GAY MAN wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:38 AM:... San Diego County is a hot bed of bigotry. Anti-gay marriage church leaders and organization throughout California, hooked up in a teleconference to 101 churches and sites from Sacramento to the Mexican border yesterday to roll out their battle plan against gay marriage in the Nov. 4 election. The battle plan seeks to pass a voter initiative constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and overturn the recent California Supreme Court decision extending full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

The Christian war plan against gay and lesbian rights was organized by Christian pastors in San Diego County, teleconferencing for almost two hours from the Skyline Church in La Mesa, San Diego County. During the Pastors Strategic Teleconference Call objectives, strategies, tactics and events were laid out, including a goal of raising $22 to 24 million to achieve passage of the November initiative. At least 16 churches in San Diego County participated in the strategy session today.

jvc wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:45 AM:WE LOVE YOU GEORGE!

Good Grief wrote on Jun 26, 2008 3:18 AM:Thomas Rees is sick of the environment! The mind boggles.

yo bill lane wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:00 AM:I'm with you, baby! What were the founding fathers thinking? Let's abolish the Constitution and then the courts. Mob rule!

Carbon Dioxide Lover wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:01 AM:I wonder if CO2 is getting a bad press. I read that it is needed for trees and plants and makes many crops grow much better. If we cut CO2 in half like the Global Warming people say we must do won‘t the trees only grow half as large? Will food crop yields drop in half?
If we have converted a lot of farm land by 2030 intending to grow a lot of our fuel oil on it, will the fuel yields per acre drop in half? Is the CO2 essential or is it just a little helper?
Won’t all our crops and forests grow even better if we make even more CO2?
If the climate does grow warmer won’t crops grow better and faster provided of course they get enough water? Maybe some places that get one crop a year will get several crops a year. If more icebergs and more ice sheets melt won’t that make more water. If there is more water in the lakes and oceans and it gets warmer won’t more of the water evaporate into rain clouds so there should be more rain overall? PS. Don’t tell Dr. James Hansen I even asked. His speeches reported in the press this week indicate he would not approve.

Senior wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:57 AM:Mr. Bryan Watkins letter today about oil and critical of President Bush show he is unaware that even now hundreds of new oil wells are being drilled in the USA. And if Bush could have his way there would be thousands. It is hard with so many in Congress that oppose oil. Every year a majority in Congress and the President have tried to get more oil production but it has opposed and much of it has been prevented by only a few people in either the house or the Senate. In fact president Bill Clinton vetoed one major bill to get us more oil when it had passed both the house and the senate. Even with a small majority in the Senate the administration could not get it’s proposals for more oil passed because of their rule that says the minority party can invoke a rule requiring 60 votes instead of 50 votes to be able to be able to vote on a bill that is known to have 58 supporters. Thus a click of senators like Boxer, Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Schumer, and.
Several others have been able to block more oil. But some legislation did get passed. Huge deposits of oil in Colorado are in process of being allowed to be developed with a new process that does not disturb the surface except for some wells opens up vast quantities of oil because of legislation passed since Bush came into office. The process has been done on a small scale, and is now in tests on a medium scale. If proven successful that whole vast area will be opened up for producing the high-grade oil. Every year so far there have been items in the budget for research and development of new applications using fuel cells, making better batteries, making coal into gas and removing most of the impurities, then passing the hot gas through gas turbines to make electricity. That is much more efficient and much cleaner than the current method of burning the coal to make hot water into steam and running the steam through steam turbines. Bush has a company making a fuel cell that can be fastened in the back of a full sized pick up truck that can make enough electricity for a fair sized army unit to run a temporary camp so it will not have to have gasoline brought in to run gasoline generators. It is now in field trials. There are projects to develop every thing needed to be able to make a whole mechanized army run its equipment without gasoline. These are being developed and tested now, and when fully developed can be placed into production. There will obviously developments passed down for civilian applications. There are contracts underway now with scientists and engineers working on process for making cleaner use of cola for the several different types of coal mined in different parts of the country. Also Bush has contracts out to develop and test flying air force airplanes with jet fuel made from biofuel as well as with jet fuel made from coal. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of such projects going on. When many of them come to fruition under the next administration it will probably get the credit, but the projects and hard research and development has already been underway. You can find out about some from the Federal Budget, some from web sites like the government web site for DARPA, (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency), some from the news releases from corporations which are working on the unclassified projects, or probably just searching on the Internet.

Chuck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:25 AM:I see Hussein is butting head with Dobson, a Christian biblical scholar. Maybe someone whose loyalty is more to the Koran should stay out the realm of biblical interpretation

More bad news for yahoos wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:38 AM:I see that Bush took North Korea off the "terrorist nation" list. He did it with negotiation or, as you like to call it, appeasement. I'm sorry you guys. No bombs were dropped. No shots fired. No Americans or Koreans killed. A sad day for you, I know. Better play a round to take your minds off it. And remember, we still have Iran.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:56 AM:Clifton Parr: How do you feel about black gays? They qualify for all the discrimination and persecution that you mentioned inflicted against black people in this country. In addition, they must suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation.

