10/31/10

Swink v. Granada

We have three galleries up on WritingPlaces.com:

Swink Lions v. Granada Bobcats Cross-divisional playoff 10.30.2010
Swink v. Granada - Lions sideliners
Swink v. Granada - Bobcats sideliners

10/30/10

La Junta Tigers v. Florence Huskies

Image Galleries

under Sports 2010 - 2011 School Year | Football

last link in the football section.

65 images.

10/29/10

Tancredo and "The Threat"

So here's what conspiracy theorist Tom Tancredo has to say about The Greatest Threat facing America:

During a campaign swing through Southern Colorado on Tuesday, Tancredo told supporters about his perception of the threat Obama poses.

“It’s to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights,” the Canon City Daily Record quoted him as saying. “It’s not al-Qaida, it’s the guy sitting in the White House.”

Tancredo’s campaign said he’s not alone in that belief.

“Tom isn’t the only one who thinks that the policies of this president and this Congress are the biggest threat to the future of the country,” said Bay Buchanan, Tancredo’s campaign manager. “In July, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, was quoted as saying that ‘Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.’ And he’s right. America is headed for a fiscal train wreck — and the Obama administration has been pressing down on the accelerator for the last two years.”


Ol' 1Y is superficially correct, and I agree with him, to a point, but he's missing the main point.

The main point is this: We have a dangerous combination in the executive branch and the legislative branch because of the super-majority possessed by their party. This has skewed the system of checks and balances designed by the Constitutional Framers. It's dangerous because Obama and the people calling the Congressional shots are all extreme 'progressives'. If we had some of the moderates in the Democratic Party able to restrain these 'progressives', we'd be in much better shape. But they are not, and we are not.

If we had a Republican super-majority in the Congress, and a Republican president, and they were as far right as their opponents are far left ... we would have the same kind of threat to the nation.

It is not a uniquely Democrat thing. It's a mindset thing. Can you imagine what it would be like if Tancredo and a collection of his like-minded pals were calling the shots? Instead of a socialistic state, we'd have a fascist state.

Yes. I used the "F" word. That's exactly how I see people like Tancredo and the Religious Right.

Meanwhile, Tancredo admits that he comes across as 'bombastic'. That word means "high-sounding; high-flown; inflated; pretentious"; some synonyms are "pompous, grandiloquent, turgid, florid, grandiose". Bombastic suggests language with a theatricality or staginess of style far too powerful or declamatory for the meaning or sentiment being expressed.

We have this:

However, Tancredo said there’s little danger of walking away from a conversation with him and wondering where he stands on an issue.

“You’re going to know exactly what I’m talking about,” he said.


How are we supposed to know "exactly" what he is talking about when he is playing the bombastic, pompous, grandiloquent, horse's ass, blowing everything up into a major crisis, over-reacting, over-stating, playing off the stage, engaging in political theatrics. A pompous horse's ass.

That's just what we don't need in a governor.

Godly school boards

Here's a good example of a "godly" school board:

Anti-gay Arkansas school board member resigns

"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves," McCance wrote. "The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin."

Can you just feel the Christian love in the room?

Get out of the way, now, for the thundering herds of the unchurched who will be so moved by this outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus Christ by a True Christian - and probably red-blooded all-American super-patriot - that the churches will be filled to overflowing.

Sure they will.

McCance is filled with hate over this particular sin. Never mind that his hate is a far worse sin. That's different, you see. It's a 'righteous hate'.

If this is an example of a 'godly' school board, I'd rather have 'em all be atheists.

10/28/10

New image galleries

Over on

Image Galleries

we have Swink v. Fowler Grizzlies, last Friday evening (under Football)

and the District 6 volleyball playoffs from today, up at OJC, Swink v. Hoehne and Swink v. Fowler (under Volleyball).

10/27/10

Bert's gay?

Sesame Street Tweet outs Bert

Personally, I think this is a conspiracy on the part of the Democrats. Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell, Tom Tancredo, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and a host of Republican "God's on My Side" candidates are going to vapor lock and spend the rest of the week foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth rather than on campaigning, slinging mud, and raking muck, leaving all of that to the Democrats.

Not to mention Brother Pat Robertson's waxing pedantic over the whole thing. God will undoubtedly strike Bert down where he stands, perhaps even turning him into a pillar of salt or somesuch.

No proof required

A Federal judge has ruled that no proof of citizenship is required to vote in Arizona:

Court strikes Arizona law requiring voters prove citizenship

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a key part of Arizona's law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote and to show identification before casting ballots.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does.

The ruling left in place a requirement that voters provide proof of identity when casting ballot.


The court apparently recognizes the innate Goodness of Man, and understands that when one signs that 'under penalty of perjury' thing, well ... that's all that's needed. Who would lie when faced with that?

I'm glad we have such rational judges.

Aren't you?

I'll wager ACORN and SEIU and the Democrats are breathing a huge sigh of relief.

10/26/10

Oh, thank you, Harry! Bless you, Harry ..

... oh my most gracious and benevolent Harry ... please bend closer that I may kiss the hem of Your robe, kiss Your ring ... and You can kiss my rosy red backside, Oh Harry!

