Tag Archives: Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom leads again

Getty Images photo

Gavin Newsom, then still mayor of San Francisco, is pictured above marrying lesbian activists Del Martin (left) and Phyllis Lyon (right) at San Francisco City Hall when same-sex marriage briefly was legal in California in 2008 (after a California Supreme Court ruling) before being shot down again by California Proposition H8 (and before being made legal again by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015). Martin, who had been with Lyon for more than 50 years before they were married in San Francisco in 2004 before having that marriage declared null and void, died two months after the photo above was taken. Then, as he is now, Newsom was ahead of his time.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’

“But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

— Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:38 and 5:39

Oh, to be surrounded by so many “Christians”!

These “Christians” (and some ignorant, hateful others) are pissed off that recently elected California Gov. Gavin Newsom this past week announced that as long as he’s governor — he just started his first four-year term and probably will get another term — no one on California’s death row (there are more than 700 of them) will be executed.

He doesn’t have the power to eliminate the death penalty in the state altogether, but as governor he does have the power to suspend executions.

I expect that the death penalty will be in abolished in California before Newsom is out of office.

Why?

Let’s back up a little bit: It’s much reported that Newsom has suspended state executions against the will of California voters. That’s pretty much bullshit.

California voters last weighed in on the death penalty in November 2016, but the statewide ballot measure that would have repealed the death penalty that the voters shot down didn’t lose overwhelmingly. It was 53 percent don’t repeal to 47 percent repeal.

Another death-penalty-related ballot measure on the same ballot, a really mean-spirited one, sped up the process in which the state should commit executions (because When the penalty is your life, hey, let’s get this over with already! What could go wrong?), but that one passed by only 51 percent to 49 percent.

Newsom isn’t up for re-election until November 2022. By then, I’m confident, the needle will have moved to majority opposition to the death penalty in the state of California.

And Newsom — who moved the needle on same-sex marriage when, as mayor of San Francisco, he declared same-sex marriage legal in his jurisdiction in 2004* — is moving that needle.

Newsom was elected governor over his Repugnican opponent in November 2018 by 62 percent to 38 percent, and in this solidly blue state he has the political capital with which to move the needle.

Those who have been iffy on the death penalty but who support Newsom and the Democratic Party are going to find their support for Newsom and the Democratic Party to be more important than any tepid support that they might have had for the death penalty.

And sure, let’s talk about the will of the California voters. Again, only a slim majority of them backed the death penalty — more than two years ago. A super-majority of them voted for Newsom about four months ago.

The bloodthirsty California wingnuts (a minority in the state, thank Goddess), as usual, don’t even make any fucking sense on this issue. The last person executed in California was way back in 2006, under then-Gov. Arnold “Baby Daddy” Schwarzenegger (a Repugnican, of course), and the executed was a legally blind and diabetic 76-year-old man in a wheelchair. (Woo hoo! “Justice”!)

For the past 13 years there have been no executions in California, but now it’s “important” that we crank up the lethal injection machine?

It’s not that I don’t have sympathy for the survivors of those who have been murdered by stone-cold killers (the term that the wingnuts love to use). If a loved one of mine were murdered, no, of course I wouldn’t be happy. I might come to a place of forgiveness for the murderer, but probably not initially, during the shock of the event.

But the prime objective is to prevent the convicted murderer from ever murdering again, and keeping him or her in prison for life accomplishes that objective.

For the state to say, “Killing is wrong, so we’re going to kill you because you killed” not only is anti-Christian (see Jesus Christ’s straightforward rejection of revenge above), but it defies logic and reason. Acting as much as the animal as the animal is not civilized.

Even if you are indifferent to whether a convicted murderer is executed or is imprisoned for life, know that the costs to the taxpayer surrounding the death penalty are significantly higher than simply allowing the convicted murderer to die in prison, which itself is a pretty fucking harsh penalty.

And don’t get me wrong on Gavin Newsom. His style always has rubbed me the wrong way; he’s too slick for my tastes. (And I am disappointed that he has endorsed fellow Californian Kamala Harris, a “progressive” come lately, for president, which was premature at best.)