Bible Scholar wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:58 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:25 AM:
Who cares about interpreting that fairy tale?

Stuff Up wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:05 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:25 AM:
Just like the so called Rev. Dobson, Chuck just makes stuff up.

Laurian wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:06 AM:Thank you for posting the proper pronunciation of MARRON (mah-rone). I've known members of this family for 40 years and every time I hear "mar-in," I cringe. A while ago, one of the times I ordered pizza from Round Table, the call was answered with the ususal, "Thank you for calling "Mar-in" Road Round Table...." When I got there to pick it up, I quietly & politely told the manager the correct pronunciation of Marron Road because it was incorrect in their greeting. He smiled with what seemed to be a sigh of relief and said, "Ya know, I used to always say "Mah-rone" because I went to school with a girl whose named was spelled "Marron," but pronounced "Mah-rone," but when I started working here, everyone else said it the other way, so I thought *I* was wrong. But now that you told me that the road was named after the family, it makes perfect sense; now I can go back to saying "Mah-rone." He was so pleasant about it all, so that was nice. Hopefully, the rest of the staff now knows??

Another street name that gets mangled is Valpreda Road in San Marcos. Again, another family name with the correct pronunciation being "Val-pray'-duh."

Cheers, & thanks!

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:08 AM:I submited this thought yesterday, I still think it's an avenue to provide immediate relief to those who are suffering the high cost of gas.
According to polls, 76% of Americans want to drill here, and drill now.
That would leave the other 24%, like Bryan Watkins not wanting to drill, I say.. let's force those 24% to right now, today.. buy a solar panel & a plug-in car. We would see an immediate 24% decrease in demand, thus lowering gas prices. Further, if those who have been polled backing the Obama plan {the do nothing plan} would right now, today.. buy a solar panle & a plug-in car we would see an immediate 48% decrease in demand for gas. Again, a win-win. They get to live on the technology they say they love, and we get an immediate relief from gas prices. See? Easy, you get to do what you want to do, and i get to do what I want to do. Ain't America grand? Might be a band-aide, but I can live with it.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:11 AM:Senators are either stupid or liars: I always thought that most of them were both.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:16 AM:More bad news for yahoos: It matters very little if North Korea was on a terrorist list or not. North Korea, a Stalinist state, is still a direct threat to stability and peace in the Orient. It is still in a strong position to sell its nuclear technology and products to the highest bidder. IMHO, GWB simply did so for the sake of a Presidential legacy. After all, his only Presidential legacy is war, death, pestilence and profiteering as well as the destruction of the United States Constitution.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:19 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:08 AM: A poll is a poll is a poll. Just like an opinion, every one has one.

Wow Senior wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:23 AM:Thanks for that very informative post this morning. Although I don't understand how that little handful of Senators could "block" legislation (don't you need a majority?) I find it fascinating to learn of all the progress. Your post makes clear that if allowed to drill what they already have, the oil companies do not need to be handed more of our land and offshore sites. Even McCain acknowledges that his sudden support for new sites is about wanting to give Americans a psychological buzz, some hope. He knows that it's unrelated to reality. So let's continue making progress on all fronts and leave more givaways to oil at the taxpayers' expense off the table. The oil folks seem to be doing quite well for themselves. They just secured no-bid contracts from Iraq. They current lease land with billions of barrels of oil just sitting there. There is no problem that offshore drilling is the solution to, except McCain's problem of "how do I get more votes?"

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:24 AM:In order to understand where Garth Gregory Hansen is coming from, you must first understand "Good news in Iraq, would be bad news for Democrats."

What scares the pants off people like Garth, is the fact that we are kicking terrorist butt in Iraq. We are winning, and that scares them to death.

The Democrats can not afford a military win in Iraq.

You know what would be a good political move for the Obamaman right now? It's actually something John Kerry said awhile back. News in Afganistan is we need more troops there. Kerry's idea was to redeploy 5,000 troops from Iraq into Afganistan. That's the smart move, with Anbar being turned over to the Iraqis, we need to redeploy those troops into Afganistan, now.
Think the Obamaman will come out and say it? Not if he wants MoveOn, Daily Kos, or George Soros money.

And think about that for a second...

If you won't say what needs to be done, because he's more interested in getting money for his campaign. Then in my opinion, he's not ready for prime time.
It's time for the Obamaman to show us what he's made of. Either say now, we need to redeploy those Anbar troops into Afganistan where they are badly needed, or get off the stage man.

