Our thoughts exactly...

Offensive rhetoric from the KS GOP

Christian Morgan and the KS GOP have reached a new low.

In a recent blog post, Morgan and his cronies parrot a National Review story criticizing Sen. Barack Obama for supporting giving constitutional rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay (the scoundrel!)

As if it wasn't bad enough that McCain called the decision“one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Ya, right up there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Or Roe v. Wade if you are so inclined.

Worse than that though, Morgan and the National Review call Obama the "September 10 candidate." This is nothing more than cheap, underhanded fear politics and Christian should be ashamed of himself.

People on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on one thing, the thousands that died on Sept. 11, 2001 did not die so that people could use their deaths to score cheap political points and to do so trivializes the tragedy that was 9/11.

Not only that, but it's insulting and outlandish to insinuate that any candidate, Republican or Democrat, would ever do anything they felt would make an attack like the one of that fateful Tuesday more likely.

Supporters of Obama and McCain can debate the legal merits of extending the writ of habeas corpus to those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, but neither side should resort to accusing the other of promoting further terrorist attacks or being on the side of the terrorists.

Whatever your political leanings may be, we think we can all agree that this sort of political hackery is unconscionable. If you agree, call Christian Morgan and tell him the best way to honor those who were killed on 9/11 and those who have died fighting to protect those rights is to refrain from using their deaths to score cheap political points. The number is (785) 228-0353.

TKR - Liars? Idiots? Or Both?

Hey Kansas Republican Party. Just because Boehner says something stupid, doesn't mean you have to repeat it. Yes, I'm talking about this.

Washington Republicans (like Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran) really want to get away with voting against our Iraq war vets, but they can't find anything wrong with Webb's G.I. bill - so they're grasping for straws. And, of course, they aren't very clever. So they're recycling their favorite scary phrase: "small business tax."

The new half-percentage tax surcharge is being referred to as a "patriot tax" on individuals earning over $500,000 and couples earning over $1 million. But what they aren't saying is that this tax increase will also affect some 325,000 small business owners across the country.

WOAH! SCARY! EXCEPT...it still only affects millionaires...not your favorite local bar.

According to the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities:

Critics of the House-passed bill maintain that their concern is its impact on “mom and pop” small business operations, which they describe as the engines of economic growth and job creation. These critics should be reassured by the fact that the overwhelming majority of such enterprises will never generate enough profits to make them subject to the surcharge. Importantly, only business profits, not gross receipts, are potentially subject to the surcharge. Some critics have misleadingly implied that the surcharge applies to gross receipts over $1 million.

Moreover, even the “about 1 percent” figure likely overstates the impact of the surcharge on small business owner-operators. The Tax Policy Center data classify as a small business owner anyone who receives any income from an S corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or various other types of businesses.[4] Many of these individuals, however, play no role in managing the business and are simply passive investors who contribute some capital to the enterprise and, in exchange, receive a share of the profits. Their ranks include President Bush and Vice-President Cheney...

Ah HA! So the truth comes out...in voting against education for veterans, Moran & Tiahrt aren't just trying to protect millionaires, they're protecting George Bush and Dick Cheney! WHY ARE WE NOT SURPRISED!?!?!

And the Kansas GOP staff...I mean..."secret bloggers" just spits it all out like it doesn't make them look REALLY REALLY incompetent. But it does. And they are.

Conservatives obsession with gay marriage

At first I thought the conservative love affair with the issue of gay marriage was just a wedge issue played for political gain. Then, after the California Supreme Court decided that everyone should be treated equally under the law (those scallywags!) the "heterosexists" (sarcasm) came out of the woodwork.

Most especially, a piece by Dennis Praeger.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

Where to begin...

First, this is how the judicial system works. It's not activist judges, its juidicial review. Since Mr. Praeger isn't railing on about the fallacy of Marbury v. Madison, I'll assume this is just sour grapes because he doesn't like the decision. If it were 4-3 the other way, would his outrage be the same?