I did vote for Newsom in November, but that largely was because in California’s top-two system, I wanted the Democratic gubernatorial candidate to have every possible vote over his God-awful (redundant) Repugnican candidate. (And I am registered not as a Democrat, but as an independent — because I’m pretty left of center and that’s not where nearly enough so-called “Democrats” are.)

But while he’s not my style, Newsom is a leader, and I’ve long defined a leader as someone who doesn’t just follow along where the majority already is, but who pushes the majority to where they need to go.

By that measure, Gavin Newsom is a leader.**

He led on same-sex marriage, and he’s leading on the abolition of the death penalty, not just in California, but nationally.

P.S. I just saw this paragraph in a Politico story:

Mark Baldassare, head of the Public Policy Institute of California, says that his organization’s polling over the years has consistently shown that around 55 percent of Californians back the idea of life imprisonment over the death penalty. But “that can change’’ during high-profile ballot campaigns, when voters are often reminded of specific heinous crimes, boosting their support of the death penalty, he warns.

Indeed, the people of California apparently already are with Newsom on this, but yes, it’s easy to exploit the issue by appealing to fear and emotion over logic and reason.

*As mayor Newsom did not have the authority to declare same-sex marriage legal in his jurisdiction, and the California Supreme Court later shot him (and those marriages) down.

But, of course, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling same-sex marriage the law of the land in 2015, history has absolved Newsom, who was ahead of history.

**As is Bernie Sanders, who has redefined the positions that a Democrat (or a Democrat in name only…) must take if he or she wants the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Sanders has moved the party to the left quite significantly (something that even one of his detractors had to admit).

Of course, as I’ve written before, I prefer the one who moved the ideas into the mainstream, not anyone who only has followed along and who, if elected, probably wouldn’t actually try very hard to enact these ideas, since he or she didn’t generate them in the first fucking place.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Farewell, Jerry

The modernist official gubernatorial portrait of Jerry Brown was painted by Don Bachardy in 1984 after Brown’s first stint as California governor from 1975 to 1983. Brown was re-elected to two more terms in 2010 and 2014.*

Times flies.

I recall 2010, when I saw Jerry Brown at a couple of public campaign events, excited that he most likely would be elected California’s governor again. (His opponent in 2010 was self-funded billionaire Nutmeg Whitman, who wanted to be governor because as a brat she never got that pony, I joked at the time.)

For the past eight years Brown wasn’t a particularly exciting, but he was a very competent and stable, governor of the nation’s most populous state.

To name just one of his accomplishments, despite the fact that the wingnuts, who always are fact-free, still claim that California is in a deep state budget deficit because of that liberal tax-and-spend thing, dontcha know, Brown turned the $26 billion budget deficit that he inherited from Repugnican Arnold Baby Daddy Schwarzenegger in January 2011 into a current $14 billion surplus. (Brown erased the budget deficit within a few years of taking over the governorship again.)

This is the pattern — Repugnicans dig us into holes and Democrats get us out of them, even though the wingtards claim that the exact opposite is the case.

Probably Brown’s No. 1 cause in his second round as governor has been climate change, against which he made some notable progress, although he was hamstrung by a fairly do-nothing Obama administration and a climate-change-denying Pussygrabber administration.

If it weren’t for his age (he’s 80), I think that Brown would be a great presidential candidate. (And it’s not so much that he isn’t functioning well enough at eight decades, but that the public perception is that he’s too old to be president, and in politics, public perception, no matter how misguided, is as good as reality.)

I wish Jerry Brown the best in his remaining days (years, hopefully), and I hope that incoming Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is inaugurated on Monday, keeps the gains that Brown brought to the nation’s greatest state.

*Brown was able to run for governor again in 2010 because the two-term limit for California’s governor became effective only after he’d already been governor in the 1970s and 1980s.