Ringin a Bell wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:29 AM:Dough Bell is ringin' the bell on the undue influence Latino legislators are having on American citizens. This paper ran an editorial not long ago in which they rightly pointed out this corrupting influence in the legal case the San Diego Minutemen have brought against CalTrans for violating their Constitutional rights of free speech by illegally removing their Adopt A Highway sign on I 5. The NCT's correctly pointed out that the CA Lation Caucus headed by Gilert Cedilly and Joe Coto, in concert with the Mexican Consulate, did apply direct pressure on CalTrans senior officials to hastily remove the Minutemen sign. More and more we're seeing evidence that some of these Latino politicians seems to favor Mexicans, Latino's in general over their all American counterparts. They don't seem to understand that American politicians should be for Americans, of all strips, first and foremost. Dough Bell has great insight.

You convinced me Mark wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:31 AM:Mark Van Aelstyn joins the recent letter writers who links Olga Diaz with "illegals". I have to tell you, Mark, that whenever I see this kind of an effort to smear someone by association, to use people's hot-button responses and, perhaps, racism ("Diaz" is, after all, an Hispanic name) to attack a candidate...it tells me that Ms Diaz has got to be pretty scary to those who currently hold the reins. Knowing nothing else except these tactics of her opponents, I will vote for Ms Diaz with enthusiasm and encourage my friends to do the same. I certainly do NOT want people in office who think the way Mark does.

Not sure but I thought wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:43 AM:Mark Van Aelstyn Sr. lives in Poway. One piece of advice for old Mark don't stick you nose in the issue of a city you don't live in. Don't you have any wrongs to right in Poway? Don't you have any illegal immigrants to harass in Poway? Don't you have any City Council members to praise in Poway. Good God man get a life. I live in Escondido and Olga Diaz has my vote! I just can't stand the narrow minded myopic stance taken by Ed, and Sam time for a change.

What does it really say wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:47 AM:The bible like our Constitution is all open to personal interpretation. Did God really mean Thou Shalt Not Kill? Does our Constitution in the 14th Amendment really apply to those damn illegals? Personal interpretation!!

Senior wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:49 AM:I think Mr. Peter Benson is missing one point in his letter today. I think he is complaining about the updated FISA law about to be passed and considers it a violation of the constitution. I do not consider it a violation. A wiretap is not adequate in today’s world. They are not really talking about tapping someone’s wires. In the old days if and when the e police knew where some criminal lived, and what his phone number was, and which wire went to his house or apartment, they could go get a court order to physically connect to his phone line. It is true some of the 1993 WTC bombing attempt attackers were caught AFTER the fact. One or more of the Oklahoma City bombers were identified AFTER the fact but many persons were killed. There is still controversy about that. Most of the 9/11 bombers were identified, but not arrested AFTER the fact they killed nearly 3,000 persons and maimed many more. The idea is to find out AHEAD of time what their plans are, provide protection to the intended target(s) and go find and arrest the suspects BEFORE the attack, not afterward. Don‘t forget an organized group has declared was on us and has shown they are not afraid to go on suicide missions. This is a time with throwaway cell phones used away from ones residence, one-time use of phone numbers for special messages, and several ways to communicate around the world using the Internet WITHOUT actually sending an E-mail. There are terrorists who have engineering training who will only plan something big that will make news around the world.
like toppling another skyscraper, blowing up a large dam, or a football stadium during a game, or blowing up the White House, or Congressional halls, or the Seattle Space Needle and other targets like those. If they succeeded in smuggling in several of those hand held missile launchers that can shoot down airplanes near an airport I believe they would plan to hit several different airports in different cities they would time it to hit the largest planes at the same time. I actually believe that if they already had two small nuclear bombs in the USA already and possessed two more to smuggle in within a year I believe they would wait so they could set off all four at the same time in different cities.
Anyway in this day and age of more advanced technology much more advanced technology has to be used to try to prevent terrorist’s attacks here. It does not do much good to just identify the dead attackers afterward.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:51 AM:It's a battle the Democrats just can't win. As I have so accurately pointed out before, nearly 65 million Americans fall into the lower 50% of taxpayers folks. These good people make $33,000 a year and less. They clearly can not be made to suffer any more than they already are with gas prices so high.
And Thomas Rees is right. Democrats have long wanted gasoline prices to be astronomically high. They have always seen this as a tool to reduce the amount of fossil fuel being used.
So, with that known track record, it's just a little too late to start blaming high gas prices on Oil companies. Especially, when it's something you have historically advocated.
You know, people aren't as stupid as you seem to think. We've all seen the enviromentalists obstructing, on TV no less. Virtually everyday, you've got some kooker up in a tree, or chained to a railroad track, or publically nude to prove their point. We see it.
And it's really a pretty easy concept to understand. When a Mother's milk jug is empty, she goes to the store and buys some more. Now, if the milk price is extremely high, and she hears the Govenor say "Don't milk cows", she's bright enough to put two and two together.
And this is the fix Democrats, and more precisely Obama and his "ites" find themselves. "Just drink less" milk.
It's time for you Democrats, you liberals, you Obama"ites" to just come right out and say it. OK? Just say what you mean.
Tell those Americans you prefer them to ride the bus to take their sick child to the doctor. Just tell em. And see how "understanding" they will be?
You guy's started feeding this beast, so feed it.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:02 AM:And your problem with democracy.. "GAY MAN" @1:38 AM? Is exactly what?

