If Gonzales is replaced by Homeland Insecurity head Michael Chertoff, CNN reports sources say that DHS will be headed up by Clay Johnson III, the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget.
It would be yet another hack appointment, a friend of Bush, completely unqualified to defend the homeland, as it were. Think Progress:
Johnson, who has no homeland security experience, is a professional Bush loyalist. While Johnson may have familiarity with some aspects of DHS's budget, he appears to have no experience in the many responsibilities of the department, including immigration, air travel security, disaster response, and other aspects of our nation’s homeland defense.
This video had me laughing till the tears streamed down my face. If you haven't heard of bogus "faith healer" and spewer of failed prophecies Benny Hinn, let this be your introduction to his "powers":
One of his many failed prophecies:
"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed." -- Orlando Christian Center, Dec. 31st, 1989
Kevin McCullough of Townhall, and the aptly named, Musclehead Revolution (Christianity Today has called him "the heir apparent to Dobson and Falwell"). He's whining about "angry gay bloggers," specifically NGBlog and OutsideTheTent, for "misreporting" on his work. If I had a nickel for all the instances when gay bloggers have had their words twisted by fundies.
Boo hoo, Kevin. How can anyone take you seriously when you say things like this, because "science says so":
[S]exual behavior is entirely a choice and something they can control - and race is not.
In other words - we can not codify into law, preferences based on someone's choices. Whereas equal rights can never be disallowed for someone's state of being. No one has a choice on their skin color. Everyone has a choice in their behavior.
It is the totality of the entire debate between changing marriage laws to include non-marital unions or not too. The argument these angry gay bloggers and other radicals in the homosexual community have made is that because they were "born that way" they deserve the same special protections as actual minorities.
Ah yes, reducing orientation to sex acts alone -- the stale argument of the right wing. So one's gender identity must also be a choice in Kevin's eyes -- you simply need to go to the store and pick out clothing appropriate to your birth genitalia.
It's more than whether it's a "choice" as we see it -- McCullough sees bisexuality as "part-time homosexuality" -- religion is a choice as well, so how is "choice" a threshold for civil rights? For the wingers, their illogical reference to choice is that somehow a decision to have homosexual sex is a choice, yet heterosexual attraction/sex is not, it's God-ordained appropriate fitting of parts with a goal (procreation), and therefore any other sexual activity is against nature, Satanic, and those that participate in it are deviant. I doubt McCullough feels that he "chose" to be heterosexual.
Again -- whiny baby Kevin is upset that he's being chastised by the homos. We should be showering him with hugs, kisses, and flowers for truth-telling statements like these:
If they were to choose to engage in sex acts a thousand times over, their biological machinery would never produce what is needed - but for a different reason. There is no dysfunction in this case. Instead, the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don't fit.
Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on.
For instance, a woman who engages in lesbianism will never know the joy of lovemaking that creates within her the product of that union -- an actual human life. She will never know the security of a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world and providing for her an environment where she can nurture and give love to that little life once it arrives, or the stamp of approval that God puts on such an experience. And because she and her partner know this, they must defy reason, biology and sexual function to create children and experiences that serve as faulty substitutes for that God-ordained picture.
Likewise, a man who seeks his perverse kicks by depositing the seed of life in, shall we say, non-life-giving cavities, may know orgasm, but never complete union, as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.
If it wasn't bad enough that his singing and songwriting skills leave much to be desired ("Girls, he’s lying when he says he needs it. Boys, she’s going to give you a disease."), but he's also a "former homosexual" (he "lived in the homosexual lifestyle for nearly twenty years" and repented). Yes, an ex-gay -- though I don't think anyone will pay him to go professional in that regard.
Without further delay, view the live performance (with a mocking audience) of his epic ditty, "It's Not OK To Be Gay! (It's not OK to be a homo)"
Beware -- this outlandish song will stick in your head.
"Boys, keep it in your pants...keep your clothes on, keep your clothes on...wait till you're married to get it on." -- Robert Breaud, "Abstinence" via GodTube
No warrants necessary. And the Dems let him have it. (NYT):
President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.
Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.
They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.
...Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States....
By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.
For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.
"All [the government have] to do is claim that the real target is the foreigner and that a 'significant purpose' of the eavesdropping is related to intelligence gathering. Not terrorism, mind you, just intelligence generically. What's more, they don't even have to go to the minimal trouble of making that claim to a court. They can just make it and approve it themselves. So that's that. The government is now legally allowed to monitor all your calls overseas with only the most minimal oversight. But don't worry. I'm sure they'll never misuse this power. They never have before, have they?"
[S]exual behavior is entirely a choice and something they can control - and race is not.