Harry says we're too far down the food chain to understand how much He has done for us; how He prevented a world-wide depression:

The Nevada Democrat, whose poll numbers are see-sawing against rival Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle, told MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Thursday night that voters in his state don't feel reassured when Reid tells them of his global achievement because they've fallen so far down the economic food chain.

"We were at the top and we've fallen very hard. So people have been hurting, and I understand that, and it doesn't give them comfort or solace for me to tell them, you know, but for me we'd be in a worldwide depression. They want to know what I've done for them, and that's why it's important for me, any chance I get, to say that my number one job is to create jobs," Reid said, blasting Angle for saying it's not the role of government to create jobs.


Leece and I went over to vote today. We voted for the least mentally-deranged candidates on the state and national tickets. That's not saying much.

Fortunately our local incumbents offered better choices; we have not been at all impressed with the challengers. We left the booths feeling somewhat reassured that while the Republic is in dire peril, the county seems to be in reasonably good hands.

Harry Reid's aide

Sham marriage

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned.

Diana Tejada, Reid’s Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for “some of her expenses” in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.


I find it difficult to believe that Harry didn't know anything at all about this.

I find it difficult to believe that this is breaking right now, just before the election, as a matter of 'coincidence'.

Tejada, now 28, was never charged for her role in the crime.

“We did not charge the woman, and of course we don’t discuss the reasons we don’t charge people,” said Bob Troester, spokesman for the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, which began as an FBI investigation out of the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force.


The dates put the decision-making on this squarely in the reign of Obama's Department of Injustice. Of course they aren't going to discuss the reasons they didn't charge the woman. She works (worked) for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

She may have done the deeds before she was with Reid, but the unsavory details and the decisions to not charge her - and thereby keep it under wraps - were made by Obama's administration.

I'm shocked ... shocked, I tell you.

OK, Whitey, it's your turn ...

Obama said "... they gotta sit in the back ..." regarding the Republicans.

He really said that. Obama did. About the Republicans:

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

He's still blaming the Republicans. Well, the Republicans have the economic albatross around their necks, but then ... what about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Black Congressional Caucus, and all the rest who raped and pillaged Fannie and Freddie; what about Democratic policies dating back to Carter that were part and parcel of the mess we're in; what about the debt that Obama has driven us to; what about his lack of focus on the economy; what about his infatuation with everything but the economy? We could go on ... and on ... and on.

And the best he can come up with is that they don't mind the Republicans joining them?

How is that healing partisan divides? How is that 'post-partisanship'? How is that anything but self-serving finger-pointing divisiveness? This is what I call Obama's "OK, Whitey, now it's your turn" speech, and it puts the lie to everything that man has said about "post-racial" and "post-partisan" America.

I have no use for the Republicans. They are weak; weak-minded; weakly organized; too focused on God being on their side rather than the other way around. In Colorado they have screwed the pooch and dropped the ball, hugely. All they can offer us is the likes of Tipton, Buck, and Maes, and an off-the-wall conspiracy theorist, Tancredo.

But I do hope the Democrats get the Electoral Shaft come election day. Obama's arrogance is insufferable.

10/25/10

How bad will it be?

That's the question.

Election Day could bring historic split

The question around Washington today is not whether Nov. 2 will be a difficult day for the Democrats who control Congress, but rather how bad it will be.

That's a commentary by Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post. As you probably know, Tumulty used to write for Time Magazine, but moved over to WaPo earlier this year after sixteen years with Time.

Tumulty is highly respected, though she did manage to win a bronze "Worst Person in the World" award from Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) for an article critical of Hillary Clinton.

Shoot. I wouldn't mind such an award from Olbermann myself. It would be better if Rachel Madow and Chris Matthews voted on it, too.

So. Take a read of Tumulty's essay. It's interesting.

10/24/10

We really should allow non-citizens to vote ...

That one got your attention, didn't it?

States weigh allowing non-citizens to vote

Some excerpts:

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it.

Noncitizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote, Rwaganje said.

"We have immigrants who are playing key roles in different issues of this country, but they don't get the right to vote," said Rwaganje, 40, who moved to the U.S. because of political strife in his native Congo and runs a nonprofit that offers financial advice to immigrants.


and

But between his limited English and the financial demands, Daud hasn't been able to become a citizen.

"I like the Democrats. I want to vote for Democrats, but I don't have citizenship," he said.

To become a citizen, immigrants must be a lawful permanent resident for at least five years, pass tests on English and U.S. history and government, and swear allegiance to the United States.

Supporters of Portland's ballot measure say the process is cumbersome, time-consuming and costly. The filing fee and fingerprinting costs alone are $675, and many immigrants spend hundreds of dollars more on English and civics classes and for a lawyer to help them through the process
.

He can't speak English well enough to learn enough about the United States to pass a citizenship test ... and it costs too much.

Yep. Being a citizen can be a very costly thing indeed. Take a look at any national cemetery.

Yep. We do have non-citizens serving in the armed forces:

US military will offer path to citizenship

This is a very good article. You might want to read it.

Here are the oaths of enlistment and commissioning:

US Armed Forces oath of enlistment

Note the caveat about "... so help me God ...".