So 101 churches met... did they break some kind of law, or something?
What are you, the local Gladys Kravitz?

As I understand the Constitution, the right to freely assemble is guaranteed?

Yep.. there it is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the "right of the people peaceably to assemble", and to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I knew I read that somewhere before.

IMHO wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:06 AM:What does it really say: The Bible is subject to personal interpretation unless you are a Catholic. The Supreme Court interprets the 14th amendment.

to Johanna wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:06 AM:You need to read Clifton Parr's letter, it blows yours reasoning out of the water.

Roger wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:07 AM:Regarding Senior's 7:49 post, this may have set a new record for the least said with the most words.

USMC wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:12 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:24 AM: The USMC announced their intention to redeploy to Afghanistan three months ago. Nothing new about that news.

Great news for yahoos wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:20 AM:Your famous "liberal Supreme Court" upheld gun rights and knocked down the DC ban. Yee-HA! Finally we'll see the crime rate in DC drop. Great work, liberal court.

Oh Senior wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:24 AM:So lemme get this straight: because we are in an information age and because there are people in the world who want to kill other people...let's just toss the Constitution out the window? FISA doesn't stand in the way of any wiretapping the feds want to do, it just asks that they get court orders. In a pinch, it even allows them to get court orders after the fact. I don't see how this ties anyone's hands from snooping on potential terrorists. It does, however, tie politicians' hands from snooping on anyone they like. I know that conservatives, even more than liberals, distrust politicians and big government. So why, if the pols say "terrorists! terrorists!", are you so quick to believe them? FISA is a good balance between the need to protect the country and the need to protect ordinary citizens.

Alf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:25 AM:In his letter, Bill Lane is horribly confused and wrong. We are a republic not a democracy. Majority does not rule in a court of law, the Constitution rules. Those "four misguided judges" are not misguided at all, they did their job which is to adjudicate according to the Constitution of, in this case, the State of California. Regards, Alf.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:27 AM:Thomas Rees unfortunately represents a growing sentiment among Americans. He's not sick of the environment, he's sick what some of the more radical environmentalists have managed to accomplish. The Carbon Dioxide blogger above makes a point (although not a scientific one), carbon dioxide is an essential part of our environment. Cut it back and you are messing with Mother Nature. And there in lies the rub. I'm all for living a cleaner, healthier and "greener" life. But, I'm bitterly opposed to irrational bandwagon politicians invoking laws and measures that not only hurt our economy, but ultimately hurt the environment as well. Ethanol is my poster child for that statement. Rex says bury the bone and let's get on with solving some real issues i.e. a sustainable economy and a full water dish. Regards, C-1.

Oh Chuck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:27 AM:I hope Dobson sends you a thank you card for promoting him to "Bible scholar". I wasn't aware that he had published widely in the field or earned the respect of Biblical scholars. What's that? You like him? He attacks Obama? So he must be right? (sorry for the tone...I was listening to old Bob Newhart recordings this morning). Oh, Chuck, you're so silly. The things you promote are so juvenile. I think maybe you didn't have an outlet for your sexual tensions as a teen and now you're a mess. Back to public school for you, Chuck.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:28 AM:Or we could try this, Robert Graber?
We defeat the bill, and nobody pays.

TO IMHO wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:29 AM:Yes the Supreme Court does interpret the Constitution and the 14th Amendment but that doesn't stop people from interpreting it for themselves and attempting to deny people their rights under the Constitution.

Nate wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:33 AM:Clifton as another African-American man I could not agree with you more. I do not care what your sexuality is, but the fact they try to piggy-back and liken their struggle to what black people have had to endure in this country are ridiculous.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:34 AM:Yes, "USMC" @8:12 AM. I understand that
The USMC announced their intention to deploy 3200 troops to Afghanistan three months ago. That was 3 months ago.
If you had been keeping up with the news, the Euro's need a wine & cheese break, and the current need is 6,000 more. Guess who's on deck?

Esco City Council wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:38 AM:I didn't vote for Ms. Diaz last time, nor will I this election. If it weren't for Ed, Sam and Marie, Escondido would have become a total slum by now. As it is, we are teetering on the brink, and our city council has done their best to keep us from falling in.