If Brown could have run for a third term and decided to do so, he would have won it, I’m sure.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sen. Cryptkeeper to announce positions on horseless carriages, child labor, iceboxes, moving pictures, etc.

Tales from the Crypt: The Complete First Season (DVD) - cover

California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who turns 85 years old this month, and who is pictured above, I’m pretty sure, suddenly conveniently supports things that she long used to oppose, which, she assures us, has nothing to do with the November election.

In Tuesday’s primary election in California, I wanted, above all else, only two things: for actual Democrat Kevin de León to make it into November’s election for U.S. senator against incumbent Repugnican Lite Dianne “Cryptkeeper” Feinstein and for Repugnican Lite Antonio Villaraigosa not to make it into November’s election for governor against Gavin Newsom.

I got both wishes.

Stick a fork in Villaraigosa; he’s done. Thus far he is at a distant third place in California’s top-two (a.k.a. “jungle”) primary system (in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation), well behind the No. 2 candidate, a Repugnican whose sorry ass Newsom will hand to him on a silver platter in November.

Don’t get me wrong; Newsom is competent but imperfect, and we’ll see how he governs the state. I am hopeful, but I make no starry-eyed predictions.

The real race for November in California, then, is between Kevin de León and Cryptkeeper, and, sadly, if I’m to be honest, it might take Cryptkeeper’s death to take De León to D.C., because Californians stupidly stubbornly remain attached to Cryptkeeper.

Thus far, Cryptkeeper has 44 percent of the primary vote to De León’s 11.5 percent, with a mostly unknown Repugnican in third place, approaching 9 percent.

Very apparently November’s will be the second U.S. Senate race in California in a row in which a Repugnican wasn’t on the ballot, but in which two Democrats were. (In 2016, it was Kamala Harris and the awful DINO Loretta Sanchez, who never was serious competition against Harris, who won largely by just not acting insanely, as Sanchez did routinely.)

Cryptkeeper has advantages that De León does not: She’s been around since the invention of dirt, and thus her name recognition in California is incredibly high, and, being a multi-millionaire, she has millions of her own dollars that she is pumping into her race (at least $5 million thus far).

She also, of course, has the staunch, blindly obedient support of the so-called Democratic establishment, the very same fucking geniuses who thought that it was a great idea to run the widely despised Repugnican Lite Billary Clinton — instead of the wildly popular genuine populist Bernie Sanders — against Pussygrabber.

Also, because Cryptkeeper is far more like a moderate Repugnican than an actual Democrat (that is, progressive), my guess is that many of California’s Repugnican voters, lacking a member of their own party on the ballot for U.S. Senate, will hold their noses and vote for Cryptkeeper, believing, correctly, that she’s far better for them and their treasure chests and their backasswards social and socioeconomic views than is the actual Democrat in the U.S. Senate race, Kevin de León.

When I say that it might have to take the death of the soon-to-be 85-year-old Cryptkeeper to put De León in the U.S. Senate, I’m being at least half-serious.

In the meantime, it’s nauseatingly amusing to see the new policy positions that Cryptkeeper is taking now in order to try to fend off any threat that De León might pose to her.

Cryptkeeper just recently reversed her stance on the death penalty, which she used to staunchly support but now conveniently opposes, and just recently conveniently reversed her stance on the use of recreational marijuana (only after the majority of the state’s voters approved it in November 2016).

There has been no news yet on how Cryptkeeper feels about other social issues and technological developments, such as indentured servitude, indoor plumbing, child labor, horseless carriages, electricity, penicillin, The Pill, and even whether or not we should allow women to vote.

It will be exciting over the next five months to hear how she has “evolved” on issues on which she always should have been leading, not fucking following, since she first was elected to the Senate way, way back in 1992.

