Entire audio recording of today's Supreme Court hearing on prop 8

French Anti-Gay Violent Bigots VS Peacful NYC Gay Marriage Vigil

Yesterday we had two events concerning gay marriage. Lets compare. Shall we?

First, the NYC Times Square silent candlelight vigil held by David Mixner in support of gay marriage:







No fuss. Just peaceful gay people and our allies hoping for the best.

Compare that to the hateful, violent protest in the streets of Paris by those who oppose gay marriage:

Bigots telling rioters to use children as human shields.

J-Lo Sings at The Boy Scouts Fruity Event After Burrito Giant Pulls Sponsorship

It appears that after Chipotle decided not to give the Boy Scouts free burritos for their anti-gay reactionary rhetoric, and after Carly Rae Jepsen also dumped them for the same reasons, they were left with no choice but to get the best of both worlds, and so they invited Jennifer Lopez to sing at their fruity event. Here is a clip from the concert:

PIC: Republican Rock Lands on Gay Somali Teen

This is what's going to happen if we don't stop the reactionary teabaggers. Nutty conservative "Christians" have plenty of stones to throw at us. This is not just going to happen in Somalia but in a conservative "Christian" reactionary country if the repukes have their way.

Already they are claiming that their followers will react "explosively" if the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage.

Racism Alive and Well at CPAC

It in an ironic twist, the attendees at a CPAC meeting and how to make racists more likeable to us normal people when one of the racists in attendance was telling a black guy that slaves had food and shelter and so they shouldn't be complaining about it.

This is what the Repukes and racist reactionaries want to "rebrand."

And FYI, there was also white slavery, but yet reactionary racists are more about enslaving blacks.

Clown Russell Simmons Defends Homophobic Hip-Hop because it 'Tells The Truth'

In the midst of GLAAD banning the New York Post for shotty reporting regarding transgender people, they have continued honoring the inventor and godfather of the the most homophobic culture in America: hip-hop.

This is one of the most hypocritical shenanigans going on at GLAAD, and to be very honest the only reason Simmons and his hip-hop homophobic buddies are getting a pass is because they are mainly African Americans. GLAAD, much like others in the extreme left, are forcing multiculturalism on the gay community. In England and Europe, multiculturalism has lead to an increase in homophobic incidents.

The New York Post is mainly a NY rag with dumb white writers, had the rag been some Hip-Hop paper with a multicultural zing GLAAD would not only give them press passes but also GLAAD awards to people like Simmons. It would be so looney to think that a scientist who invented the nuclear bomb could ever receive the Nobel Peace Prize (but now it seems homophobes can receive such awards). But yet the multiculturalist gays at GLAAD have no problem with holding double standards.

So Simmons was at the GLAAD awards to give an award to Hollywood producer Brett Ratner. In the interview below Simmons defends hip-hop's homophobia as just being 'truthful' and goes to the most obscene and absurd claim that society is "more homophobic" than hip-hop.

The lunatic Simmons actually believes (or more like spins reality to get his dick sucked by GLAAD and other dumb multicultrualist gays) that hip-hop represents society, and society is more homophobic and anti-gay, hence hip-hop gets a pass because homophobia can be venerated and praised in music by mainly black musicians. This illogical drivel goes nowhere since, according to Simmons, society is "more homophobic than Hip-Hop" but yet it is "telling the truth." How can you be "telling the truth" if you are only "less than" the "truth" of society? This makes no sense. It is complete bunkers and bullshit.

Simmons' fragile attempt to excuse the homophobia he helped create and receive GLAAD awards at the same time, must be rejected. Yes, our society has homophobia, it also has rape, murder, and racism. Music is not supposed to be "telling us the truth" about our society. We have documentaries  that do that. Music is supposed to help us escape while reflecting the troubles of one's self. Because genuine music is about the artist's feelings, not his/her interpretation of society. I reject Simmons' fraudulent excuse "of being real" because almost all music is an "interpretation" of how certain artists view things.

I challenge the airhead Simmons: if it is true that Hip-Hop reflects society and "tells the truth," I challenge anyone in the Hip Hop music industry to do a music video about gay sexuality, full frontal, since homosexuality exists in our society. But the homophobic hip-hopers will reject this "truth" about society and will demand that such material never be produced.

Hip-hop is not a reflection of our society, it is a mimicker of an illnesses that we need to stomp out. It is a cancer that society must reject and cured of. Hip-hop has its own culture that includes language, dress, feelings, and lifestyle that is totally different from general society and therefore cannot reflect anything but itself.

Here is the video interview of Simmons' justification of homophobia in the homophobic hip-hop community he helped build and make money out of:

Highlights of Palin's Stupidity at CPAC

And this woman was one stroke or heart attack away from having the finger on the nuke launch button.

Gay Patriot's Funny Man Attended Anti-Gay Values Voters Summit

Wanna-be comedian (and amateur boxer who likes to fight union workers) Steven Crowder is much venerated by the gay right winger stooges at Gay Patriot.

I must repeat that I do not have anything against gays being conservatives by itself per se, but I do despise certain people when they try to defraud others and lie and pretend to be something they are not. Gay Patriot has been giving us the impression that Steven Crowder is one of those conservatives who is not anti-gay. In fact, he did tell C-PAC last year that they should not have banned GOProud, but he didn't do anything about it and just laughed it off at the end of his speech.

