Those who claim to be the most tolerant are the least tolerant.

Those who claim not to hate are the most hateful.

The Left.

In Fornicalia, Proposition 8 passed (defining marriage as that between one man and one woman). Proposition 8 passed in roughly the same margin that Barack Hussein Obama obtained the presidency by vote: 52% to 48% (Prop 8 specifically: 52.2% Yes to 47.8% No). Black support for Prop 8 exceeded 2-to-1. Leftists can’t understand what happened, except to exclaim that they were duped. Duped! But they have a plan.

In 2000, Fornicalia voters (myself included) passed Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which added a section to the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.

Then, in 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decided to, unlawfully, authorize the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples by the City and County of San Francisco. The 3,995 marriages were annulled by the California Supreme Court, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as In re Marriage Cases.

As a result of this the Fornicalia Supreme Court (on May 15, 2008 via a 4-to-3 vote) ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.

Hence, the creation of Proposition 8 — duplicating the same effort as Prop 22.

Now, the Left has decided that the “will of the people” isn’t fair and, after all, it was “only” a 52-to-48 percentile margin and thusly what’s lawful doesn’t apply to them. Just as with the popular vote for Barack Hussein Obama, the people “spoke” — only, this time, the Leftists don’t like the speech.

Numerous protests have occurred but, more pointedly, another tactic has emerged whereupon the Left even more clearly announce their intolerance and hatred:

A man who works in Sacratomato, Fornicalia made, evidently, the very serious error of both donating money to the Yes On 8 campaign and being a member of an artistic clan. But of course, if you’re in the Arts, a common gay stronghold, you’d best be prepared for discrimination if you don’t place your toes precisely on the line.

From the LA Times:

Scott Eckern, the Sacramento theater director whose political donation in support of California’s Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage has become a lightning rod in the debate over gay rights, resigned today. He said he wanted to protect the California Musical Theatre, his artistic home since 1984, from further controversy.

In truth, what happened was this: those opposed to Prop 8 went digging into so-called “public” records regarding donations and discovered that one individual wasn’t toeing the Liberal Leftist line. Then they sought to excoriate and condemn his freedom.

Those persons who hold tolerance and understanding up as their Mantras thence decided:

Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer (“Hairspray”), called Mr. Eckern last week and said that he would not let his work be performed in the theater. “I was uncomfortable with money made off my work being used to put discrimination in the Constitution,” Mr. Shaiman said. He added, however, that the entire episode left him “deeply troubled” because of the potential for backlash against gays who protested Mr. Eckern’s donation.

One comment included the obviously brain-addled:

Hypocrisy and Hate go hand-in-hand… Prop 8 supporters have one commonality: religion. While 70% of black voters unconscionably favored prop HATE = 8 it certainly wasn’t because they were black, otherwise 100% would have. Distressed as I am that the percentage was both surprising and lopsided it’s the affect of religion. Around the world, conflicts are virtually always religious-based. Bible Spice Palin was stumping with red meat speaches which have resulted in violence and possibly a recent killing in MA. These are not disconnected issues. Remember Mathew Shepherd?

So, according to the above comment, only betrayal-“niggers” voted for Proposition 8?

Another comment actually posited some consideration:

Regardless of one’s stance on Proposition 8, it is terrible to see a man forced out of his job for his personal religious beliefs. Of course, if religious groups threatened a boycott over a gay employee of some company, and that company fired that individual, people would be screaming “discrimination.” In a free society, people are allowed to disagree over lifestyle choices, behaviors and beliefs.

Having been to a few musicals, I find the community anything but tolerant, and often downright insulting, to views and ideologies (religious, right-wing) different than their own. The hypocrisy amazes me.

Of course, the really sad thing is that we don’t see organizations and companies standing up for the personal choices of their employees and members – too many in society are not brave enough to stand up and encourage the “agree to disagree” attitude.

Besides, if you’re holding groups responsible for the personal contributions of people involved with that group, then you’re as “evil” and irrational and bigotted as those you claim to be fighting against.

This heralds a New Low for the Left: check the contributory rolls and then excoriate those with whom you disagree: those who are the most vulnerable in terms of their employment.

The gloves are completely off, Boys and Girls. This is a tactic you can expect in the future, particularly when Prop 8 goes back to the ballot: “expose” those who contribute, “out” them, then stand back for the business retribution.

How many of you, now, think that WE should even REMOTELY “play fair”?

Those who claim to be the most tolerant are the least tolerant.

Those who claim not to hate are the most hateful.

They are completely prepared to utilize harrassment, predisposition, overburdening numbers and actual violence to achieve their ends.

What are we prepared to do, to counter this?