GAY MAN wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:50 AM:… Poor Clifton Parr (letter today). Conflicted Clifton brings to mind a black gay friend named James. A group of us friends were sharing tales of woe in our youth, when he was asked “Do you get more flack because you are gay or because you are black?” James replied, “Because I am gay. Definitely! My parents never deny responsibility for me being black.”

Actually, my black friend had a very healthy attitude. He was very proud of being both gay and black, always saying we should never question the wisdom of our loving creator. Too bad letter writer Clifton Parr has chosen to imprison himself inside a box of prejudice.
Submitted 1:23am re-submitted 8:50am

Senior wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:51 AM:When I read the letter above by Peter Benson about these complaints about people thinking they can say anything on the phone and no one will listen in are taking a lot for granted. One or more of any number of people may be overhearing accidentally or on purpose. I do not know why people think having privacy on a phone line is a constitutional right, perhaps some Supreme Court decision. Due to my experiences and training I make it a practice to say nothing over a phone line bad about people when talking with friends or strangers, nor discuss government or company secrets over the phone line when talking with another employee that I know would be authorized to discuss in person. So I pretend my pastor, the local police chief, the FBI, the CIA, a foreign spy or an industrial spy may be listening Anyway I was taught as a child to not say anything on the phone I would not want the neighbors to hear. We were on a party line with 12 or 14 other farm families. Later in the city during the big war we could not get a private line. Everyone in that area seeking phone service was put on a line with one or two other families to save wire for the war effort. Later in a small apartment I observed there was the same bundle of small phone wires that went through the walls in every one’s apartment. It would be illegal to listen in on someone else’s phone, but physically very easy. Later in a large apartment I noticed there was a phone connection panel where everyone’s phone line was connected to the phone cable from the street with bare wires. Anyone could just clip on a phone and listen, but that should be illegal. At work in modern times working for a prominent defense contractor we were told to be very careful what we said on the outside phone lines because possibly foreign spies or competitors could be after our secrets or proprietary information.
Later working at a high security government building we could not say anything secret over the regular phones to others in the same building, but only over a green phone that had shielded wires and was strictly only within the building. We could not assume talking over public phone lines was secure or even over leased lines to other government facilities. Later we got some special phones costing about $1,500 each that converted conversation to code to use to talk with other government facilities when secrets were involved. We each had a personal physical key to turn and the phone would not go on talk mode unless someone else on the other end with secret clearance had put in his or her personal physical key. From home while talking to another employee acquaintance at home or work that we knew was cleared for secret we were still ordered to be careful to not say anything government secret, nor company proprietary. Many phone communications go from one town to another by microwave towers, and even wires sometimes pick up magnetic signals from other wires nearby. As we are walking around in any store or sidewalk now days we loudly hear one side of many other persons personal communications over their cell phones.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:53 AM:Speaking of mindless..
Which brings me to Ron Susi.
He's all over Brian Bilbray for voting NO on two bogus bills.

First, under current jobless benefits you have 6 months of unemployment. If you can't find a job in 6 months, somethings wrong with you, not the benefits.

And two,
Expanding a loser like Amtrak?

Where do we get these people?

to Nate and Clifton wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:55 AM:I'm not African-American. I did participate in the Civil Rights movement in the South in the early 60s. I wish you wouldn't take the comparison too literally or personally. My view of the gay marriage issue is simple. I don't need it to be called "marriage" or to have any effect whatsoever on anyone's religious rites of conjugation. All I want is that any financial or legal benefits that come to people when they wed are not denied to homosexual people when they wed. If we want to call all state-acknowledged vows "civil unions" and reserve the term "marriage" for people in their churches, I'm fine with that. All I'm against, as I was in the 60s (and the 70s in the women's movement) is the law discriminating against people without good reason.

GAY MAN wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:56 AM:… Bill Lane (letter today) is have difficulty entering the 21st century. Maybe he is still lagging back in the 19th century, when the vast majority of voters in the Confederacy overwhelmingly approved of slavery. The MAJORITY RULES, you know! Minorities have no rights, just as Bill contends. Slavery is ordained by God, supported by the Bible, and scientific common sense, they said back then, also. And if you do not uphold slavery, we will just have to pass a constitutional amendment reinstating this sanctified institution. Every legal and social means possible was employed to keep them in their place, and, as Bill says, we must do the same now in this new battle to extend the right of marriage to gays.
Americans support the sanctity of the institution of heterosexual marriage and the sanctity of the institution of slavery. And women are mandated by the Bible to be subordinate to and obey their husbands. Yahoo! It is the will of GOD!
Submitted 1:36am re-submitted 8:51am

Esco question wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:57 AM:How, exactly, would Esco become a slum or cater to "illegals" if Ms Diaz won? I hear lots of people asserting this, but no one says what they think Ms Diaz would do to bring this about. Until I hear that, all I hear is sliming by association. And when I hear sliming by association, I vote for the person being slimed. Give me some rational arguments and facts and I'll listen. Name-call and slime and the other guy gets my vote every time.