But then Steven attended last year's Values Voters summit to praise the foaming at the mouth anti-gay reactionaries at the Family Research Council. The same FRC who wants gays in jail, wants to export gays to other countries, and calls gays pedophiles.

If Steven was so concerned about conservatives being perceived as anti-gay at C-PAC and calling for GOProud to be rightly included (even though the conservatives were pretty much okay with banning GOProud in the end anyway) then why didn't he lecture the anti-gays at the Values Voters summit? The same summit hosted by the bigots who ousted GOProud in the first place?

Instead he sides with them and protect their vile reactionary anti-gay rhetoric by padding them with pseudo-intellectual "you're not homophobes because homophobia doesn't exist" bit. Fine, if you want to get technical, lets agree it is not "homophobia." Though now ironically he's trying on his own version of conservative political correctness.

According to Steven, the lovely folks at the Values Voters summit are just dandy. Believing in that homosexuals will burn in hell, should be denied economic rights of marriage, be fired from work for being gay, and be denied public accommodations is not really anti-gay or "homophobic" but rather a different "opinion."

Its been a while that Gay Patriot praises this hideous not-so funny "comedian." I checked their archives on their blog and not a word about his attendance at the anti-gay con-fab. They have turned a blind eye. Oh, but if another mediocre comedian wanna-be like Micheal Moore attends an event hosted by anti-gay Louis Farrakhan, you bet the Gay Patriots will be having a fit over that hypocrisy.

Eh, but its a loser comedian who no one finds that funny, so it doesn't really ring any alarms.

Though I have to defend gay conservatives' right to be reactionary and support neo-liberal Koch brothers austerity ghoul economics, I will not defend their right to be fake and pretend that no one is watching them. Because I am.

Here's Steven's horrible performance and so-called "stand up" at the religious right conference.

NO, Jesus is NOT The Son of God... Can't Happen

I really don't care for debating the nuances of certain Christian beliefs. I find that certain Christian teachings are helpful rather than pouncing on anybody that disagrees on the resurrection of Jesus.

Tonight a Jehovah's Witness knocked on my door. He was very cute, maybe too young for me (he was probably 18-19 years old). I know this bit. I used to be a JW myself. So I know the script. But it is very odd to find a Witness knocking on my door this evening on a weekday.

The handsome boy was a bit nervous as he tried to explained to me all about Jesus' resurrection and the meaning of Easter. Now, it appears, they are dragging people to what is called the 'Memorial' where they get to pass out wine and bread and somehow celebrate Christ's last supper this way. I was thinking of going only maybe to hang out with this cute dude, though in Jehovah's cult as I call them, homosexuality is not permitted. Which makes the whole thought even more raunchy and nasty.

But one thing did made cutie boy react and found a sort of interest in my intellectual nudity. You see he was bragging about how Jesus was the son of God. Then it popped into my head: God is a man. A man cannot have a son. That is not right. And in fact, it is kind of, well... gay.

So I told him just that. He was bit awe struck. He looked like a deer caught in headlights. Maybe he's gay too? In Jehovah's cult a lot of guys are gay or at least like to do the nasty with other guys. I know because I been there.

He just didn't know how to respond. Although he left me his number right before his pompous dad showed up to check on him. He said that I had a 'very interesting' question. Interesting? How about relevant? How CAN a man like GOD actually have a child without a woman? Because we're told that god made man in his image and after his likeness, and since Jesus fans all around the world worship heterosexual fertility, one must assume that god is a heterosexual man. And when was the last time we ever saw a heterosexual man deliver a child? (No counting Arnold Schwarzenegger of course).

No, that simply cannot happen unless god happens to be a female to male pre-op transgender. Then, yeah, maybe.

Oh. And I'm not sure if I want to call this dude. Usually they are not supposed to give numbers out like that, but maybe, who knows. Maybe he wants to see if men are in fact incapable of getting pregnant. And of course there is only one way to find out. He he he.

Such Arrogant Bigotry From The Turds at NOM

If you are in court fighting a ticket or fighting to keep gays out of the altar, it is best to make sure you don't piss of the judge, especially the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Well the Chairman of the anti-gay organization NOM basically fucked up his case, big time. NOM's inherit bigotry on child rearing shows its true ugly face. NOM touts itself as just trying to keep marriage to heterosexual couples only. Okay, fine, whatever. But to personally attack someone's kids, now you are just a fucking despicable degenerate.

My parents raised me well. Despite what anti-gay bigots want to think or say to the contrary, my parents gave me the skills in order to operate peacefully and cordially with other humans (unless you are pricks like NOM is showing itself to be). One of their teachings was to never, EVER, get your enemy's kids involved. Leave the kids alone.

But NOM has no respect for the children, even though they so foolishly claim so in some of their retarded SNL ready commercials. They basically hate children and are only obsessed with procreation. And that's what it is.

Gays or straights who adopt children are not the problem, nor are kids the pool of which we dip our frustrations in. The problem is that many adults have failed our children, big time. We abuse them, lose them, and neglect them, which is why these kids end up in adoption agencies.

And today the human race has sunk into a new level - not only do adults abuse and neglect our most vulnerable members of society but now they are attacking them for simply being taken care off by loving responsible adults like gays and Chief Justice Roberts.