Californians who vote for Cryptkeeper in November, if they incredibly lazily and stupidly give her yet another term, will get exactly what they deserve: only even more of the same old, same old. Literally as well as figuratively.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kevin de León denies Sen. Cryptkeeper state Democratic Party endorsement

Image result for Kevin De Leon Dianne Feinstein

California State Sen. President Kevin de León (pictured above left) yesterday won 54 percent of the vote of the delegates at the annual state Democratic Party convention in San Diego, a crushing blow to Sen. Dianne “Cryptkeeper” Feinstein (above right), whose name depressingly and oppressively has been on the ballot for the past 25 years. Cryptkeeper won only 37 percent of the delegates’ votes — 485 fewer votes than de León won.

Wow. For a little while I was a little worried about Kevin de León’s bravely insurgent campaign for the U.S. Senate seat for California that the ancient, Democrat-in-name-only Dianne Feinstein — whom I lovingly think of as “Cryptkeeper” — has held with a death grip since 1992.

No more.

Not only did de León recently win the endorsement of the nation’s largest state’s largest public-sector union, the Service Employees International Union (for once the Billary-Clinton-loving union to which I belong got a political endorsement right), but yesterday at the annual state Democratic Party convention, de León handily denied Cryptkeeper the state party’s endorsement.

It’s a high bar to win the state party’s endorsement — a vote of at least 60 percent of the delegates to the convention — but not only did de León deny Cryptkeeper that 60 percent, but he blew her out of the water: De León won 54 percent of the delegates’ votes to Cryptkeeper’s 37 percent.

Again: Wow.

The Los Angeles Times calls it “an embarrassing rebuke of” Cryptkeeper and notes that “Though de León did not get the endorsement, his success in blocking Feinstein from receiving it shows that his calls for generational change and a more aggressively liberal path have resonated with some of the party’s most passionate activists.”

Of course multi-millionaire Cryptkeeper, one of the wealthiest U.S. senators, has more campaign cash in the bank (including at least a cool $5 million that she gave herself) than does de León, and of course because of her name recognition (she has been around longer than has God), Cryptkeeper is polling better right now than is the much-less-known de León, but de León’s big wins — such as winning the majority of the state party delegates’ votes and winning not only SEIU’s endorsement but also the California Nurses Association’s — demonstrate that not only is de León a serious contender, but that plenty of Californians have had it with the plutocratic Cryptkeeper’s center-right bullshit and wish her gone.

I expect de León’s coffers to fill soon, and I expect his poll numbers to climb the more that Californians realize what a winner he is. And I expect more labor unions to endorse him, and without labor unions’ help, I can’t see Cryptkeeper winning. Her big money alone won’t be enough; she’ll have to actually earn enough votes.

The 84-year-old Cryptkeeper could have saved herself this embarrassment and stepped down, but she’s been tone-deaf to her constituency, who is to the left of her on many if not most issues, for years. The only reason that they’ve been re-electing her is that this is the first time that a viable alternative has emerged.

Cryptkeeper is no longer inevitable, and that’s great news not only for the people of California, but for all Americans who are affected by Cryptkeeper’s center-right votes in the U.S. Senate.

P.S. Also yesterday, California gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom (who also has been endorsed by SEIU) garnered more votes for a state party endorsement than did any other candidate, with 39 percent.

While DINO Antonio Villaraigosa and Newsom have been in the top two in polling, yesterday Villaraigosa came in at fourth place in the endorsement vote, garnering only 9 percent. (The second-place winner garnered 30 percent and the third-place winner garnered 20 percent, and because there are so many Democratic gubernatorial candidates, it wasn’t expected that any one of them would reach the 60-percent mark necessary for an endorsement from the state party.)

I expect Newsom, who is my imperfect-but-preferred candidate, to become California’s next governor.

Some are saying that these votes for state party endorsements reflect only the wishes of party insiders, but these so-called party insiders are dispersed throughout the state and they are opinion leaders. These state party endorsement votes aren’t meaningless, even though both de León and Newsom fell short of 60 percent (which, in my opinion, should be reduced to anything above 50 percent).

P.P.S. I should note that under California’s top-two primary system, the top-two vote-getters (regardless of party) in the state’s June 5 primary will move on to the November general election, and I expect the top two to be Kevin de León and Cryptkeeper. (In 2016, there were only two Democrats on the ballot for U.S. Senator for California, Kamala Harris and a nut job who didn’t stand a chance against Harris.)