They don't push that last phrase. It has to do with that pesky Article 6 Section 3 of the Federal Constitution. And of course, the 14th Amendment pushes that down to the local level.

But all that aside, how many of us know that over 40 states and territories of the United States have at one time or another allowed non-citizens to vote?

Indeed we have.

10/21/10

Churches and the IRS


What we have here is the Mt. Zion Baptist Church, at 3rd and Maple. Churches have tax-exempt status. One of the things that will negate that tax exempt status is when the church/pastor actively endorses political candidates.

Is that the reason Mt. Zion has the political sign in their front yard? Beats me. But it prompts some observations on the 'issue' in general.

If a church has a political candidate's election campaign sign on the church property, as we see here, is it reasonable to presume the church is endorsing a political candidate?

The IRS thinks so.

Pastors who get into this political endorsement thing whine a lot about how their free speech is being infringed upon.

Actually, it isn't.

A pastor is free to do whatever he or she wishes regarding political activity as a private individual, just like you and me. What they cannot do is use the pulpit (the church) or their position as pastors to do that endorsing. Well, they can, but they lose that tax-exempt status. What they want to do is politicize God and still have their tax-exempt status. They can't politicize God quite so easily when they are playing political activist as a private individual, rather than using the pulpit to either manipulate the masses (God's on the Republican's side, right? Vote Republican or risk rotting in hell with those heathen Dems or other liberals)or simply confirm the congregations pre-conceived notion that God uniquely loves Republican candidates. Never mind that it would seem to be better to be on God's side.

You see, it isn't about freedom of speech. That's just a pastoral smoke screen. What it's about is politicizing God, and still getting da munny.

Update: Yeah, we know that Stultz is a Democrat. Doesn't say much for Grantham, does it.

Hello, stupid!

Am I tawkin' ta yew?

Yeah buddy. I'm tawkin' ta yew.

OK, so it isn't Robert DiNero. Nope. It's Barack H. Obama that talking to you, stupid. At least, that's what he thinks you are. Me too. I mean, he thinks I'm stupid, too. He thinks we're all dumber than dirt.

"... facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning . . . because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared."

- Barack Obama at a fund raiser in Massachussetts last weekend.

He thinks we don't get it because we're 'scared'. He thinks we're too scared and too stupid to be doing any critical thinking.

Well ... he's right about one thing. A lot of us are in fact scared. I'm afraid of what he has done to us, done to the country, spending us into oblivion, pouring generations worth of American wealth away like he's pouring piss out of a boot.

I'm afraid of his Department of Justice and Eric Holder's new racism.

I'm afraid of what Obama is doing in Afghanistan. Why are we there? Why are our people getting killed and maimed there? What's his point?

I'm scared crapless of Obamacare.

Social Security is a joke, but no one's laughing.

And there's that minor business of the economy and unemployment.

Why is it minor?

What's he done about it? He's been so busy ramming Obamacare down our throats, flitting off to Denmark for silly 'climate change' conferences, sticking his nose unwanted into the New York mosque foolishness, playing buffoonish amateur with his Labor Day Middle East 'initiative' - anyone notice that Iran is sitting down with NATO to discuss Afghanistan? and of course we have the hoohah over immigration, another example of Obmanian incompetence.

And then he tells us we're too 'scared' to think clearly.

What I clearly think is that the man thinks we are idiots.

It's almost enough to get me to vote for Tancredo, just because Tancredo isn't a Democrat, and even though the Colorado Republican party - Tancredo's a Republican extremist, no matter what he's running as - is so screwed up they make Obama look like a political genius in comparison.

At this point I think I'd vote for Gus Hall, just because he isn't a Democrat, and especially because he isn't ... wasn't ... a Republican. But Gus has shuffled off to that commune in the sky. Well ... OK. That's a bit extreme, all things considered. But you get the drift ...

10/19/10

"... fixed income ..."

Earlier this week, the county commissioners held a meeting at the Senior Center to explain Amendments 60 and 61, and Proposition 101.

During the meeting, a citizen who identified herself as a retired teacher from New Jersey gave a bit of a whine about being on 'fixed income' before going on to rant about the near total inadequacy of the Colorado school system, as well as teachers who aren't doing their jobs.

I guess things are much better in New Jersey's school system, but that's another story.

Leece made the observation to the audience-at-large that everyone in the room was pretty much on fixed income.

How many people in The Smile Hi City or the county have received raises in the past few years? Not many.

So the Social Security Administration announced today that there isn't going to be a COLA raise for social security recipients this year:

"... the Social Security Administration announced Friday that interest rates in 2010 haven't risen enough to justify an increase in benefits next year to the 58 million retirees and disabled Americans who receive the entitlement."


then we have:

"This is an issue ripe for political pandering -- and there is sure to be plenty of that -- but the truth is, seniors don't need a raise based on inflation this year because inflation has been so low. They actually got an artificially high raise last time around so they are faring better than many others in this economy who haven't benefited from generous raises," said CRFB President Maya MacGuineas.


CRFB is the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

So what are the Democrats going to do?

Pander.