Let me just say, any parent whose kids are called "second best" will be rightly fumed with anger. And I wouldn't mind holding Brian Brown down, or his selfish coward of a Chairman, while Chief Justice Roberts rip their asses apart and takes their eyes out of their sockets. Or at least, Roberts will most likely have the clowns of NOM in his mind while voting on the gay marriage cases in the Justices' conference room.

John Roberts, you have my permission to throw the book at these knuckleheads, both figuratively and well, kick ass mode speaking.

You just don't mess with the kids. Leave the kids alone. They've already been through enough.

Oh Marco Rubio, Cry me a River

Funny how conservatives always try to lecture gays to be "thick skinned" when it comes to being name-called, and to quit whining about it. Supposedly conservatives are supposed to be against "self victimization" and hate those who vest themselves with that label. And let us not forget that these are the same conservatives who say that people have a right to bark whatever they want without any exterior consequences.

Yet GOP and teabagger darling Marco Rubio is forgoing all of that and instead now insists that he's the victim in the gay marriage debate, not gays who are having their economic rights and legal protections denied to them. Only in America can a privileged, successful, republican senator with potential to run for the White House can feel as the "real victim."

The new zinger for the teabaggers is that they hate being called "bigots" for having bigoted views. And Rubio is joining that bandwagon, and at C-PAC he whined and moaned about being called a bigot for trying to deny equal protection and economic rights for gay couples.

I don't believe he's genuinely concerned about being called a bigot. Like other teabaggers, Rubio wants to be called a bigot in order to shift the debate over towards the proper use of the word. Clearly this tactic is to make gay people look like Nazis preying on meek, humble Christians (even though Jesus had negative views on politicians in general).

This is why his pathetic plea not to be called a bigot is pure bullshit. The word itself is not a slur. It is a neutral term to describe a person's state of mind regarding a particular subject matter.

Yes Marco, you are a BIGOT on gay marriage. Why? Its not because I hate you or anything like that, it is because your stale arguments against gay marriage are not based on anything but your narrow worldview and your inability to understand what being gay is all about. That's the only reason why you are a bigot on this issue (and on many other ones too). You have given us reasons why you oppose gay marriage, I've analyzed those reasons and basically they are not backed by hard facts, science or psychology.

Don't worry Marco, you're not the only one. The difference between me and other gays is that I at least recognize my bigotry. There are certain things I do not know about. I do not know what exactly is going on with my ex's life right now. We don't talk anymore. That makes me BIGOTED on his life because I have certain narrow perceptions on what he's doing versus actually trying to find out for sure.

So Marco, quit your whining. It's not working. 

Jose Soto Show to come back March 25

Hey peeps,

I want to thank you all for the feedback concerning the show, it is appreciated (if you're not an ass of course).

I will be taking some time off for spring break. Also I will be doing some "fine tuning" to the blog, and the Jose Soto Show channel, as well as the show itself. No big things, just going to fix some minor bugs here and there and tweak things a little. And yes, I will have your feedback in mind while I am doing this process.

The show will be returning on Monday March 25 with a new array of clips from the broadcast posted to the channel. From then on we will post new clips every weeknight Monday-Friday. Any changes to this schedule or cancellations you'll all be notified here.

If you have any questions, suggestions, or a topic you want me to cover email me or contact me on Twitter.

Your anus was not meant to have a penis in it

This is what some idiot told me regarding my attack on the supposed "natural law" argument against gay marriage. But the stated ignorant and juvenile statement is more of a target against homosexuality itself than marriage. This is why I'm very reluctant to believe that the majority of gay marriage opponents are "only" concerned over the "definition of marriage."

As always, why would my smart-enough audience even take this dumb argument seriously any how? The purpose of my attack on "natural law" is to simply expose it as a mere human construct (and there is nothing wrong with human constructs per se), and a fragile attempt to understand the world around us. Thinking it through, you can say that reasoned intelligence is in fact against natural law being that it doesn't exist anywhere else in our natural world but in humans. The logic behind these dupes of the new religion of mother nature worship is simply flawed, contradictory and, plainly, dead on arrival.

Simply saying that anal sex is contrary to "natural law" because it defies its "natural purpose" does not make it a "law" because you say so, but rather a mere opinion. Nature doesn't need laws. Anti-gays have a really misguided view on nature. Nature is pretty neutral on what it does and doesn't do. Nature does many things because it can. It doesn't do things, like hurricanes and diseases, because it finds them "moral" (and if one were to take the argument that everything in nature is "moral" and should be venerated, then I guess people dying in earthquakes should be considered "nature's will" and therefore holy and good). Things like earthquakes and hurricanes exist in nature because nature allows them to exist.

And just because something is "allowed" in nature doesn't necessarily mean they are "moral" or "just." Heterosexual sex is no more or less natural than homosexual sex simply because nature has indeed "allowed" them to exist, but humans can and do from time to time exhibit certain moral judgements of these sexual acts and behaviors. If you want to oppose gay marriage or homosexuality, fine go for it and knock your socks off. But don't act like you know god and have a full understanding of nature.

