Death Records Now

Here is a story (from AP) about gays going after people who exercised their right to vote. I’ve also seen video on youtube of gays attacking people who were for prop 8. There have also been news stories of them going after churches and their congregations.
Is this the tolerance they scream so loud for?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state’s office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state’s campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure’s opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions…and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California’s Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

The secretary of state’s office and another defendant, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit. But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the homosexual-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.

He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten homosexual-rights supporters. "They’ve used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs’ arguments are not trivial. "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said.

He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.
Don,
Gays NEVER HAD the right to marry. How can it be taken from them if they never had it?
Friendly neighborhood queer: The pendulum swings. Be careful that you bring the fight to people who respond appropriately. We try to be tolerant. Some push their luck. That is sad.

Sorry that we finally decided to fight back after all the years of oppression and death that we were put through simply because of something that we can’t change.

Here is a story (from AP) about gays going after people who exercised their right to vote. I’ve also seen video on youtube of gays attacking people who were for prop 8. There have also been news stories of them going after churches and their congregations.
Is this the tolerance they scream so loud for?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state’s office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state’s campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure’s opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions…and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California’s Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

The secretary of state’s office and another defendant, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit. But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the homosexual-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.

He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten homosexual-rights supporters. "They’ve used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs’ arguments are not trivial. "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said.

He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.

Gays want tolerance for them, but they would still want to bash Christians.

First and foremost, I’m not seeking statistics, due to the fact that I have meticulously researched the Death Penalty, from the beheading of John the Baptist by order of King Herod for questioning the King’s desire to court his brother Phillip’s wife, Herodius..(because the wifey and daughter WANTED to have the king as their own)…to the recent overturning of the Supreme Court decision to allow Capital Punishment for Sex Offenders. What I’m looking for is your DEEPEST emotions….your true feelings about this facet of Justice in the United States. Any stats I quote are as accurate as possible….directly from sources such as the Uniform Crime Reports published by the F.B.I., as well as info I obtained by contacting the United States Department of Justice…..if you avoid the real question, and thrill me with your opinions of HOW I FEEL…I will rate you low, block you…and most likely reduce myself to a low level of distaste I don’t care for.
NOW FOR THE TRUTH>>>BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL DECISION…….
1. Each year….roughly $66 million tax dollars are spent to house, feed, clothe, medicate, and supply oxygen to the roughly 3,000 inmates presently under sentence of death in U.S. Prisons. For ythe average inmate, it costs approximately $22,000 a year….(which astounds me, because prisons are designed from the ground up, from the food, to the living quarters, to be as cost efficient as possible…in some instances…perilously close to in-humane conditions including but not limited to faulty plumbing which goes un attended for years…to food your dog would turn his nose up at.
2. Since 1976, when the moratorium on Capital Punishment was lifted, over 120 individuals have been exonerated and released from death row after new evidence proved innocence…or prosecutorial misconduct, lazy detectives, or unreliable witnesses were unearthed.
3. At the trial level, Death Penalty cases generate roughly $200,000 in legal expenses that the offender is, of course, not going to be responsible for…..especially if convicted….much more if the individual files personal restraint petitions (a facet of Habeas Corpus Law) and appeals.
4. 15 states, New Jersey being the most recent (2007), have abolished Capital Punishment altogether….My own native state of Michigan did so on March 1st, 1847….becoming the first English Speaking Territory to abolish Capital Punishment….as on of its first acts of Legislation as a State. On more than one occasion, a few of Michigan’s largest metropolitain areas have held national records for murder rates. Hmmm…I smell a rat.
5. As of 2006, the last publication of the Uniform Crime Reports until September 2010, there were 13,435 Non-Negligient Murders, 25,535 Forcible Rapes, and 87,252 Sex Offenses in the U.S….the Total number of Index Crimes (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, Burglary, and Arson) was at 14,380,370. "Yay Mommy, they’re gonna have to build yet another Prison on that State land me and Billy play on"……….Imagine that
6. Some cases of National fame…such as "The Green River Killer" result in Life Sentences for guys like Gary Ridgeway (Dude killed 48 people THAT WE KNOW OF!)…while others, crimes of passion and those teetering on the edge of self defense, have ended the lives of individuals who killed for a "justifiable reason".
MY PROPOSAL-
Okay folks…we all know this country has seen better days…those of you who don’t must live in a cave, or be wealthy enough to not give a flying rat’s arse. Perhaps we should take the $66 big ones away, Kill the killers, the rapists, the pedophiles (unequivocally guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of course) and apply it to something worthwhile. Maybe Pedophiles and Rapists ARE EXACTLY WHAT THEY SEEM…MORALLY AND SOCIOLOGICALLY UNACCEPTABLE ANIMALS WHO SHOULD BE SLAUGHTERED. I could go on and on…if you read the 22 page dissertation I wrote (limited amount of pages thanks to my instructor) you would be sickened….I know I was. China has alot of Capital crimes….running a Prostitution ring or Taking Bribes ( ask Zheng Xiaou…former head of their Food and Drug Administration)…..Why is the U.S. so concerned with treating these individuals as if they merely stole a car, or robbed a bank with a damn licorice pistol? My idea is….Murderers deserve an eye for an eye….
Pedophiles deserve to take the Long Black Train as well, however, a touch of punishment applied to the motivational parts of their bodies involving a blowtorch and a 4,000 p.s.i. Power washer should preclude the "conductor" sending them on the ride to Purgatorial Peace……..and rapists should see the same fate…….
I WILL READ AND CONSIDER ALL ANSWERS…AND LOOK AT THEM FROM THE POINTS OF VIEW OF THE MASSES, HOWEVER…MY OPINION SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS PRESENT COURSE OF VIGILANT LOGIC……I TRULY LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY……35YRSINTUITION
VERY FUNNY SHATTER…..HAD THIS QUESTION INVOLVED SYMANTICS AND DOUBLE TALK….YOU MAY HAVE GOT A BEST OUT OF IT.
DEAD PARROT….YOUR INTELLECT PRECEDES YOUR IRRATIONALITY…HOWEVER…I SAID NO STATS BECAUSE I KNOW ALL OF THEM……THEY HAVE BEEN PROCESSED BY MY HIPPOCAMPUS….AND COMMITTED TO LONG TERM MEMORY…UNTIL 2010, THAT IS. LOOK AT IT FROM ALL ANGLES, FRIEND…..MONEY, PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE U.S., AND HOW IT WOULD FEEL TO HAVE YOUR KID KIDNAPPED, DEFILED, MURDERED…AND DISCARDED LIKE RUBBISH……THERE WAS A COMPLIMENT IN THERE SOMEWHERE….BTW…..FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME. AND I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE TYPOS….PASSION GIVES ME HAPPY FINGERS….ESPECIALLY WHEN I’M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SO ABSOLUTELY CONTROVERSIAL AND COMPELLING…….GOOD ANSWER THOUGH DPS……I RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS…..I JUST DON’T BUDGE FROM MY OWN DUE TO THEM.
YUP..read the Bible cover to cover twice….not impressed by copies and pastes….but I did like the Old Testament better than the New…..if my blood had to be shed by man because I shed the blood of another for a transgression unforgivable….so be it….God Knows Me…..HE is still molding an imperfect lump of clay after 35 years…….and I share the name of Moses’ brother…..you know..the articulate one who never killed any Egyptians….