Yep. Obama wants to buy some senior votes by giving them $250 each. Never mind what the Social Security Administration says. Bypass that, and give them $250.

That's pandering by any standard.

BTW ... where's that vote on extending the Bush tax cuts?

Humor in the churchplace

I saw this "church sign" over at 5th and Santa Fe:

"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."

That observation is contrary to my own experiences in life. I find that those who talk most about God are preachers and other professionals who make their living - sometimes a very good living  - selling God.

Atheists, on the other hand, are generally silent about God, mostly because they have - in their opinion - more important things to talk about. Atheists generally do not get involved with God unless someone - one of God's professionals or simply a True Believer - introduces God into government in some way in an attempt to force the rest of us into a mandated state of "belief."  But you don't have to be an atheist to become thusly involved; you simply have to be a citizen who resents - quite rightfully - having someone presume a right to tell you what version of God to whom you will pray.

Remember that business of "God in the Swimming Pool" a few years back?  The swimming coach had taken it upon herself to proselytize to the girls, injecting her "... shallow platitudes that passed for theological doctrine ..." into the swimming team's activities. There were indications the coach was selecting team members based on how well they accepted her theological brain-washing. A number of parents blew their gaskets, in a manner of speaking, and protested to the school board.

The school board did what school boards typically do. They circled their wagons and swept it all under the "personnel issue" rug. But here's the thing. None of the parents who protested were atheists. Nope. Some may not have been among those who attend church religiously (sorry, couldn't help myself on that one) but none of them were atheists, and above all, they were - and are - our friends and neighbors. Atheists (in a government-decreed "godly community", can we have atheists as friends? Will city council allow it?) were remarkably silent on the issue. The point here is that those who make the most noise are not atheists at all, but those True Believers who insist on using their governmental positions to force the rest of us into some form of compliance with their view on God. In any case, I've never heard an atheist make a public stink over God unless someone first uses God to make a political statement. However, using God as a political pawn doesn't set well with a lot of people besides atheists. Just ask that swimming coach and that particular school board. One suspects such presumptuousness may not set well with God, either, which may be why he chooses to use atheists, among others, to set our modern-day Pharisees straight on the matter. Who says God has no sense of humor?

10/17/10

The Mennonites and the Tigers

We have a gallery of images from the Rocky Mountain Mennonite Relief Sale here:

Image Galleries

under Events

and a gallery from Friday night's game against Colorado Christian under Football

Desperate, dispirited, and crumbling

You gotta read Rich Galen's post from earlier today:

Desperate, dispirited, and crumbling

An excerpt:

# Anyone who has been hoping for a change in the tide running with Republicans found themselves swimming upstream after reading yesterday's coverage of the November 2 mid-term elections which are how 15 days away.

# Even an article by Ewen MacAskill in the U.K. Guardian article led with:

"Barack Obama hit the campaign trail again today in a desperate effort to save Democrats facing a Republican avalanche in next month's mid-term elections."

# Who would have thought, two years ago, that President Obama would have so badly mishandled his first two years in office that the word "desperate" would be attached to him in the final weeks of the mid-term season?

# The news only got worse.

And not a moment too soon; some might say too late. That remains to be seen.

The fact that the Republicans are poised to take a number of seats and remove the Democrats supermajority; perhaps even take the majority in one or both houses, does not offer much solace. Why, you ask?

Because the candidates the Republicans are offering, while long on rhetoric, are hardly in the "Win one for the Gipper" category. Most of them are erratic, some are downright irrational. Most of them are nothing more than rhetorical.

It's a replay of what got Obama and his accomplices elected in the first place. Most of us were fed up with the incompetence and self-serving behaviors of the Republican party.

Now most of us are fed up with the incompetence and self-serving behaviors of the Democratic party.

The Republicans will have two years after November 2. They'd better get their act together. Getting elected when facing the likes of Barack H. Obama and his henchmen is one thing. Keeping the office is another entirely.

It's all local

The latest wisdom from White House Press Secretary Robert "Giggles" Gibbs:

Gibbs claims mid-terms are about local issues, not Obama

Though Republicans across the country are hammering Democratic opponents by linking them to President Obama's
policies, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted Sunday that 2010 is a "local" election.

The president's chief spokesman was decidedly more upbeat about his party's chances than during an interview over the summer when he said Democrats could lose their House majority. Asked once again for his prediction, Gibbs said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Democrats will keep control of both chambers.

He said Democrats have done a "remarkably good job" in a tough environment and disputed the suggestion that voters associate the party's candidates too much with Obama.

"I think that campaigns in this cycle are being run on a lot of local issues and issues that are important, not nationally, but to individual states and ... individual congressional districts," Gibbs said.


You keep on thinkin' that, Bobby.

10/15/10

The VFW, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid

There's a story going around that the Veterans' of Foreign Wars has endorsed the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Alan Grayson ... yes, that Alan Grayson ... and a long list of the far left's poster children.

Well ... there's some truth to that, and then there isn't.

It's the VFW's Political Action Committee that has in fact endorsed all those characters. Here is their list of endorsed candidates:

VFW endorsement list

which the VFW-PAC is defending.

As you can imagine, many of the VFW members are going alpha sierra.