If you are offended that I just burst your "natural law" bubble, well, sorry. I cannot accept some theory like this that is totally and absolutely made up and contradictory because this theory exists nowhere in any other animal but humans' minds and imagination. To actually apply natural law theory on every aspect of our lives would be a world of stupidity, and ironically, will make us all naked hippies smoking pot and living in the forest. You cannot with a straight face tell me that putting a penis inside my anus is not natural because the anus was not meant for that while reciting scripture from a book called a bible that was printed on paper which in turn was made by trees, and trees... well, think about it: Were trees actually "meant" to be manufactured into printing paper for bibles across America? Doesn't this defy the "natural purpose" of the tree?

And besides, the asshole (no pun intended) who proposed the phrase and title of this post was over 50 years old. Clearly, according to doctors, by that age you need to have a colonoscopy done. And since this dufus believes that your anus is an "exit only" muscle designed only for shit to pass through and nothing else, he may have to forgo this important life saving procedure, unless he recants and says that the anus is a hole that can have things go through in either direction, including medical equipment to check for cancer and penises to show your love for your partner. Being cancer free and making love are very important things to many people and not to "nature."

In the end this quack theory does one thing I highly despise: it dehumanizes all of us to the basic rules of the jungle, animalistic common denominator. I am not an animal, though we might have physical similarities to animals, we are something special and, quite frankly, supernatural. You don't see animals flying planes, building highways and trains, and going to the moon. We've beaten the limitations of the fictitious theory of "Natural Law." I find reason, logic, science, philosophy, to be much more human than just eating, breathing, drinking, fucking, and shitting.

Next theory please...

Immigrants and Gays Tie the Knot

Here is an interesting article on how the immigrant movement is now, more or less, joining forces with the pink grass roots.

Though at first I was a bit skeptical of this holy union, being that immigrants (mainly Mexicans) would be a bit reluctant to support gay marriage at all. But since many of these Mexican immigrants are now doubting Catholic Church moral authority on social issues this new breed of an alliance is something that can and should work.

It is a fact that coalitions tend to work best when groups help each other out to achieve their each individual goal. And here we have, what I think, to be modest and politically and economically feasible objectives: amnesty and gay marriage.

I must stress that the two are not the same thing as gay marriage is based, at least in my opinion, on constitutional proscriptions whereas amnesty for immigrants is wholly based on political will.

But still, gay marriage can indeed benefit from support not only from prospective new voters but also their allies, family, friends who are now evidently becoming more active and are voting in droves.

We need these votes, especially in key states, to ensure gay marriage is secured and protected not just by the courts but they population at large. In turn, the gay community has embraced the immigrant cause and with this comes, as I've noticed, great rewards. Latino communities are now becoming more aware about gay rights, denouncing homophobia, and are becoming more tolerant of homosexuality than decades before. And with Latinos becoming the fastest growing population in America this alternating piggyback relationship can no longer be overlooked.

Yes The Boy Scouts is a Fruity Club, and Gay People Are Better Than to Join it

I get criticized for calling the boy scouts a fruity club. I don't consider "fruity" to be a slur, though some might disagree, fine, whatever.

Fruity simply means "queer" or "weird" or "out of the ordinary" or "strange" and to be honest I find the idea of grown men camping out with underage boys wearing funny uniforms and park ranger hats to be quite "fruity." This would be the same opinion even if the boy scouts did let gays in. In fact boys at my elementary school bullied and picked on these strange looking nerds.

The girl scouts are different though because they don't place much emphasis on their gender identity, are more career minded (selling cookies) and I personally find scouting to be more suitable for girls than boys. They look better in uniforms, they are not (maybe its a woman's thing) pretending to know more, they identify more with civics, and have a more civil sisterly bond which I find more healthier than pompous men in short shorts whose masculinity depends on leading boys, starting fires, how to open canned foods, sewing on badges, building tents, and playing bugles. I don't find these things by themselves absurd, just that the fact that you need to wear awful uniforms, make strange oaths, act like soldiers even though they are way off with the actual realities of the military environment and war, where your actual masculinity will be tested, seems really silly to the objective eye. Why? Because the objective demands, well... an objective perhaps? And a clear objective for the boy scouts is truly not fully understood, as in the military the object is to defend the country, whereas the boy scouts is to be 'morally straight' whatever that actually means its anybody's wild guess (although legally speaking "morally" straight means being sexually straight at all times).

But don't just take my word for it. Over at Nat Geo's blog people came out in droves to support the "morally-sexually straight" clause of the Boy Scouts in the comments section of a blog post by a "gay scout." Get a load at this comment as this proves to me that the obsession with this silly private club's holly and exemplary discrimination makes the BSA very fruity in my book:

That last bit about "any sexually active young man..." is truly revealing about the inner thoughts and workings inside the BSA. These people are so sexually oppressed and homophobic that it is hard to imagine that they even had procreated their own boys to actually join the damn fruity club.

Deflating 'Biblical Marriage' Argument

While you and I might try to convince people on gay marriage and how gay people are indeed people who are entitled to the promises of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection under the law, there are many others whose counter arguments that we face must, by in large, be deemed laughable and sometimes totally unusable irregardless of the means by which they are communicated, even by so-called rap:


Though our arguments can be more or less centered around legal arguments and in some cases political discourse in legislative or initiative vehicles, and as the 'pro-marriage' legal defender wizard Paul Clement says: gays must use the political processes, not the courts. But this new approach by the whack religious right is beyond farcical. As I stated earlier we cannot read this claim to be at all genuine or believable. If you actually sit down with these muppets you will find something in common in their stance on gay marriage: marriage is defined by GOD. Yes the almighty, and NOT the so-called "political process" nonsense.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a higher power that may have created this universe upon which we exist. But claiming that such supernatural force has communicated to us humans through a book is a very wild and delusional claim. The creator of the universe cannot at will write a book, it doesn't happen today nor did it happen in the past. People wrote the bible, plain and simple.