Some have posited that because Cryptkeeper is center-right — that is, Repugnican Lite — the state’s Repugnicans will vote for her, figuring (correctly) that she’s closer to their political orientation than is de León.

But I don’t know about that. I’d have to see a poll or polls of registered Repugnicans that asks whether or not in a de León-vs.-Cryptkeeper race they’d vote for Cryptkeeper or not vote at all. I surmise that most of the state’s Repugs wouldn’t vote for a Dem, not even DINO Cryptkeeper.

In any event, for de León to win, it’s going to take grassroots support. He doesn’t need as much money as Cryptkeeper does, but he does need those of us who are left of center to vote.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Jerry Brown for California’s next guv

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formally announces his candidacy ...

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formally announces his candidacy ...

Associated Press photos

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pictured above announcing his gubernatorial candidacy today at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., apparently thinks that associating himself with the latest social networking technology will win him California’s governorship. Although Newsom admittedly is slicker than a used car salesman, he’s dead wrong. Substance matters, and therefore I’m supporting Jerry Brown, pictured below with his parents when he was just re-elected as California governor in 1978 and pictured earlier this month in Oakland. Brown now is California’s attorney general.

FILE - In this Nov. 1978 black-and-white file photo,  Jerry ...

California Attorney General Jerry Brown poses for a portrait ...

Associated Press photos

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formally has announced his bid for the 2010 Democratic nomination for California governor.

Newsom, who in 2004 infamously allowed same-sex couples to marry in San Francisco (only to have those marriages later invalidated by the state Supreme Court…), is fairly popular among the non-heterosexual and the younger crowds, but my choice for California’s next governor is current state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who was California’s governor from 1975 to 1983.

I usually would support the candidate in my age cohort (Newsom and I both are 41), but Brown (who is 71) is the candidate I’d much rather have in the top state office.

Brown has done the job before, whereas voters, I think, will regard Newsom (correctly) as way too wet behind the ears.

Newsom also is pretty fucking scandalous; he had an affair with his secretary, who was the wife of his campaign manager and his good friend, which indicates that he has serious character issues, to put it mildly, and many regard his 2004 decision to order the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a poorly conceived political stunt that harmed John Kerry and the gay-rights movement at the presidential polls later in the year. (Some even blame Newsom in part for the narrow passage of Proposition 8 in November.)

Whether Newsom in 2004 was pandering to the gay and lesbian and the liberal votes or not, the fact that those same-sex marriages in San Francisco later were annulled by the state Supreme Court because they violated state law as it existed at that time didn’t serve well those same-sex couples who got married under Newsom’s short-lived decree.

Hopefully Newsom since has gotten his apparent impulse-control problem under control.

Jerry Brown, I think, would be a steadier hand at the helm. His decision as the state’s attorney general to recommend to the state Supreme Court that the court strike down Proposition Hate — er, Proposition 8 — was pro-gay-and-lesbian but was more sensible than was Newsom’s 2004 action, and Brown’s Prop 8 action most likely will have a much more positive impact for California’s same-sex couples than did Newsom’s impulsive 2004 action.    

Newsom is the slicker candidate of the two, to be sure. He will employ the latest technology and appeal to younger voters in his campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. (Indeed, he already has; according to the San Francisco Chronicle’s website, Newsom employed Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to make his official gubernatorial campaign announcement. Ooooo! Ahhhhhhh!)

I’m going to go for substance over sheen, and that’s why Jerry Brown is my pick over Gavin Newsom, hands down, for the 2010 Democratic nomination for governor of California.

P.S. I just watched Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign announcement on YouTube. The video reminded me of why I gave money to his Green Party opponent Matt Gonzalez when Gonzalez ran against Newsom for San Francisco mayor in 2003.

Newsom comes off as nauseatingly fake and phony in the video. Is there a genuine bone in his body? (Speaking of which, can those be his real teeth?)