I don't pay any attention to the VFW. I never 'enlisted', though by their membership criteria I could. But I don't think I meet their standards for 'patriotism'. They tend to be the ones who go nuts when someone decides to exercise those good ol' American rights - the ones I thought we were protecting and defending, but apparently which can be exercised only in a manner approved by the VFW, the Christian Right, and all the rest of the red-blooded all-American superpatriots - before adjourning to the latest VFW clubhouse, there to miserate and commiserate on the sorry state of the nation and how much better it was when the Cleavers and Ozzie and Harriet were typical American families, all the while sloshing down a few gallons of booze.

So it's somewhat ironic that the VFW is endorsing a collection of the country's most rabid left-wing extremists.

Ain't it?

10/14/10

Insufferable arrogance

No, not the Christian Right, though the term suits them admirably.

No, this time it's Barack H. Obama:

Republicans will have to learn to get along with me

First, he says:

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible," he is quoted saying in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine, "either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn't work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."

How's that for blatant arrogance? This is exactly what James Madison was writing about that 'tyranny of the majority' in the Federalist Papers. Doesn't Obama have a supermajority in both houses? But it get's better:

Accusing the public of mistaking his abilities, the president also told the magazine that he's a little taken aback that voters are disappointed with the current turn of events in his administration.

Taken aback? Mistaking his abilities? What I'm taken aback over is Obama's ability to spend money like a drunken sailor running the hookers in Olangapo. What I'm taken aback over is the fact that he just doesn't get it. What I'm taken aback over is Nancy Pelosi telling us that food stamps and unemployment are the best 'economic stimulators.'

Then there's the arrogance of Dave Axelrod, one of Obama's chief henchmen, the other day, when he poofled at Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation."

I'm taken aback that Obama is still blaming Bush and the Republicans, as though we are all supposed to be blissfully unaware that he and his accomplices have had a supermajority in both houses since Day One.

I'm taken aback that Obama and his gang of four - Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd - are taking Federal politics to levels that the worst hacks in Chicago would never have dreamed possible.

And I'm taken aback that he just ... doesn't ... get it ... and he's blaming me for it.

Jesus wept.

The hatefulness of the Christian Right

What is it about the Christian outlook that so fills so many "Christians" with such hate and anger?

Do they really believe that threats, bombast, and finger-pointing political threats will bring people to Christ?

Do they really believe that their "... shallow platitudes that pass for theology ..." and their childish theological world view is going to accomplish much besides drive people from the church? Do they really believe that any rational person is going to buy into their selective literalism, their pathetically false "science" that they try to force into our schools and our kids' minds as "Creation science?"

They whine incessantly about being "persecuted", usually because they can't browbeat the rest of us and our kids with forced prayer in schools and in our political bodies. Never mind that there is not a church in these United States that does not enjoy the absolute protection of the Constitution; never mind that there is no congregation of any denomination of any belief system that must fear having its doors kicked in by the police or military, and having its members dragged off to prison or stood against a wall. Never mind that "persecution" as they use it is so insulting to those in other nations who suffer those real persecutions. Never mind that the worst thing that might happen is that they might not be wished "Merry Christmas" by a Walmart clerk. I can only wonder what Christ would have thought of such doings, as the nails were being driven through his hands and feet.

What is it with these people that drives them to such hate, such anger, such retributive states of mind, that Christ himself would not recognize his own words from their mouths?

Why are they such ... bullies?

10/12/10

The ACLU

As most of us know, the ACLU is seen as Satan Incarnate by the Christian Right.

Most of this Christian hatred ("Christian" and "hatred" is an interesting mix, don't you think? Unfortunately, these days Christians seem to be doing a lot of hating) stems from the ACLU's battles to keep the government out of religion, and religion out of government. Christian Fundamentalists don't see it that way, of course, never mind that they are every bit a threat to civil liberties as any Islamic Fundamentalist. One can only wonder when we'll start burning people at the stake again ... possibly sometime after President/Pastor Huckabee takes office and installs Glenn Beck as "religion czar" ... but that's another story.

Up in Colorado Springs, School District 11 has banned students from wearing "certain religious symbols", such as crucifixes and rosaries.. The rationale here is that these items can be used as gang symbols. But note that it is only "certain religious symbols", not all religious symbols, and the policy centers on crucifixes and rosaries.

Rather surprisingly, at least to me, is that Monsignor Bob Jaeger of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs states that "the church is OK" with this.

Really. So ... if a Muslim kid - and there are some of them up in Colorado Springs - shows up wearing an Islamic crescent on a chain ... is that a banned item? Apparently not, as we see from this extract from an editorial written by Wayne Laugeson for the Gazette's editorial board:

Mann Middle School sent an e-mail to parents saying Catholic Rosaries worn around the neck cannot be seen, and will be treated as a dress code  violation. District officials have told other schools they have the option to impose this constraint on freedom of expression and religion. It’s OK  to wear a cross, a Star of David, an “evolve” fish, or other religious symbols without violating the dress code. Just don’t wear the rosary, they say, which is a symbol of only one religion — Catholicism.