Nick wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:59 AM:Well, The Supreme Court has reached a ruling. Americans have a RIGHT to bear arms, END OF STORY!
The D.C. and San Francisco gun buns are illegal and unconstitutional, and will be repealed. No city has the right to prevent citizens from owning firearms.

Good buudy "Alf", at least there's one for all of us who believe in The Constitution.
Cheers, Nick.

Go Olga wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:01 AM:I will voted for Olga before and I will vote for her again. It is time for some one with reason, and intelligence on our City Council. With the exception of our Mayor everyone else is just a bunch of emotionalist and one issue candidates. It would be okay for them to be one issue candidates but can they really do anything to stop illegal immigration? NO!!! Not a local level. They can certainly impose new ordinances and bans which will be deemed Unconstitutional and just cost us all lots of money. Really what have they done? Thank you Olga for giving a a gleam of hope.

Say What Bill Lane wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:01 AM:You ask where the logic is for courts making a decision that voters have already weighed in on...well, its this pesky little thing called constitutionality...if the majority of the people in the state vote that all green eyed people should not be allowed to own property, the court would rightfully void the wishes of the misguided electorate.

Cluck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:05 AM:New polls out today show Obama ahead in 4 battleground states. But the Republicans aren't to be deterred. They are praying like crazy for another terrorist attack to give McCains campaign a boost.

The Focal Point Side Show wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:07 AM:OK Focal Point, Now that we know you can cut and past, Copy old quotes and ramble on and on about nothing, What will you razzle dazzle us with next?

To Oh Senior at AM wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:07 AM:According to what I heard from the CSPAN government hearings testified by a very high government official was one problem with old FISA was that to get the court order even after the fact of one listen you could not just ask for a court order in writing, you had to have almost enough evidence to get a conviction of a crime before you could even ask for the wire tap. It is true that most formal requests were granted. But sufficient incriminating information for many cases could not be obtained until more tapping were done. Under the revised FISA they can continue listening for up to 7 days while writing up the request for a warrant or report of what they have done, which will be a big help.

Dear Alf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:11 AM:Alf
[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:25 AM: It does not mean thay are always right!

Cluck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:12 AM:Dobson says that Obama is confused about his theology. iRONically he doesn't address the questions that Obama raises; namely should we intrepret the bible literally when it comes to other areas like slavery and stoning your child if he strays from his faith. It seems obvious that Dobson is confirming what Obama is asking and that it is important to intrepret the Bible to fit your political agenda. Conservatives should stick to what they know best; blasphemy and praying for terrorist attacks to help their candidates win elections.

Alf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:13 AM:Since you can NOT have it both ways, which is it - A "liberal", "activist judges", child-rapist loving United States Supreme Court, a "liberal", "activist judges", "terrorist-loving" United States Supreme Court or a "conservative", they know what they're doing, upholding the Second Amenright right to own a gun United States Supreme Court? The United States Supreme Court is NEITHER "liberal" NOR "conservative", it upholds the United States Constitution, something that GWB refuses to do and, apparently, Congress can not or will not do. Remember, you can not have it both ways. Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:17 AM:>>>>Who cares about interpreting that fairy tale..(Bible)?

Alot more than the fairly tale of gay marriage and global warming

For Nick wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:17 AM:At 8:59, You mean your interpretation of The Constitution!!

IMHO wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:19 AM:TO IMHO[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:29 AM:
Agreed.

Cluck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:20 AM:The "liberal" "activist" supreme court lifts the DC ban on guns. Conservatives have taken to the streets in a queer display of joy as now the can "defend" themselves against ALL muslims after their prayers for another terrorist attack are answered. And they won't have to worry about a president obama standing up for the muslims as they feel their candidate will benefit from said attack.

Chuck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:22 AM:Out of one side of their mouths, the gays want to know where it talks about homosexuality in the Bible, and then out of the other side of their mouth, they call the Bible a fairy tale, claim they dont believe in it as they are athiests, and then bash Dr Dobson. Naturally they demand tolerance of the gay agenda, and profess their civil right to be intolerant of Christians

SOLON wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:22 AM:= Chuck awoke early, with the good name of Senator Obama on his mind, and by 6:25 AM had already posted his comment about the Good Blessing Obama. Chuck never tires of reminding us that the Semitic name Barack translates as BLESSING, and the Semitic name of HUSSEIN translateas as GOOD. This is a good and noble campaign which you wage, Chuck, because there are so many anti-Semitic people in our land.