BZ

The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (historically, the most overturned court in American history, thankfully) recently ruled that the US Navy could not operate its sonar during training exercises in southern California waters due to alleged “harmful affects” on sea creatures and mammals such as whales, dolphins, etc.

This 9th Circuit ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

On Wednesday, November 12th, the SCOTUS overturned the 9th Circuit (WINTER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ET AL. v NATU-RAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ET AL), to allow the United States Navy to use its sonar.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority and cited “public interest” in crafting the opinion, saying the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines outweighed the interests proffered by the environmentalists.

The injunction leveled upon the US Navy by the 9th Circuit required that it stop using sonar when marine mammals were spotted within 2,200 yards of submarines and vessels utilizing sonar, and to reduce sonar decibel levels under certain ocean conditions.

This time, common sense prevailed and the ability of the United States to continue training to actually defend itself won the day. Still and all, it was a 5-to-4 decision.

Come the time for one, two or even perhaps three potential SCOTUS appointments during the Obama presidency? Obama could nominate, oh, William Ayers or Angela Davis and, with sufficient support, install one of them into SCOTUS.

Here is a typical reactive comment to this ruling, from the LA Times blog:

This ruling makes me sick. We just can’t seem to get it: everything, our entire eco-system, is interconnected. All man does is poison and disrupt the natural harmony of the planet. And the planet will swat us off its face like a irritating gnat one day in return. Wake up! I say dismantle the Navy and honor the whales.

Dismantle the navy. Dismantle the economy. Dismantle our entire defense system. Dismantle our Constitution. Dismantle our society and our entire nation.

We won this one. Today.

Tomorrow? I see illogical and unnecessary catastrophe looming on the immediate horizon, my dear readers.

It appears that corrupt Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska) may possibly be re-elected for his seventh full Senate term; results are not yet final.

That said, there is a forecast that I should care to submit for your consideration:

I posit that Senator Stevens should and will be expelled from the US Senate due to his conviction on seven felony counts last month related to his failure to report gifts from lobbyists.

If Senator Stevens is expelled or, more likely, he decides to resign, that will initiate proceedings to begin for a 90-day special election to replace him. It would also give Republicans a chance to keep the seat out of Democratic hands.

In my opinion, Governor Sarah Palin should step up immediately to vie for this position.

Some Conservatives (and most Leftists) have expressed their obvious rancor in re Palin. I, however, believe her to have an important future with the GOP. So, you want her to acquire experience? You want Palin to acquire savvy, credibility, veritas? This would be the perfect opportunity.

The acknowledgement of the lies revolving around Sarah Palin are just now starting to come in. From Yahoo News:

NEW YORK – MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

And of course this revelation comes, oh, nine days after the election.

The DEM/MSM are such the incredible whores.

A Georgia Congressman wonders out loud:

WASHINGTON (AP) – A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may—may not, I hope not—but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation’s foreign service.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” Obama said in July. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Just as I wrote back on July 18th, Obama knows he cannot lawfully utilize the American military domestically. A “national security force,” call me paranoid or not, cannot bode well for the American people at all — a force equally as strong as the military.

You must ask yourself again: what’s the point? President-elect Obama has lost faith in all local police and sheriff forces nationwide? Every one of them? Since July? And what was that one predicating event, do you think? Any one event? Any reason to negate police forces answerable to their local levels?

I can only see one point, myself. Do what I call the “Logical Extension.”

What’s your Logical Extension?

Word is flittering about that Newt Gingrich or Michael Steele may be interested in RNC (Republic National Committee) Chairman.

Another individual, Jim Nussle (Director of the OMB) plans to run for RNC chair as well.

As far as I am concerned, the RNC needs new blood and it needs it now. Michael Steele would bring that fresh blood but — I’m not convinced he’s the teeth-gnashing, flesh-and-gristle fighter we’d need.

Newt Gingrich would be great — he’s certainly no shrinking violet and he knows his way around a bare knuckles brawl — but I’d have to examine his stand on the environment in much greater detail. Gingrich has said, essentially: “you want me, you got me.”

I wrote letter after letter to the RNC last year (actually, I stuffed their return envelopes with my “form letter”) clearly stating that, until they came around and made President Bush clean up his Conservative act (like that would happen) they weren’t about to receive another penny from me. I was a man of my word.

I’m sure many, many other Conservatives were of a like mind and, hence, the funding for McCain was geometrically exceeded by Obama. No shocker there.

And that’s still true. No money for McCain now, no money for the RNC.

You elect Newt Gingrich or Michael Steele as RNC Chair — you know what? I might write you a check again, boys and girls. “No Names” for the RNC can just Go Home. Unless, of course, you just don’t mind getting your ass handed to you. Again.