Second, whether or not same-sex marriage has been recognized by any religion at any point in time is completely and totally irrelevant, assuming it were even true. The court is only ruling on the definition of marriage in so far as state law is concerned. Whether an individual religion wishes to recognize same-sex unions is completely and entirely up to that religion. Whether states treat couples the same in terms of taxes and property inheritance and the likes is all this ruling affects.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will
eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from
imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

The above paragraphs are so ludicrous it's almost sad. The idea that by somehow saying to a same-sex couple that the law recognizes them in the same way it does a man and a woman will somehow make little girls grow up to dream of their princess in shining armor is proposterous fear-mongering. This ruling in no way makes it a social faux-paus to engage in heterosexual sex or enter into a heterosexual relationship. Something tells me that girls will still find a way to have sex with boys and somehow, someway the human race will reproduce enough to survive.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

This just makes my mind hurt. Is hate speech illegal now? The existance Fred Phelps, recent court rulings aside, makes me question the validity of this statement. The KKK still exist post...I don't know, the Civil War...so something tells me even if this cockamamie anaology were accurate, Mr. Praeger and those of like minds would not need lawyers.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

And this is bad because.......

The mere fact that Mr. Praeger and the rest of the radical right has a social or religious objection to this lifestyle is not justification for any kind of different treatment under the law. Once again, this is not the court trying to enforce a moral standard, quite the opposite. If anyone is guilty of presumptiously claiming the moral high ground on this issue, it is the right.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

W....T....F!?

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

Really? And all this time I thought all those "activist" wanted was equal treatment under the law. Silly me.

Anticipating reactions to this column -- as to all defenses of man-woman marriage -- that it or its author are "homophobic," i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person -- and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.

That's comforting. You're not a homophobe, you just play one in the newspaper. But, what praytell, is the goal of the justice system if not to obtain, you know, justice? The rule of law exists to preserve order and justice, not piety. It is not a tool to protect morality, nor should it be.

That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.

Ya, because amending the Constitution to define what the citizens can't do worked SO well the last time.

Obstructionist Todd Tiahrt

A hilarious story came out in the Washington Post the other day highlightin Todd Tiahrt's leadership in the obstruction of important legislation to help Americans (including 23,000 Kansans) in danger of losing their homes.

The Republicans decided to rush a resolution honoring America's mothers. Obviously, this resolution passed unanimously. Who votes against mothers? The problem was, it didn't waste enough time, which was the point to begin with. Enter Obstructionist Todd.



After Tiahrt's temper tantrum, an open vote was cast (lasting 28 more precious minutes) and 178 Republicans (0 Democrats) voted no. Were they voting against mothers? Probably not, as Tiahrt's staff explained afterwards. It was a vote on whether to table the resolution.

Now, we don't hear such a motion in the above video, but we also don't care. Obviously, no one thinks Todd Tiahrt or any other member of Congress is anti-mother. The problem is the games they're playing.

Instead of getting meaningful work done, Todd Tiahrt and his pals are more concerned petty maneuvers to block Democratic bills out of spite rather than a legitimate policy dispute.

Todd sure was a bulldog in his fight to get that open vote. Too bad he couldn't have fought that hard to keep the tanker contract in the US. Guess you have to have priorities.

Email Congressman Tiahrt and ask him why he fought harder to obstruct debate on the housing crisis than he did for Kansas jobs. When you're done, donate to Sen. Donald Betts so we don't have to deal with Obstructionist Todd any longer.

The NRC is runnin' scared!

Whoa Nellie! The RNC is running around like headless chickens, trying to keep John McCain from looking like John McCain on national TV!!!

The RNC is threatening to sue any network television station who doesn't yank the DNC's new McCain ad, "100," from the air. They're running into just one small problem - both of their charges against the ad are completely untrue.

The truth is, the RNC realizes John W. McCain has made a huge blunder by admitting his indifference toward keeping us in Iraq for another 100 years. In fact, the DNC's ad does nothing more than play the video featuring only McCain and his own words.

Here's the ad:



You can help keep the ad on the air by going here. And, don't worry...

As for the RNC's threats to sue, Dean said, "Let them do it. I understand the RNC thinks it's illegal to criticize John McCain."

DNC General Counsel Joe Sandler said the spot was offered to FNC, too, and that he's gotten "no indication at all from the networks that they have any intention at all of pulling down this ad."

Note to the RNC: Try not to look so desperate. It's tacky...

Rep. Bill Otto is CRAAAAAAZY

This guy is CRAZY. And to think he actually holds a public office.