The stated rationale for this First Amendment violation is concern that some gangs wear rosaries. So what? The First Amendment says nothing about the fashion trends of gangs automatically negating freedoms of religion and speech for everyone else. Some terrorists wear the Sword of Allah. Does that mean Islamic students shouldn’t have a right to wear sacred Islamic symbols?

 
You'll never guess what outfit is getting right in the middle of this, taking on the school board over yet another example of school board arrogance and ignorance.

Yep. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.

You see, the point missed by the Christian Fundamentalists is that the whole point of the ACLU is to defend individual liberties. Whenever a government body, a political body, a body of elected officials - which is exactly what a school board is - decides to tread heavily upon those individual liberties, the ACLU is a prime defender. And whenever a school board decides to conduct religious activities as official acts of that board, and most especially to the exclusion of certain religions or belief systems, they do indeed violate individual civil rights. That the majority of the population may belong to one religious denomination, or sect, or cult, has no bearing at all. It's part of defending against that "tyranny of the majority" that James Madison so eloquently wrote against in Federalist Paper Number 10, and of which Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America."

Whenever a political body, such as a school board or a city council politicizes religion, they have overstepped their bounds and their authority. They are no different from the high-handed shenanigans they complain about from the Democratic majority in the Congress today, or from Barack H. Obama. The end result of their respective agendas is the same: the undermining of individual liberties.

The far right is no better than the far left.

And that's why we have the ACLU, and that's why I support the ACLU.

ACLU: D-11 Ban Violates Students' Rights
Our View: D-11 Targets Catholics, No One Else
ACLU Rosary Statement - The Colorado Springs Gazette
CO: ACLU Speaks out against D-11 school's rosary rules
ACLU Stands up for the right of Colorado Springs middle schooler to wear rosary at public school

10/11/10

A pastor speaks ...

Reverend Robert Kippley of Canon City wrote a letter to the editor, which was published in the T-D this past Friday:

Grantham should not speak at revival services

Boy howdy, but he hits it right on the head, doesn't he?

The Christian Right, rather than spreading Christ's word and following his new commandment by example, instead resorts to political bombast and posturing, shrill anger, and pointing the Fickle Finger of Righteousness (actually, "Self-righteousness" is more accurate) ... and in the process, drive the teachings of Christ right into the dump.

You'd think they'd have figured this out by now, but they are much too full of themselves - like modern day Pharisees - to understand it.

10/10/10

More Tea Party two-stepping

Oh, here we go again:

Angle distances herself from previous comments

Now we have Sharron Angle, over in Nevada, 'distancing' herself from previous positions she has taken.

Taking page from "Buckpedalin'" Ken Buck, Angle is now saying she doesn't favor privatizing the VA (including not providing prescription drugs); she doesn't favor privatizing Social Security - like Chile's system; she doesn't favor reducing unemployment bennies and she no longer considers such bennies a form of welfare.

So what's next on her agenda? Taking out an SEIU membership?

I thought the Tea Party was all about standing on principle.

I guess not.

So that really leaves We the People with a) voting for the same old CongressClowns, or b) voting for some real third party whackjob like Tancredo (when pigs fly); c) not voting at all, since what good would it do to just vote in more of the same, just with with a Tetley flavor?

10/9/10

"Let 'em eat cake ..."

That is the Congressional attitude toward We the People.

Look at this:

Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers


As millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet, Senate staffers will participate next week in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos. It's all part of a health fair for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country. Not only will they get health screenings, they'll also find out if their iPods are too loud.

and

The Senate staffers also will be treated to seated massages, herbal teas, polarity therapy, low-fat cheese samples and organic foods. A pharmacist and health coach will be available to speak to fairgoers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions.

Why? Why are We the People paying for this self-indulgent nonsense, with the unemployment rate at nearly 10%, and the foreclosure crisis about to make things even worse?

While the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) offers different types of plans, including PPOs , HMOs and high deductible plans, all include certain benefits such as hospital care, surgical care, inpatient and outpatient care, mental health coverage, substance abuse care and prescription drug coverage.
Senate staffers enrolled in the program don't have waiting periods or coverage limitations on pre-existing conditions.

And as we speak, corporations are applying for, and receiving, waivers for compliance with the provisions of Obamacare.

Some pigs are more equal than others, it would seem.

Our Congress ... whose attitude toward the American people is ... "...let 'em eat cake."

"Tyranny of the majority"

That's an interesting phrase, isn’t it? It comes from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." That work, taken with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, forms the essentials of understanding what we're about as a nation.

The concept is found in the Federalist Papers, too, particularly in number 10, written by James Madison. Madison refers to it as "the violence of majority faction."

Madison means that the majority view is placed so far above the views of dissenting individuals that oppression occurs, implicitly or tacitly. This oppression can take place in a societal and cultural sense. And, since we have a government installed in place by majority vote, that oppression can also occur though government action. This is exactly why we have a Bill of Rights. We have the Constitution to limit the powers of the government through the manner in which it is organized; we have the Bill of Rights to prevent the oppression of the minority by the power of the majority as expressed through the government. Few people seem to think of it in that way. They say "the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, all protect us from the government" but they never stop to think that even in the confused mess that is our government today, that government is still representative of the people.