If someone has been arrested, tried and found guilty of a capital crime and the sentence is death, it should be carried out.

This BS of keeping someone on death row for years and years is an injustice to the low-lifes victims.

Do it.

Color Blind Court
Conservatives received a double dose of good news yesterday as the death of immigration "reform" was met with an immensely important ruling from the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion for the Court, holding that school districts in Seattle and Louisville may not assign children to particular schools on the basis of race.

In a line for the ages Chief Justice Roberts explained: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Equally moving was Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote: "What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because ‘our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’ such race-based decision making is unconstitutional."

However, the victory was dampened somewhat by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined in the result but refused to join the portion of the opinion declaring that achieving "racial balance" cannot be a "compelling interest" — i.e., a justification for racial classification by the government. According to Justice Kennedy, race may still be used as a factor if all other alternatives are exhausted.

Nevertheless, the ruling pointed out the significance of the new chief justice and of Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement, Justice Samuel Alito. O’Connor was the deciding vote in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision which upheld the notion that race could be one of many factors in determining admission to universities. Justice O’Connor memorably intoned in that case: "Twenty-five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." Apparently the clock used by Alito and Roberts is set differently.

The importance of the decision was not lost on Democrats, Ward Connerly (the champion of measures to abolish racial quotas and preference including last year’s successful Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and conservative activists.

Hillary Clinton was the first Democrat out of the box, predictably bemoaning the Court’s decision. If Clinton saw dark clouds, Connerly saw rays of sunshine, declaring in a released statement: "The Supreme Court today made a glorious decision that directly fits with our plans to eliminate race in all facets of American public life." He continued: "This Supreme Court decision shows that the era of race preferences is quickly coming to an end. The Court is finally starting to catch up with what the American people have known for years: Race has no place in American public life."

Roger Clegg, president and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said simply "we won" and that he believed "the practical impact will be significant on school boards" who likely will recognize that they are "asking for trouble" if they use race to assign students to schools.

It remains to be seen whether this will impact the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Rudy Giuliani was the only GOP candidate to respond to request for comment, stating: "I applaud today’s Supreme Court decision striking down the racial preferences used in determining students’ public school placement. I completely agree with Chief Justice Roberts that ‘the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’"

In the days ahead one can expect that Giuliani will remind voters of his strong stance against racial preferences while mayor of New York. Having run on the slogan of "one standard, one city," he can boast that as mayor he withstood harsh criticism from liberal civil rights groups and abolished minority set-asides and eliminated many race-based affirmative action programs. Senator John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney have made statements in the past opposing racial preferences and quotas. As for "testing the waters" candidate Fred Thompson, one of the former Tennessee senator’s rivals pointed out shortly after the opinion came down that he voted twice in 1995 in favor of affirmative action. (His campaign did not return a request for comment.)