Reardon wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:24 AM:Ron, your 7:08 contains a few real gems -- the best of which is the concept that the environmental extremists should be the first to step up.

While I know no way to enforce it, on this net we should ask those who oppose drilling how Green THEY are to be so pure, and if they have put their money where their mouth is.

I can stand being lectured to by DD, who we know is moving rapidly toward energy independence and even admits his failures in purity. I don’t agree with his evangelical fervor, but he is not a pure hypocrite just a little impure, and improving.

What we do not know is the purity of other posters – not that we can prove what they say they do, but it would certainly make me feel better if I knew that those who lecture me were at least more active at living the life they espouse, than I am.

Certainly there should be a ”DD Base level” – no one who lectures us should be less Green than DD! DD should be the “Mendoza Level” in baseball – a batting average below which people can support or oppose but are self-limited in lecturing.

I KNOW, for example, that I am more environmentally sensitive than Al Gore! I own a lot fewer large SUVs than does the John Kerry family. I own fewer Gulfstream jets than does our Green Governor.

That makes me a LOT closer to a carbon footprint of DD than I am to Al Gore, John Kerry, of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Relatively speaking, I am GREEN! (I feel better already, today!)

USMC wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:24 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:34 AM: I have been keeping up. I need a wine and cheese break. It takes time to plan and to move our people with the correct logistics. Who is on deck? I am on deck again, again and again.

Nick wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:26 AM:To "To Nate and Clifton": You say that you are "not African-American". Does that mean that you are not black or that you did not immigrate here legally from Africa?
Another problem with this Country and the whole nonsense of trying to be politically correct, is the stupidity of the hyphenated American.
Your either an American or your not.
If you didn't immigrate here legally from Africa, your NOT an African-American.
The same goes for all the rest who call themselves some form of hyphenated American.

Short termers wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:27 AM:I'll say it again for Ron and now Mr. Rees. Your comments and short term points of view on drilling now or ignoring your/mine/our impacts on the environment has consequences that will outlive you/me/us for hundreds of years. It's self-serving and short sighted to say the least. Please address why you think you have no obligation to look out for those future generations. So you won't have to pay a couple of bucks to fill your car up?

Focal Point wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:28 AM:The Focal Point Side Show I have not cut and paste yet. But, what a novel idea. I shall have to inquire with Ron how it is done. Razzle dazzle you! Oh joy! Just let me know because after all, I am just here to entertain. LOL ...

Nick wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:32 AM:To "For Nick": Unlike clowns like you who like to pick and choose which part of The Constitution applies to them, I believe in The Constitution as a whole.
Back when I joined The Corps, I took an oath to uphold The Constitution, something folks like you don't and never will seem to understand.
Your problem, not mine.

Chuck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:35 AM:>>>New polls out today show Obama ahead in 4 battleground states>>> LOL, the people are beginning to realize Hussein has blocked every attempt to drill and build nuclear plants. HOW many voters are going to run to the polls and vote for a man with a Muslim background, doesn't care about American jobs, will raise the price of gas another dollar or two, and tax their employers into oblivion and put the medical delivery system into the same hands that bankrupted SocialSecurity. By the time the election gets here, he'll be the modern Mike Dukakis

Alf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:37 AM:Yup, "Nick" at 8:59, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the intent and words of the Constitution as I believed they would. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:40 AM:Let's be very clear here what liberals want in regards to FISA and wire tapping.
What they want is to force the government to go to court, each and every time the government believes it needs to listen, intercept, or track communications between an American and anyone else.
I say, ok.. fine.

I think several other posters have pointed this out, but it's worth repeating.

The real world effects of slowing down our tracking, tracing, and intercepting will delay, and potentially deny, our ability to prevent future attacks, or will prevent us thwart other activities terror suspects may be planning.

The time delay itself maybe the difference between an attack and no attack.

This is the reality. In order to strictly preserve those consitutional guarantees, we open ourselves up to potential attack. As one poster said, in today's world of throw away phones, a 72 hour delay maybe the difference between catching them, and not catching them.

If liberals are fine with this arrangement, I think they should just say it.
That, Yes.. our strict methods will delay our hunt for terrorists suspects, allowing them to escape, to lose needed and valuable information while waiting for a warrant to be signed.

And a 72 hour difference maybe the difference between your city smoldering, and not smoldering.

Alf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:43 AM:Well, "Dear Alf" at 9:11AM, each one of us is guaranteed, by the Constitution, the right to express ourselves. You and I may disagree on this issue, but no one is correct on every issue all the time. Regards, Alf.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:49 AM:Fresno State defeats Georgia 6-1 to win College World Series.