This "tyranny of the majority" is often manifested most clearly in civil rights actions involving freedom of speech.

Down in Mississippi Judge Talmadge Littlejohn has jailed attorney Danny Lampley for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, he did. The judge ordered everyone in the courtroom to stand and recite the pledge. Lampley refused, saying "I don't have to say it because I'm an American." Yep. That's all the reason he needs, to say it, or not to say it. I agree with him completely. I don't like the pledge myself, precisely because of that "tyranny of the majority" attitude that accompanies it: "I thought he was a disgrace to the United States. If he can't say that in front of a judge, he don't deserve to be here in this country." That's from Bobby Martin, a 43-year-old self-employed maintenance worker. Perhaps Martin should get a few red-blooded all-American patriots together and beat the crap out of Lampley and deposit him across the border. That'll teach Lampley all about American values, won't it?

I'd say that Lampley has a far better understanding of American values, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights than either Judge Littlejohn or Bobby Martin. The Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, is of no consequence when one is of the majority viewpoint; it is everything when one holds a minority or dissenting viewpoint.

Judge Littlejohn is no different from, and no better than, King George III, or any other projector of tyranny, be that an individual or simply the majority of good ol’ red-blooded American "patriots."

10/8/10

An "Independent's Day"?

Nope. Not at all.

Here's the deal. Independent Ken Waskiewicz is running for the Colorado 4th seat. The Colorado 4th is currently held by ... Betsy Markey. So Waskiewicz breezed into The Smile Hi City to tell us all how he 'hopes' to represent the people of Colorado, not any special interest.

Like, wow. That's a fresh outlook, isn't it?

He 'feels strongly' about term limits and believes in developing all sources of energy. We need to stop outsourcing jobs. Of course, like his opponents, he's very short on ways and means to accomplish that. I'd love to hear what he thinks about green energy's dependence on rare earth metals and our dependence on the Chinese for those rare earth metals, and how we're going to get around that little detail. As for not outsourcing jobs ... well ... that's going to kill Walmart's product lines, as well as Hobby Lobby, and Home Depot, and Lowe's and ... and ... Safeway ... what with all that 'hecho en Mejico' and 'hecho in China' going on. OK, so how's he going to not outsource jobs? How is going going to do that "Made in America" thing with the purple-shirted goons of Obama's SEIU and the other unions sucking the lifeblood out of the country with those union wages and union pensions?

No answer there.

As for 60, 61, and 101 ... he is 'studying' those. Hey, Ken, buddy ... it's getting a bit late in the game for just 'studying', don't you think? Not to worry, Ken brought his daddy along, who apparently expresses opinions in Ken's place when Ken doesn't have a sound bite ready. Dad thinks we shouldn't be crippling the infrastructure right now. Which leads me to wonder ... when would it be a good time to cripple the infrastructure?

Ah well. So much for the Independent candidate. You could find out more about his ideas by going to his website but ... he doesn't have one.

Here's an article from the Fort Morgan Times, however, that you may find useful:

Congressional candidates focus on economy

We always have Corey Gardner, who thinks 62 is a grand idea, being a hard-liner black and white thinker. That's a mindset that'll take us far, too, don't you think?

10/7/10

Swink hosts meeting on ballot initiatives

NOTICE – WORK SESSION

The Town of Swink will be at a meeting with Otero Co Commissioners on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 7:00 pm at the Swink Community Center, 321 Columbia.

AGENDA:

1.Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101

This meeting is open to the public and any interested parties are urged to attend.

Next regular meeting will be on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 7:00 pm.

Is Pelosi off her meds?

Pelosi fires back at Gingrich over food stamps

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.
Gingrich on Tuesday wrote a letter critical of the Democrats' stewardship of the economy and urged all Republican candidates to shape the political debate as one "between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks."

"It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history. (It turns out that Barack Obama's idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.)," wrote Gingrich.


Well ... let's all of us just quit whatever it is we're still doing in the way of employment, and go on food stamps. That way, we'll have the economy back on track in no time at all!

And all the Republicans are offering to counter this are the likes of Ken "Buckpedalin'" Buck and Scott "Two Way" Tipton? Tipton, by the way, is another one who is 'backing away' from his previous positions.

I think I might just vote for The Green Party this year. They can't be any whackier than this.

10/6/10

More image galleries

We have some more image galleries up:

Image Galleries

Under "Football", we have the La Junta and Swink homecoming games, and under "Volleyball" we have the La Junta 8th graders at the Cheraw tournament, and the La Junta 7th and 8th graders playing Swink.

Loose cannons

Carl Paladino was interviewed this morning on FoxNews. Paladino is the Tea Party-endorsed Repub who is running against Andrew Cuomo for governor of New York.

You may remember that Paladino is the fellow who threatened New York Post's State editor Fred Dicker ... "I'll take you out!" ... when Dicker asked Paladino about allegations he had made regarding Cuomo. Paladino had accused Cuomo of having an affair, but was refusing to back up those allegations.

Note that this wasn't a case of some media maggot shoving a camera in Paladino's face like some cheap paparazzi; it was a legitimate question based on public comments made by Paladino.