I'm not discounting the Bible as a good source for philosophical pondering or to use it as a guide to form your own chosen lifestyle much like how Star Wars fans use a movie to form their own world view, philosophy, and even lifestyle. But it would be totally strange if any of these fans started declaring that George Lucas is God. Such people would, rightfully, be laughed off the stage.

Similarly we must view the claim that the people who wrote the Bible are in fact "god" themselves with the same skepticism, because the claim by the anti-gays that "god" wrote the manuscript and in such manuscript the author reveals himself to be "god" and his word in said writing to be his authority is also an outlandish claim. And with that people have deemed themselves fully capable of handling a much complicated issue as homosexual psychology simply by quoting (or misquoting to be exact) passages from the Bible because it was written by "god." Therefore "god" is against homosexuality and gay marriage and so is the gullible dupe who still has to prove that just because this self appointed "god" figure "claims" he is opposed to "sodomy-based marriage" that it automatically means the reader of the Bible, and all of us well, must be opposed as well.

I simply cannot take this stupid illogical argument seriously. It simply must be rejected because, quite simply, it is not based on reality, science, or logic.

If the Bible is in fact the word of god its got to be his most laziest, futile attempt to impress his human creation. First off, we are talking about "god," the creator and all knowing of the entire universe even that of which is not part of the universe (our universe must have come from somewhere.) If the Bible was truly written by this all knowing creator of everything and nothingness why doesn't the Bible reveal the secrets of the atom, quantum theory, the exact number of elements he created, the nature of spirit, multilevel dimensions, DNA structure and sequence space time and time travel, black holes, the secrets of the pyramids, free sustainable energy, human brain structure, human cell creation, psychological theories, advanced geometry and math; and why doesn't it also answer the big questions: are there any more planets in the solar system, are there other civilizations like ours in other solar systems and galaxies, how many galaxies exist, why create the universe at all, why create humans, how long would the sun last, the universe as well; and why not reveal at that time it was written the actual number of planets, how to build machines we use today, cure illnesses and understanding viruses etc; in fact, why didn't the Bible also predict the coming of the United States and Barack Obama, 9/11, the internet, the landing on the moon, the creation of the Catholic Church and pedophilia; and lastly, why not write the Bible in English, French, and Spanish so that every single human being can clearly understand what the rules are and not left with vague analogies and trying to second guess what certain Bible verses are trying to say. But as we've seen the important task of actually translating the Bible to other world languages (other than the not-so-much used languages of Hebrew and Greek) was hastily done with the now detectable consequences, it seems like "god" was not that eager to share with all humans his so-called "word."

Instead of revealing the secrets of the universe, the Bible focuses on slavery, polygamy, war, subservience, treachery, violence, famine, human sacrifice, rape, destruction, satanism, demons, apple trees, burning bushes, walking dead, mysterious arks and boxes, jealous fathers, disobedient sons, walls crumbling, desert wondering, diseases, murder, rape, loot and plunder, egotistical kings, tribal wars, nudity, mysterious births, earthquakes, executions, treason, cheating spouses, familial feuds, feet washing, wine drinking, prostitution, powerful clergy, fortune tellers, dream readers, mysterious graffiti, ufos, pesky housewives, nosy servants, cooking edicts, foreskins, wasting semen, masturbating in front of idols, incest, rich people going broke, gambling and making bets, priests getting whipped, seduction, child stoning, whales swallowing humans, talking serpents, floating zoos, gay sex, straight sex, adultery, stone tablets being broken, war mongering... and many other titillating things that properly belong in a novel, not the supposed book that was written by the all knowing creator of the universe. We can go even further: if this is such an important book why did "god," or his imperfect human assistants, waste their time writing this important information on parchment paper that can be easily destroyed through time. If this was truly the hand of "god" at work, he would have been smart enough to leave such important information on CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a DVD, or some other more sophisticated device or vehicle that would be easy to access and be protected almost forever so that future generations of humans can really understand what this supposed "god" is all about and what we need to know and learn (i.e no homo sex, marriage, etc). Such oversight should leave any rational person wondering: is the Bible really the word of "god" and if not who wrote it? Well we know who the real authors are because if you look at the original manuscripts you will see the evidence of a "person" writing this book with his hand. Therefore it cannot be the word of "god" because in of itself its a pretty revealing and honest book about the views and attitudes of the early centuries of this common era.

Biblical marriage is based on views of radical authors of around 300 - 500 AD, and hadn't this book been officiated as "the Bible" and were just to magically show up today, the objective reader would have thought that he/she is actually reading a screenplay for a creepy horror, science fiction, martian snuff film written by Quentin Tarantino.

Obama Presides Over First Cabinet Meeting And Tells Everybody to Get Ready For His Satan Sandwich

Obama had his first meeting of his second term with his cabinet by reminding everybody of the pending doom of his satan sandwich compromise he made with the fascist teabaggers in the form of a sequester.