GAY MAN wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:50 AM:… Ron twists the facts (8:02 am). These 101 were not all churches. Some were simply independent bigot organizations.
Further, it is not against the law to be a bigot. Bigots have a Constitutional right to free assembly and speech. They can even wear white hoods and burn crosses, but they do not have the right to deny to other free men and women the right of marriage.

Alf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:51 AM:In his letter, Thomas Rees seems to forget the greed factor. In the world according to Thomas Rees, environmentalists cause all our problems today and corporate greed plays no role at all. Nice job, sport. Only one problem, you ar mostly wrong. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:52 AM:I feel your pain.. "USMC" @9:24 AM:
Now, if we could just get the Euro's to take this war as seriously as we are, spend some more on their own protection, then I'd say we were moving in the right direction.
But as along as we allow them the make excuses, and not provide for their own security, we are all paying for them to increase the size of their welfare state.
I realize you are tired, but if Afganistan is the correct war, a righteous war.. We must win it, no matter how long it takes.

Brass n Rail wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:54 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:22 AM: Oh gee wiz. I am a gay man. I am a Christian. I am saved by the blood and stripes, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. My dear sir, you can not be serious. You must be a comedian. You have us all laughing at the Brass and Rail. Toodles.

To Wow Senior wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:03 AM:From Senior about your question at 7:23 AM about how a handful of influential Senators can cause a bill supported by a majority to fail to be passed. I have seen them do it on CSPAN. I think it works like this. First of all there are two rules to note. The party leader can instruct all the members of his/her party to vote as a block (or else), or he/she can say vote as you please. Another rule is one or more senators can declare he/she is going to filibuster a bill so it cannot be voted on. They do not really have to stand there for hours at a time to filibuster. So that the other work can be done, the Senate leader will schedule him/her an hour to filibuster now and then while other work is being done. Eventually a majority may want the filibuster to end and a vote be taken on the issue, some of these senators may want to vote yes, and some may want to vote no on the issue itself. THE RULE IS it will take 60 of them to vote to end the filibuster and vote on the issue itself. Example: Suppose there were 46 Democrats and 54 Republicans in the Senate. It is a bill most Democrats want to vote NO on and most Republicans want to vote YES on. Several more powerful Democrats rally most of the other Democrats to support their filibuster. If a vote on the bill itself were taken now, the vote would be 56 YES and 44 NO and the bill would have passed, mostly along party lines. Because the several senators have declared a filibuster no vote can be taken until the filibuster is ended. It requires 60 votes for the filibuster to be declared over against the wishes of those doing it. In this example the 56 that are for the bill cannot find 4 more to vote with them to end the filibuster and bring the bill to a vote. This bill never gets a chance to be voted on so it does not become law.
In a different example where there is a less influential senator doing the filibuster maybe after while even 70 will vote to end a filibuster but voting for the bill itself may be 49 for and 51 against or 51 for 49 against.

VLAD wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:05 AM:Oh poor christians. Abused and discriminated throughout history. What a crock. Chuck, please tell me you aren't voting in Nov. You don't have the intellect to vote. Gay marriage will be law, regardless of November's elections. The Constitution bans discrimibnation by public entities, and since marriage is a public ceremony, in legal terms, gay marriage will be upheld, regardless of the so-called christians rhetoric and the mindless initiative set for november. Deal with it so-called Christians. The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written. God expects us to use are heads, the minds that were given to us, not enslave ourselves to a mindless, symbolic piece of fiction. And no Chuck, this isn't an example of discrimination. Grow up and use the brain that God gave you.

Oh Chuck wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:14 AM:Because liberals don't say to Christians: please write all the laws of the land to conform to you beliefs, that makes us intolerant? I have nothing against Christians. I just don't want them, or Muslims, replacing the Constitution with a theocracy. Is that intolerance? Really? As for asking them "where in the Bible does it say...?", let me try to explain this question so even you, Chuck, can understand it. When so-called Christians claim that this or that should be the way the law is, they usually anchor this in the Bible. But you know what? Often (as with abortion) the Bible says nothing of the kind! In other words, when they are claiming to be obediant to the word of their God, they are lying! So I might think that the Bible is a fairy tale, but I take note that they claim it certainly is not. OK, then on their own terms, what DOES the Bible say about, e.g., abortion? Really? So how is their opposition to abortion in any way a religious opposition? Comprende now, Chuck? Their views are exposed to be what they always were: political agendas, purely secular, unconnected to the Bible. And they think they're going to Heaven?

Getting Better wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:16 AM:Great Month June 2008. Same sex marriages in Calif and the right to arms (Federal).

Mazel Tov (Congratulations) to those that were previously denied marriage.

Great Gun news; it is about time. Having and using guns properly is very important. Back in 1790 they knew the need for citizens' firearms. Without guns, we can easily become a controlled country.

Ron wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:16 AM:Obviously you caught on to my rhetorical question about these so-called "envir