no one blew up in the Schaivo case of course - much to the MSM's dismay - so they made a "reality" it on TV (the only way they can ever get their way anymore). Of course the evil bomber turned out to be (suprise!) an evil pro-life Christian. MJB will be back here later promoting "how everyone knows" that all pro-lifers are really avid pipe bombers hell-bent on blowing up all ("truly decent") pro-choicers...
The bigger implication of the episode was that a pro-life clergyman cleverly orchestrated the bombing with diabolical mind-manipulation methods in order to gain media exposure...when is the last time we saw a positive pro-life character or conservative Christian on a major network televison program? The answer of course is never...they are all evil or mind-numbed robots in MSM la-la land...
The main ploy here here is to make the pro-lifers look like the killers - take the focus off of the REAL pro-choice killers. This is a common lib tactic I've noticed now as we also saw in New Orleans where racist libs tried to paint conservatives as the racists...
As I watch these programs week after week I increasingly wonder about these writers...their anti-Christian propaganda and agenda is now so transparent. They are so hate-filled, guilt-ridden, and bitter about their lives. They are such fear-mongers, such bigots...what truly pathetic lives they live...
Joss Whedon, the director of the blockbuster comic book movie, The Avengers, revealed the extreme extent of his left-wing politics in a Wednesday post on Twitter. After asserting that "the climate IS changing - if we can't, that makes us dumber than weather #ClimateChangeIsReal," Whedon called for spiteful and heavy-handed measures against his ideological opponents on that issue: "Policy makers who deny basic scientific truth should also be denied penicillin, horseless carriages, air time on the magic box of shadows".
As you might expect, the reaction from some conservatives on Twitter was swift:
Back in 2012, Whedon inserted an abortion story line into a comic book based on his Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series, and decried how "a woman’s right to choose is under attack as much as it’s ever been, and that’s a terrible and dangerous thing for this country."
[Y]ou'd better get your statistics right because the blacks make up a disproportionate number in the amount of crimes committed as opposed to whites. Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, majority black cities with the highest crimes rates in the country. Racism is when 93% of the blacks vote for a useless, lying African for president---even a black writer said that.
Homophobic? Is that a fear of perverts? A fear of being a pervert? No, homophobic is a kweer term that screams from within their wicked psyche, "I want my fudge packed and I know it is unnatural because I am a homo sephian and my mommy would be ashamed of my immorality. That is what "homophobic" is, a queer fear of not being straight. Symptoms are hatred for all things good, moral & Godly. Don't get sucked into this lifestyle, it will shorten your life. Ever heard of "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?"
[A comment on the article]
What does it matter if the Soviet Union, Reagan's "evil empire," collapsed? The Liberals have fully embraced it, making the collapse of the Soviet Union irrelevant.
They are the "evil empire." They are here and now, and they grow with every regulation, with every order, with every mandate, with every requirement, with every rule, with every confiscation of taxpayer dollars, and with every person who becomes dependent on them and, as intended, is required to obey them.
They are the same kind of Communist rot as the Soviet Union was - only they rot America from within.
They are the enemy, and they are far worse than the Soviet Union ever was.
"The headline is already gone from the Associated Press's national site, but it's still present elsewhere."
Just like with this former headline, the truth, when it becomes inconvenient, is deleted.
Which is precisely the goal of a Community Organizer.
Which is precisely his version of Utopia.
Which is precisely described in 1984.
Angry, larcenous, arsonist, murderous negroes are a dime-a-dozen, in Obama-world.
And the new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, can't wait for cities to burn.
The squeaky wheel always gets the Al Sharpton grease; with taxpayer money, with affirmative action programs and with kowtowing Liberals.
Always.
And La Raza, "The Race," and the illegal immigrant hordes aren't far behind.
I am absolutely livid.
I've had a gutful; I'm speaking my mind, and I don't give a damn who I offend.
Which is precisely why the First Amendment is the FIRST Amendment.
Which is precisely why I'm ohessyoucowboys.
America has never confronted a greater peril, than the American Communist.
I've never been so afraid for our country.
[Global] Warmists are much like mooslimes - any excuse to attack over offense to their beliefs. Which, of course, indicates how weak their religion and their belief in it are. True believers are secure in their belief and therefore not subject to such outbursts.