During a depression the government cannot, or should not, cut spending and shrink productivity. Such sequestration is detrimental to any recovery and could push us into another recession during this current depression. These massive cuts will in the end increase the deficit and the debt-ratio on our GDP. Obama should know this, but because he's too weak and he's in the pockets of big business and wall street and the federal reserve he had to capitulate to the fascist teabagger maniacs of the house republicans.

The Obama deception is pretty clear: provide left cover so he can impose European style austerity on the country. We need to invest in the economy and move from a petty cheap economy to a technological one that can increase productivity, wages, tax revenues which will shrink the deficit and debt.

Religious Reactionary Bursts CIA Op Tony Perkins' Bubble With Reality

During the CIA op and terrorism professional extraordinaire Tony Perkins' no ratings radio show his audience of two people had their bubbles burst when the CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters (bible salesmen union) most likely unwittingly admitted that DOMA is doomed in court:


But I'm guessing Tony already knows this, but still he's probably pissed that this little bible selling minion admitted to the truth on his show since Tony's big paycheck is financed by gullible people who donate money to his altar boy hate club and are feared into believing that Jesus is coming to destroy Chick-Fil-A if they don't pucker up and help fight the homo agenda and defend DOMA by shelling out some green.

Tony's supporters should then ask themselves, if they are actually any smarter than what they are right now (which I doubt), where is all the money they are giving to these circus clowns going towards if they know that DOMA is going to be struck down? You do know that Tony drives around in a $80K car? Oh, but don't worry you silly Huckabee worshiper, he got a 20% discount on that car by showing his CIA ID card at the dealership (CIA ops do get discounts for their personal vehicles). So you dumb hicks didn't have to pay that much.

Teabaggers in The House Want to Protect Religious Freedom by Banning Religious Freedom

Get it? I don't.

But yet, here we go again. Last week proto-fascist teabaggers introduce in the house once more a bill that would ban military chaplains from officiating at gay weddings (not marriages because DOMA already does that) on military installations. Reason? Religious freedom of course!

This twisting of reality to try and weasel in an anti-gay bill by ironically trying to defend the "religious freedom" of military personnel gave me a chuckle.

By the way, where the hell did they get this idea of "religious freedom?"

Teabagger answer: "Fram dem constushion man!"

But yet let us recall that in the past these same Orwellian teabgger lunatics were defending the ouster of loyal gay service members under the guise that soldiers "did not have a constitutional right to free speech," and that they were supposed to "focus on the job and not on sexuality." Well, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell went without a hitch and now nobody has to worry about their sexuality, basically declaring it a non-issue.

But these perverted teabaggers are obsessed with gay sex and homosexuality, ironically. Now they are the ones "sexuallizing the military" by bringing this issue up again front and center (and shoving it down my throat if I may add). The first sentence of the bill that these fucknuts are proposing makes reference to gay butt sex. Doth protest too much?

These gay sex obsessed toe-tapping pervs need to answer this question for me: Yes or No, do soldiers have constitutional rights (like the first amendment that you so loudly defend in your pathetic bill), or are sodomites the only ones that are excluded from such rights and therefore we must ban them from exercising their freedom of speech by acting out a holy wedding and exchanging their vows on base?

You can't have it both ways. Unless you are a fascist teabagger in Congress of course.

Hypocritical Religious Right Wingers Are All About Breaking the Law

A zealot fascistic Mennonite pastor who is facing a jail sentence for being involved in the kidnapping of a lesbian's daughter is now saying that he was following "God's Law." Basically these fanatics are saying, as they always do: "we can break the law as long as I invoke my god."

These so-called Christian Crusaders are so wrong about law and order that any sane person would reject their theocracy as evil. Demonic dictators in the past have said that "God" was on their side when they were committing the most heinous crimes against humanity.

But this perverted defiance is also very much hypocritical. These people yell and scream when a lesbian couple rightly tries to engage in public commerce by daring to buy a wedding cake and thus the fanatic Christian baker broke the law by engaging in discrimination that is very much prohibited. The prop 8 proponents have broken the law many times in the State of California for failing to adequately report their donations, their defense is that they "simply forgot" because their work is sanctioned by the all mighty.

Yet these very same people were having a fit when then Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom was illegally issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The Mayor broke the law and he was ordered to stop (which he did) and the licenses were rightfully (I mean a legal sense) revoked. We obey the laws. We adhere to rules, regulations and court rulings. They don't. Since Gavin's stunt nobody else, not even gay people in power to do so, has violated the law by illegally issuing marriage licenses to gay people even though said denial "goes against their beliefs."

I call bullshit on this delusional and child kidnapping idiot pastor.

Minnesota Anti-Gays Wasting Their Not So Precious Time in Protesting

Seriously? These people are beyond delusional. In this pathetic article at Christian Post we learn that anti-gays are going to protest against Minnesota lawmakers' plans to legalize gay marriage even though there no guarantees of immediate passage.

Somebody really needs to look into picking up a different hobby besides meaningless gay bashing. Sure you have the right to protest. Much more like the right to be stupid. And that is the point I am trying to make here.

In the article, the editors posted a pic of a NYC protest against gay marriage demanding to "let the people vote" nonsense. Is it to further the cause of these muppets? They think that is what they are doing but in reality that are just looking like a bunch of do-nothings who want to beat an already buried dead horse to death some more.