A recent poll shows that 61% of respondents consider Paladino to be a 'loose cannon' rather than a leader.

Naturally, Paladino disputes that, going on about how he is a man of the people, a fellow who is going to shake things up in Albany.

Might be so ... but is he going to get anything constructive done, or just be another shrill horse's ass of a conspiracy theorist like Tancredo and other Tea Party favorites?

Paladino is correct when he talks about the anger people feel, particularly about the economy, the unemployment rate; the insane spending by the Obamanians, the lock-step party line ass-kissing we are seeing from John Salazar and Mike Bennet; the Obamanian focus on 'green jobs' - which will leave us at the mercy of the Chinese instead of the Arabs - rather than any jobs; all of that. Is that the 'change' part of 'hope and change'?

But what is really high on the list as well is the childish ineffectiveness of the Republican Party, and the Tea Party 'movement'.

Is the best they can do the likes of Dan "Secret Agent Man" Maes, Tom "Ol' 1Y" Tancredo, Ken "Buckpedal" Buck, and the rest of the ramblingly incoherent buffoons they are presenting for We the People to consider for office?

There is no difference to me between the Obamanians and their ridiculously off-base leftie agenda and the Tea Party and the Republicans and their ridiculously off-base rightie agenda. What with Amendments 60, 61, 62, and Prop 101, I have to wonder if any of these people have any grip at all on reality.

I can tell you this, however. I'll just hold my nose - again - and vote for Hickenlooper before either Tancredo or Maes; and for Bennet (God help us) before Buckpedalin' Ken.

The best we can hope for is to balance out the loonies in the statehouse, the state ledge, and the Congress. If we can do that, we can induce some kind of gridlock, and minimize the damage they can do.



US presence in Guatemala

US government apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STD's

"We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices," they said. The conduct exhibited during the study does not represent the values of the United States, or our commitment to human dignity and great respect for the people of Guatemala."

That commitment and great respect, of course, are demonstrated by the Christian Right by elevating Oliver North to hero status for his humanitarian work in support of the Contras over in neighboring Nicaragua. After all, one expendable Central American is like any other expendable Central American ... so long as they ain't commies, they's our pals.

10/1/10

Buckpedaling on "Social issues"

Ken Buck, the GOP candidate for the US Senate, having 'backed away' from his initial support of Amendment 62, is now 'backing away' from taking positions on what he calls 'social issues'.

Here's what happened. Buck came out for Amendment 62. Then he found out that it would ban common forms of birth control. He said he wasn't aware of that when he initially supported 62, though as we see from articles in the Denver Post, there is some doubt as to the truth of his statement. Actually, Buck is now completely ignoring Amendment 62, his campaign saying that he will not take a stand on the measure. In fact, Buck is not taking a stand on any state ballot initiative. That's what his campaign says.

If you don't take a stand, you won't have to be 'backing away' from any previous commitment that might cost you some votes:

Now, faced with televised attacks from incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet over those strident views, Buck is painstakingly trying to modify positions that may not match the beliefs of the unaffiliated moderates who will ultimately decide the contest.  - Denver Post, Sep. 19 2010.

Where I come from, we used to call that "waffling". Today, we call it "Buckpedaling." We could also call it "pandering for votes."

Buck will fit right in with the current crowd in Washington. They don't read what they are voting for, or understand much of it, so he'll fit right in if he's elected, and they are great panderers.

What Buck seems to be missing by ignoring so-called 'social issues' is that these issues, such as Amendment 62, can drastically affect his constituency. If Amendment 62 is passed, and most common forms of birth control become illegal in this state - which is a clearly stated objective of the amendment's supporters -  the affect on the majority of women and families will be profound. With Amendment 62 in effect, the state, now driven by the religious beliefs of the Christian Right, would dictate family planning policy to every Colorado family, and the state, now driven by the religious beliefs of the Christian Right, would dictate to every woman how she will handle her most personal affairs.

Ken Buck won't take a stand on that. Worse, he has "Buckpedaled," and continues to even waffle on his "Buckpedaling," as he also now says he will not vote for Amendment 62.  I could respect him for supporting Amendment 62 even though I would strongly disagree with him ... but how can you respect a man who 'backs away' from anything perceived as controversial - and therefore 'vote sensitive' - and then refuses to take a stand either way, but also says he won't vote for it after he said he would? It's enough to give one a pain between the ears.


Here are Buck's previously stated positions on 'social issues', before he 'Buckpedaled':

Opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest
Opposition to giving a 14-year-old girl raped by her 13-year-old brother the option to use the "morning after pill"
Belief in the idea that the "stage of development" when humans become "persons" is the "single cell," which would ban fertilization procedures
Support of Personhood Amendment giving citizenship rights to fertilized eggs
Opposition to common forms of birth control
Pledge to oppose "pro-abortion" judicial nominees or any person applying for any government position.
Pledge to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion
Support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensuring states that outlaw gay marriage do not have to recognize gay marriages conducted in states that permit them.
Opposition to gay marriage
Support of public posting of the 10 Commandments
Support of a weakening of the separation of church and state, supporting a vague "coexistence between government and religion"
Opposition to funding Planned Parenthood health clinics
In favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.