Aside from any ramifications in the presidential primary, the decision was remarkable for conservatives for two reasons. First, the Court’s ruling on its own terms reflects conservatives’ view of America as a society based on merit and individual, as opposed to group, rights. The Court’s opinion is a teachable moment for the country at large. The message is simple: the government should not treat people differently based on race.

Second, it comes as a much needed boost for those who have come to view the Bush years as dismal ones for movement conservatives. The Congressional majority has slipped away and the current Administration is a subject of derision and contempt by many. The record of Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind and the near-death experience with immigration reform has pained many conservatives. The picture on the international front is no less grim. However, a real and significant shift in the Supreme Court may be the Bush administration’s most lasting and historical achievement. The work of conservative activists, judges and academics is bearing fruit — a powerful reminder that Constitutional battles are won over not just years, but decades.

Together with the Court’s ruling upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and invalidating McCain-Feingold’s issue ad ban, the school cases make clear the Court’s direction. Whether incrementally or in bold strokes, the Court no longer will be the handmaiden to the liberal social agenda. If the left wishes to impose an agenda of abortion on demand, racial quotas, gay marriage, and other social experiments, it will need to convince the public and enact its will through either legislation or constitutional amendment — no easy task, but an altogether appropriate result in a country that fancies itself the world’s great democracy.

Nevertheless, the business of legal conservatives is unfinished, as aptly illustrated by Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, which joined in the result but left open the distinct possibility that race may still be used as a factor by the government in determining how it treats its citizens. If ever there was a warning that the next Supreme Court justice pick will be critical for generations to come, this case should remind conservatives that the Court matters but is not yet "won."

For the country at large, the ruling highlights the difference between the parties. The Democratic Party is determined to maintain a Rube Goldberg-like system of racial preferences and quotas. The Republican Party defends the view that the government should rarely if ever be allowed to classify its citizens by race. If elections are about clear choices, this issue provides one of the starkest for the American electorate. Republicans are banking that most Americans are on their side.

Yes, it is conservatives who uphold the Constitution, despite leftwing efforts to thwart us.

Officials familiar with the agenda of the Friday meeting said Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace were expected to attend.

It was not immediately clear if the meeting would result in a final recommendation to Bush.

Previous plans to close Guantanamo have run into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence directorate.

Cheney’s office and the Justice Department have been dead set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.

They could still block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants illegal. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.

Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration’s efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation’s most dangerous terror suspects.

In Congress, recently introduced legislation would require Guantanamo’s closure. One measure would designate Fort Leavenworth as the new detention facility.

Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another would allow detainees to protest their detentions in federal court, something they are now denied.

Gates, who took over the Pentagon after Rumsfeld was forced out last year, has said Congress and the administration should work together to allow the U.S. to permanently imprison some of the more dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere so the facility can be closed.

Military officials told Congress this month that the prison at Fort Leavenworth has 70 open beds and that the brig at a naval base in Charleston, S.C., has space for an additional 100 prisoners.

The Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 380 alleged terrorists are now detained, has been a flash point for criticism of the Bush administration at home and abroad. It was set up in 2002 to house terror suspects captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan.

Because the facility is in Cuba, the administration has argued that detainees there are not covered by rights and protections afforded to those in U.S. prisons.

Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for its closure, and the prison is regarded by many as proof of U.S. double standards on fundamental freedoms in the war on terrorism.

Some of the detainees come from countries that are U.S. allies, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Each of those governments raised complaints about the conditions or duration of detentions, or about the possibility that detainees might face death sentences.

Rice has said she would like to see Guantanamo closed if a safe alternative could be found. She said during a trip to Spain this month that "the United States doesn’t have any desire to be the world’s jailer."

"I don’t think anyone wants to see Guantanamo open one day longer than it is needed. But I also suspect nobody wants to see a number of dangerous people simply released out onto the streets," she said.

On Thursday, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, told a human rights commission that Guantanamo must be closed if the United States is to regain credibility and authority on human rights.

"The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights," Cardin said. "Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counter-terrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country."

Officials say that Bush, who also has said he wants to close the facility as soon as possible, is keenly aware of its shortcomings.

His wife, Laura, and mother, Barbara, along with Rice and longtime adviser Karen Hughes, head of the public diplomacy office at the State Department, have told him that Guantanamo is a blot on the U.S. record abroad, particularly in the Muslim world and among European allies.

Bush has said the United States first has to determine what to do with the detainees there. The administration says some countries have refused to accept terror suspects from their territory.

Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the immediate closure of the prison, saying it posed an untenable foreign policy risk and was irreparably harming the U.S. image abroad.

No, but hopefully they’ll close Gitmo anyway. If they’re so sure they’re terrorists, then it’ll be no problem convicting them and throwing away the key.

And honey, that’s way too long – you need to link.