Didn't Minnesota already vote on this issue? The voters in a clear victory said NO to gay marriage ban. The question was about banning gay marriage, if the voters did not want gay marriage legalized they would have approved the constitutional amendment. Anybody thinking otherwise is feasting on delusion.

Hey guys, we've already "let the people vote." And we won, you lost. Get over it.

Nat Geo Channel Should DUMP The Scouts' Fruity Show

Today GLAAD and an Eagle Scout delivered a petition with 120,000 signatures to the National Geographic Network headquarters demanding that a disclaimer be aired at the beginning of each episode of 'Are You Tougher Than a Boy Scout' stating that Nat Geo does not endorse anti-gay discrimination.

First off, the whole premise of the reality show is pretty lame and sounds uninteresting and kinda fruity. Although I would rather like to see something like 'Are Gays Tougher Than a Boy Scout?' That would be more interesting and would in fact garnered more ratings because, well, straight male audiences don't want to see themselves as much on TV. They like to watch funny and witty gays, sexy and hot chicks, explosions, car crashes, homeless men fighting over an expired can of olives, and Peter Griffin farting on Meg's face on their TV screens. Sorry if that sounds juvenile but that is what the most important targeted TV audience wants to see and it is something a TV network should know about. But just to have have some heterosexual dupes trying to compete with fruity teenagers in camp uniforms is really stupid, and a bad show idea. Whoever pitched this ludicrous idea to Nat Geo should be taken out into the street and shot in front of their families.

The above reason alone should be enough for the proper nixing of this dumb show and throwing all video copies of it into a black hole where they will be "spaghettified." But if you really want to get at these ignorant and out of touch Network execs on the whole gay-scout-ban thing then of course we could make the case that anti-gay discrimination is really wrong, stupid, weird and yes... fruity.

But the misguided Network is defending its grotesque decision to their "the show must go on" position saying that the Network itself does not support discrimination of gays. Scalia Mussolini comes to mind: "DON'T BELIEVE IT"...

They are indeed supporting and endorsing anti-gay discrimination by giving this fruity club of men and boys with funny uniforms who shit in holes in the ground in the forest a platform. Forget that they say that the anti-gay issue is not part of the show because IT IS.

Point in fact: the Scouts went to the Supreme Court and said that excluding gays was and is what makes them 'The Boy Scouts.' In other words, anti-gay discrimination is the central thesis to their organization. This is further emphasized by those who support the ban saying that anti-gay discrimination is "central" to scouting because it reinforces the Scout oath (this is really fruity now) that boys must be "morally straight." So yes, the Boy Scouts are an anti-gay organization because they have admitted to that fact in front of everybody in Court.

Next the History Channel will explore ancient aliens and the KKK, because you know, History Channel "doesn't" support racial discrimination.

Cato's Prop 8 SCOTUS Brief Matters More Than Obama's

Gay Inc. is going gaga after Obama (well actually a lawyer at the Justice Department, but nonetheless O was in control of the situation) filed a brief against proposition 8 at the Supreme Court of these United States.

Great.

Some deluded people think that this warped and really foul brief, which is presenting a new stupid legal theory,  is somehow going to carry tremendous weight and will impact the outcome of the case. Tremendous weight for certain, but as far as actually affecting the outcome of the case I hardly think it would. Obama is basically preaching to the choir with his brief and is helping out his old chum Roberts with a potential lifesaver just in case he needs to bail out of the sinking ship of a divisive court. I would hope that such alien law theory would be rejected and be tossed into Ginsberg's fireplace to give it a nice post winter glow.

Since Obama's brief is mainly geared towards a possible emergency exit for Roberts we have to conclude that such mockery of so-called brief has no more baring on the outcome of this case than any other brief filed with the court.

But one brief actually stands out for me. Surprisingly, it was the brief from the austerity ghouls of the Austrian school of Anti-American economics think tank, the despicable libertarian Cato Institute, that should be praised because of its likely potential to have a real impact on the case. This brief was intended for none other than Kennedy, the swing vote on the court. We've already nailed positive results from the liberal fab four. We are one vote short from victory, and that vote must come from either Kennedy or Roberts. If we get both then we could rub the outcome on Brian Brown's and his molester Cardinal Tim Dolan's faces. A 6-3 victory will be a joyous occasion for the 14th amendment of the constitution.

Simply put, Kennedy listens to Cato a lot. About 95% a lot. I'm not sure how many times he's taken Obama's side, but I am guessing is not as a good relationship compared to Cato's. Kennedy is a fellow of Cato and has very close ties since Kennedy's austerity fetish has been engrained by this think tank. Meaning: he listens to them all the time. And in this case, Cato's brief is actually something to take very seriously even though their aruguments are generic, their weight with the must have swing vote is very unique and very special. Kennedy, most likely of cases, read this brief first before the others on the pile. Yup, they are that close.

And now we are that close in winning this.

Anti-Gay Bigot Lech Walesa's Rhetoric is What Many Catholic Fasicists Agree With

So we learn that this so-called Nobel Peace Prize winner for advocating democracy, and former president of Poland, Lech Walesa has said that gays are not entitled to the political process and should remain "behind a wall."