The metrosexual Newsom reminds me way too much of a spoiled rich frat boy for me to be able to support him for governor.

No, California, the most populous state of the nation, needs an experienced leader, not a guy who comes off as a pretty-boy punk pandering to techies. 

Jerry Brown has my full support.

P.P.S. All of that said, Brown hasn’t formally announced his candidacy yet, but he is expected to run. If Brown doesn’t run and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa runs (as there has been talk about), then my support will go to the 56-year-old Villaraigosa.

Anyone but Newsom…

P.P.P.S. OK, so a Field Poll released last month concluded:

In the Democratic [California gubernatorial] primary U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein is way out in front of her Democratic challengers should she decide to seek her party’s nomination. She currently is the choice of 38 percent of Democratic primary voters. Following her are state Attorney General Jerry Brown and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who both have 16 percent support. [In this scenario, Newsom garners only 10 percent, the Field Poll reports.]

Should Feinstein decide against running, the race becomes a much closer contest. In this setting Brown is preferred by 26 percent and Villaraigosa is backed by 22 percent. [In this scenario] Newsom is running third at 16 percent, followed by Lt. Governor John Garamendi at 8 percent.

Garamendi shouldn’t even think about running for the governorship under any circumstances; he cannot win. If Feinstein runs, Newsom wouldn’t have a chance.

If Feinstein doesn’t run, Brown would be in the lead, with Villaraigosa at his heels, the poll indicates.

Thankfully, Feinstein — whom I lovingly think of as Mrs. Joseph Lieberman — is not expected to run for governor. While I wrote “Anyone but Newsom,” I actually would prefer Newsom to the crusty, fossilized DINO (Democrat in name only) Feinstein, and I can’t stand Newsom.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Prick Warren speaks with forked tongue

I noticed this yesterday but didn’t comment on it at the time. I should have.

In his little “news and views” (nice euphemism for “propaganda”) video for his congregants, Prick Warren tells his congregants that he absolutely never compared same-sex marriage to incestual marriage or pedophilic marriage. He stated that his comments during his interview with Beliefnet had been taken out of context, distorted.

I had thought that maybe he was telling the truth.

But then I saw the actual video clip of his interview with Beliefnet, and yeah, it’s pretty fucking inarguable that the motherfucking liar indeed compared same-sex marriage to pedophilic and incestual marriage (and to polygamy, too; for some reason he left bestiality out…).

It’s a long video on Prick Warren — almost 15 minutes long — with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, but it’s worth watching in its entirety. Maddow rocks to the extent that Prick Warren sucks ass to the point that he should just donate his organs now so that someone else can make better use of them.

Oh, and you have to see San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in his interview with Maddow, tap dance around the fact that in San Francisco he has to be pro-gay and lesbian in order to survive politically, but President-elect Barack Obama, like Prick Warren, publicly opposes same-sex marriage and has thrown gay men and lesbians under the bus, yet Newsom has to cozy up to the president-elect, too.

In his interview Newsom doesn’t quite make it work with Maddow, who lets him off way too easily (I guess that she wanted to be able to interview him again…), and if you have a pulse you will see that Newsom has sold his soul to the Democratic Party machine — which is why when he ran for mayor in 2003 I gave his opponent, Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party, a campaign donation even though I live in Sacramento. (Despite the fact that Newsom brought in the Democratic Party machine’s biggest guns, including Billary Clinton and Al Gore, to campaign for him, despite the fact that he outspent Gonzalez by at least 4 to 1, and despite the fact that the number of San Francisco residents registered under the Green Party was less than 5 percent, Gonzalez lost to Democratic Party hack Newsom by only single digits.)

But back to Prick Warren:

That he feels the need to bold-facedly lie to his own congregants about his hateful, ignorant, bigoted comments on same-sex marriage demonstrates that increasingly, open homophobia, just like open racism, is becoming less and less socially acceptable among polite/”polite” company.

Not that someone isn’t a homophobe because he or she doesn’t make overtly homophobic remarks.* But when the haters are in an environment that is not conducive to their hate, it’s harder for their hate to thrive.