This unfunny SNL skit proves that Ben Carson is right. The media used to be on the side of the people, but not anymore. They're now only catering to affluent liberals in the big cities who think middle America are a bunch of uneducated idiots. The liberal mainstream media - especially the entertainment media - is no longer interested in catering to the majority of Americans, they want to shove propaganda down our throats under the guises of news and entertainment. Fox is the only brand I trust in the media world, If I want news or want to see a movie, I only go to Fox News or its namesake movie studio (20th Century Fox) respectively.You can't even watch a TV drama without watching in-your-face anti-conservative propaganda. For example, last week's episode of the new ABC show Quantico portrayed Planned Parenthood opponents as domestic terrorists.
[Commenting on the plot of a Law and Order episode in which a car bomb kills the husband of an incapacitated woman shortly before the victim planned to disconnect her feeding tube.]
No surprise here. Which show was that, The Practice, that had the mother sue the city because her son got a head injury playing soccer? That was the epitome of liberalism, when the writers of the script give the mother the win in the case, because the evil city let children play soccer. TV networks like to jam their opinions into their crappy drama TV shows, now that they have lost the news monopoly.
At the same time, I sheepishly admit that I probably would smirk a little if Michael Schaivo and that damned Lawyer were blown to the depths of hades by a car bomb.
I'm 60. I've seen 5 of these floods. We get one about every 10 years or so. Nothing is new about any of this. Not the water. Not the flooding. Not the dying. Absolutely nothing. These people are a bunch of vacuous morons who are afraid of their own shadows. Too bad the Networks won't hire real men and heterosexuals anymore.
This sitting president has used every little trick of devisiveness written in the annuals of Socialist idealogy. The horrible rich need to spread the wealth, "Forward" which is the mantra of the Socialists, Ayers,Wright, and his female mentor AKA "handler", to guide his idealogy. "Obamacare" was rammed down the throats of this country without benefit of debate, and only a select few knew what was in the dispicable piece of legislation. Pelosci even said "Vote it in and then we will find out what is in it." His "wife" was on the CNBC? new show the other day deriding those who wanted "VOTER ID" as rascists,and no one got into their "soiree" without an ID. Double standards.
(On article "Baby Talk on Climate Change Hits NYT News Pages: 'The Planet Will Like That")
Well that is interesting..........I did not know that Caroline Kennedy had a mentally retarded daughter.........and maybe I should not be so hard on the New York Times as it appears they have a program to help the mentally retarded............letting those poor intellectually lacking souls attempt to write fiction for their little birdcage liner.
Bottom line: there is no compromise or living with progressives. NONE. You are either 100 percent into their cult of death or they will destroy you.
Progressivism is societal gangrene. Now, we all know what you must do to stem the advance of that disease. Will we have the resolve to save what's left of America or will we still attempt to negotiate with gangrene?
We have no other options left.
Paul J. Weber of the Associated Press made his liberal slant clear in a Wednesday article detailing how a pro-traditional marriage bill failed to pass in the Texas state legislature. Weber played up the supposedly "divisive efforts by Texas Republicans to defy the U.S. Supreme Court if same-sex marriage is legalized." He clearly labeled the proponents of the bill as conservatives, but failed to identify the socially liberal agenda of opponents.
The correspondent led his item, "Divisive anti-gay marriage bill falls in Texas Legislature," with his "divisive efforts" and "defy the Supreme Court" phrases, and noted how the effort to pass the bill on Wednesday "ended...with conservative finger-pointing and opponents feeling relieved." He continued by noting that the legislative session "will end next week without a measure that gay rights activists considered one of the harshest in any U.S. statehouse: restrictions that would prohibit government officials from giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
Weber soon added that "Republicans made no secret about seeing the bill as a path to new legal challenges if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage later this summer." He also pointed out how Republican Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, who supported the proposed legislation, is a "tea party leader who controls the Senate."
AD FEEDBACK
The AP journalist later underlined that the Texas House of Representatives is "more moderate than the Senate." He also included a quote from State Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Democrat, who blasted the bill: "It is offensive to my constituents, it's offensive to me, and it's offensive to our constitution."
However, Weber failed to point out that Rep. Coleman is a longtime supporter of the left-wing LGBT agenda in the Texas state legislature. A December 2014 article in the Houston Chronicle noted that the Democrat has been trying to repeal the Lone Star State's definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman since 1995.