Poland is the center of Catholic universe. If you want to know how a real reactionary Catholic Papist country would look like then look no further than this former communist country. Italy is more or less "metro" when it comes to dogmatic fanaticism. Spain, Portugal, Mexico and other Latin Pan-American countries who identify with the Roman Church are doing so out of tradition and culture, not dogma. I call these countries the "virgin countries" because they have more devotion of faith to the Virgin Mary than to a troll like Ratzinger. I more or less identify myself as a "Cultural Catholic" and have no allegiance to the hermits of the Vatican who are in so far way detached from reality and their warped minds are trapped in a bubble. I don't believe that a man named Jesus came back from the dead after three days. I do, however, believe in the story of Jesus which consists of standing up to fascistic authoritarianism, corrupt clergy, exposing hypocrisy, love human beings, heal those from their own misery, help those that cannot help themselves, and fight the ravages of unnecessary poverty. This is more powerful than a man coming back from the dead three days later, in my opinion.

Jesus fought radical fascism and religious dogma of his day. And today I wish to continue that fight within and outside the church. Catholics who embrace fascism, like Walesa by denying basic democratic rights, should be ashamed of themselves and rebuked for pushing such destructive anti-human rhetoric. Today, the Church is embroiled in and plagued with homo, pedo-fascism. Pedophiles are being covered by blackmailed gay Bishops and Cardinals. (I will talk about this in detail in another post.)

And their cohorts like Rick Frothy Santorum are doing their biding. These so-called Catholics are more interested in structure than they are with substance and evidence. Santorum believes that gays have no rights as well. Regardless of what the Santorums and Walesas of the world want to tell you, they are not embracing the teachings of Jesus but rather the teachings of the Church which they themselves have written. I failed to see their ideology as teachings but more like dogma and imposition. Jesus never imposed on anybody but rather taught through examples.

For all the reasons I've already explained I cannot take fascist Cardinals, Bishops and reactionary politicians seriously after this incredible expose of dictator Walesa. These fascists (like all the rest of them in history) will twist reality and play victims in order to deceive people into embracing their horrid selfish philosophy. The Vatican run and Mormon funded NOM (National Organization for Marriage) has played this all too often by saying that reactionaries will be "prosecuted" (aka fined - so I guess every time I get a speeding ticket I should yell that I am being persecuted?) because they will be forced to "give up" their religious beliefs (aka unable to discriminate against somebody in a place of public commerce).

What is even more funnier and even pathetic is when these same Catholic American fascists file briefs against gay marriage in federal court saying that their ultimate argument is that the political process should take care of this issue and not the courts.

In the words of another Catholic fascist Antonin Scalia: 'DON'T BELIEVE IT!' (During his dissenting opinion on Lawrence v Texas). I don't believe that they believe in the babel that they are writing. You have one of these fascists declaring that gays should be barred from the political process and some others like Santorum saying that marriage "can never" be redefine for any reason, be it political will or the ballot box. So when we go to court over gay marriage, I don't feel that I owe any form of explanation as to why should end up in court. We end up in court because it is a right to sue anybody for almost any reason in this country. You even have a right to sue the president, sue the voters, sue the state, sue your mother. Our court system, though far from perfect, is pretty darn modern and advanced compared to the judiciaries of other countries.

So whenever some Catholic fascist hack tries to say that the political process is the only avenue for gays to address their grievances, just know that what they really mean is that once you are in that "political process" these bullies will be able to build a wall for us to sit behind so as to not offend their homophobic and fascistic sensitivities.

Anti-Gay Bigot With Nobel Peace Prize in Hand Must be Confronted by Obama

Since I get lectured of and on about Obama's presumed strong advocacy on LGBT issues nothing can convince more of such brazen claim if Obama takes the opportunity to do something pretty extraordinary (and without the need to capitulate to his fascist foes in the tea bagger peanut gallery) on the issue of former President of Poland Lech Walesa's rabidly anti-gay comments over the weekend. Obama is not only the leader of the free world, but also, and this the reason why I bring Obama into the mix, he is also a Nobel Laureate in the same category as the Polish sausage that cracked its casing and spewed its stinky past due filling of anti-gay bullshit.

In his absurd comments Walesa says gays have no right to the political process, should be banned from democracy and sit "behind a wall" - ironically this Geppetto look-alike was given the now worthless prize for his fight for democracy when the conservative country rightfully fought off the failed Stalinists and restored freedom and democracy. But now Walesa's aim was to only restrict this new freedom and democracy to heterosexuals of his reactionary country.

Obama should not only rebuke him, (which I think he might do if anybody of the gay base really cares about this at all) but return his Nobel prize and medal to Norway unless Norway decides to rightly rescind Walesa's prize and cross his name out of the Nobel roster. But since rescinding the prize by itself will be a very difficult task to do, Obama's attempt to give back his medal would put tremendous pressure on Norway to do the right thing and save grace (and the value of such awards) and take the award from someone who obviously got it by fraudulent means.

Although I doubt he would think about returning his pride and joy of a Nobel medal (for doing almost absolutely nothing but win an election) to support the claim of his fanatics that he's the most "pro-LGBT President in history," doing so would be a tremendous gesture that signifies the weakness of my appropriate skepticism of his so called support for the gay community and would make Walesa crave for that "wall" even more - but this time being used to shield  him from the embarrassment of having others look at him as he wets his homophobic pants.