And you know what? Lying is a sin, even if you’re a stupid white male baby-boomer pastor who has made millions of dollars from “The Secret”-like bullshit books and spin-offs. (I love how baby boomers — who have nearly destroyed the nation — write self-help and advice books, because clearly they know what they’re doing and thus we should follow them. I mean, the proof is in the pudding, no?)

And if Prick Warren will lie through his fangs to his congregants about what he said on camera, what does that say about his character?

Prick Warren is one of the false prophets that the Bible warns you about.

P.S. OK, another video clip of Rachel Maddow on Prick Warren. If you don’t want to watch the full almost-15-minute video clip that I referenced above, you can watch this shorter one (it’s under three minutes) that captures Warren’s bold-faced lie using the two clips of him side by side.

And also in this clip of Maddow’s show, Warren pretty much asserts that when his opponents voice their opposition to him, it’s “hate speech,” but that everything that he and his supporters can only be construed as wuv. Fucking hypocrite.

And it’s funny (in a deeply unsettling sort of way) when wingnuts like Prick Warren talk about how much they just wuv free speech when you know that if they could silence their detractors, they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

In the video clips of Warren that I’ve watched, it’s pretty apparent that he claims that he “loves” gay men and lesbians only because the Bible instructs that we all must love one another, and that he advocates free speech only because it’s enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Warren very apparently does not feel the spirit of love or the spirit of free speech within his being, and it’s only written codes, apparently, that stop him from expressing what’s truly in his heart, which is hatred and violence (silencing your opponents falls under violence, in my book).

I mean, if the wingnuts could alter the U.S. Constitution to strip their opponents of free-speech rights, do you think that they’d hesitate for a fucking heartbeart to do so? With Proposition 8, the wingnuts tried to strip gay men and lesbians of their equal human and civil rights guaranteed to them by the California Constitution. (The Repugnican-dominated California Supreme Court, which in May ruled that the California Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage, will, I surmise, strike down Proposition 8 as California’s attorney general, among others, has asked the court to do.)

Last but certainly not list, in this second video clip of Maddow’s show, Warren also uses the term “Christophobia” to describe his opponents. Let me set the lying, motherfucking false prophet straight (so to speak…) on that:

If “Christians” of Warren’s ilk actually followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, I’d love them to death. See, I’ve actually read the New Testament, and Jesus Christ says not a single fucking word on the topic of homosexuality. The “Christo”fascists pull all of their homophobic rhetoric from the Old Testament, because the Old Testament is full of ignorance and fear, and thus the “Christo”fascists gravitate to the Old Testament. (About the only thing they like about the New Testament is the Book of Revelations, which, like the Old Testament, is chock full o’ ignorance and fear, and which has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but which was fabricated long after his death.)

Now, to me, if you are a Christian, that means that you actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught things like love and acceptance — true love and acceptance, not the kind of “love and acceptance” in which you try to strip gay men and lesbians of their constitutionally guaranteed equal civil and human rights and/or assert that they’re (probably) going to hell — but still claim that you wuv them nonetheless.

Jesus Christ was not like a red-state fucktard (boy, that’s redundant). Jesus Christ was a flaming liberal, a progressive radical:

Che jesus.jpg

from Wikipedia.org

Jesus Christ rocked.

I’m not a “Christophobe.” I’m a pseudoprophetophobe.

I don’t hate Jesus Christ or true Christians, who are exceedingly rare. I hate false prophets like Prick Warren, who claim that when you attack them for their evil you are attacking Jesus Christ — because the Prick Warrens of the world, in their arrogance and in their blasphemy, compare themselves to God and to Jesus Christ, when, in fact, they paradoxically are about as anti-Christian as you can get.

*My maternal grandmother, who waited far too long to die, was a huge fucking racist who knew that it was politically incorrect to make overtly racist comments in “polite”/polite company. But her racist views were glaringly apparent nonetheless from her “nice” racist statements. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized