Can Republican Congressional candidate Rosie Avila possibly become more offensive? As it stands she combined her campaign kick-off party with an orgy of hatred against gay marriage. Just check out the cake she served (pictured above)! God only knows what sort of cream filling it had.
But just when you thought Rosie had reached the peak of her craziness, wait until you get a look at her new “Rosie the Riveter” campaign poster! (See picture below).
Rosie the Riveter? Has Avila gone completely nuts? When women went to work during World War II they kicked off the modern feminist movement…which flies in the face of Avila’s Talibani brand of Republican politics. This is so ridiculous – Rosie is anti-choice for crying out loud!
If you are as fed up with Rosie as I am go to this link and send her opponent, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, a campaign donation. Or better yet, go to this link and send a donation to No on Prop. 8.
She is so ridiculous. She really isn’t even worth space on this site. She has some of the most absurd conspiracy theories you could ever imagine. If anyone gets the chance, ask her about the FBI’s and CIA’s interest in keeping files on students, she believes they track just about everyone’s move, including those of our school children. She is nuts! Take it from someone who has heard it firsthand, with overhead slides to prove it!
What a joke. She is nothing but a Republican parrot who would only serve as a “yes woman” in the House.
#1
As for the FBI and CIA…haha…I’ll make sure to ask her where they find the time for spying on kids and fighting terrorism.
Award Winner 2008: Most hateful love cake.
SMS
Wayne,
Just because you think the vote of 61% of the people should not be invalidated by 4 judges does not mean that you are full of hate.
Marriage was not created by the state and should not be changed by the state. If the state chooses to recognize marriage fine. If it chooses not to fine.
Some libertarians want marriage left alone and not changed willy-nilly by judges.
#4 Non-religoius marriage is a civil matter. Civil matters can be changed by the state and by judges. If 61% of the state decides that all citizens named christopher be denied rights, then I guess it’a all right to let that stand. Be thankful for judges, even some Rep appointed ones like the 4 who made this decision.
Actually, lets get the government out of the Marriage business. Have the government license civil unions to access government status benefits and burdens and let private churches perform marriages. Separation of church and state. Then the churches can decide if a certain proposed union can be performed in their church. Freedom of Religion should engender sufficient choice and some interesting antics by these religious extremists who want to use religion to discriminate against a portion of the population whose lifestyle they consider unacceptable.
ANON #4 ANON #5
For Clarification, you both should read the decision. The majority (3 Reps/1 Dem) rendered the decision based on existing California case law and the California Constitution. The basis for the decision, as I have written here before, is that this is an equal rights/equal access issue under the California Constitution. The legal reasoning is quite on point and has been reflected in the appellate decisions rendered by Judges (Republican appointees) who found the arguments by the supporters of Proposition 8 to violate the California Constitution and the protections guaranteed to ALL California citizens.
The opposing opinion (3 republicans) was a CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION. These 3 California Supreme Court judges opined that they AGREED WITH THE LEGAL REASONING IN THE MAJORITY OPINION. They disagreed with the remedy-they felt the best remedy to be to overturn the opinion AND have Proposition 22 revoted by the California electorate: In effect maintaining a separate but equal status for those individuals that wished to marry their partner albeit a same-sex marriage. The Majority, to their credit, said discrimination is discrimination: to maintain the current status of Proposition 22 would violate the basic tenets of the California Constitution.
Lets be clear on what the California Supreme Court judges, both majority and minority, said in the decision. Completely understanding the decision, in total, is the only method to clearly understand what was said, aside and apart from the pronouncements by both the supporters and opponents of Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is heading towards a monumental defeat this fall. Despite what some proponents of Propostion 8 say, the leading pollsters in California predict this failure. Does that mean that the opponents of Proposition 8 should let up in their efforts to defeat this proposition? Not at all. The raising of funds and the strategy to defeat Proposition 8 must not stop.
I should also say that no one in their right mind views Avila as a credible individual not to mention a competitive candidate to the Dems’ Sanchez. Centrist Reps realize this. Its the Talibani Reps such as Matt “I dont hide behind an anonymous name even tho I use Jubal as an anonymous name” Cunningham (Red Idiot Report)and Jon “I refuse to turn in my deputy sheriffs badge” Fleischman (Flesh Report) that give Reps a bad name and render the Rep party non-competitive. The Rep candidate cupboard is bare of competitive and centrist Reps interested in running for office. The danger for them is the Talibani Reps of which there are many–just look around you
Art
Rosie the Racist???
is she a candidate in one of the categories for a 2008 Golden Busty award???
Classification: Ethnic Candidate that exemplifies the best racist attitudes in Orange County???
Just thinking out loud
Or a Betty Crocker award for her baking abilities?
Did she use transfats in her cake?
Notice to Singles:
Hey, I’ve been thinking, as singles, I know we would like to have all the tax advantages that married folks have, give one person we love free health insurance, make them eligible for our medicare, medical, tax paid pharmaceuticals, and pass along our social security to them when we die. I think our taxes should pay for this. In fact, we cannot be happy with just that. Don’t we feel denegrated because people don’t think of us as married? Granting us “Civil Single” status is not enough. I believe we have equal rights to the same social status as married men and women, men and men, and women with women. So what do you say? Should we fight for “equal rights” under the constitution, to be called “married”? For this, we don’t need majority rule. Our courts have proven they know better than, and can override the voting public on this issue. Four judges have set the precedent so that we can now demand equal rights. Let’s go!!
I’m being “funny,” but the reason we don’t want to is not simply because we believe in the benefits of marriage to our society, so have always agreed to encourage it by our willingness to pay more tax dollars and other expensive benefits to married men and women. It’s not that. We conceded to also pay benefits to Civil Unions, overlooking our own preferences for what is best for society and how to use our tax dollars. No, while we value the benefits to society that come from unity of man and woman and their children, others said this is unfair so we created Civil Unions for them.
No, our reason for not demanding more as singles runs far deeper. With this change, women, your unique ability to bring femaleness to marriage is rendered irrelevant and, men, your unique ability to bring maleness, with it. A gay woman’s son asked her one day why he did not have a father. He wasn’t asking because he was concerned for equal rights. He noticed there was no one around to model maleness for him. He asked because he wanted someone at home who would throw him a pitch, get excited over a big piece of machinery, talk about dead bugs and other odd things that boys more typically love and girls don’t. He was looking for someone to be tough with when he skins his knee, watch sports and yell at the television with, go fishing and talk about nothing, or about things only other men can fully understand. When he goes to work for a male boss some day he’ll want to understand the nature of that male authority figure. When he dreams of his future family with children, he’ll need to know his maleness matters, and probably hopes he’ll have his own natural born sons and daughters so he can model to them what he’s learned from his dad.
This boy’s gay mother replied to her son that “mommy likes mommies.” Her boy doesn’t have a dad and the reason is not because it is best for her boy, but because it is what mommy wants. This is not about the children, it is about the adults. It is about the adults’ selfish desire for each other, despite everyone else, because they feel they have a “right.”
And no doubt they do have a right to live as they please. But is it what we want to encourage as a society through tax incentives and benefits paid by all, regardless of personal views on this matter? Now that we’ve conceded to Civil Unions, is it called “marriage”?
1% of our population is currently gay. Let’s say it’s actually more than that. These few feel they have the right to marry and raise children in an equally accepted social environment to heterosexual married couples. Yet there is no test that shows it is best, nor even as good for the children. In every other part of their lives we do not subject children to any thing that is not fully tested. Car seats, baby food, toys, we put special locks on our lower cabinets, diapers, even their clothes are sure to be free of any harmful chemicals. But the effect of same-sex parenting on children is completely untested. Yet the obvious says children of same-sex couples will be completely deprived of family modeling from one, rather than both possible genders.
Where empirical testing is possible, in Europe where it has been legal for some time, we see comparatively dramatic increases in teenage pregnancy, early drug abuse, and crime, while heterosexual marriage, which many respected social experts say is foundational to a healthy society, is on the decline.
1% wants to redefine marriage regardless of what the majority, by their “right” to vote, have said they think is best for society. Where are the 1%, their supporters and the four Supreme Court judges on equal rights as it pertains to the majority constitutionally protected voice? The comparison to race discrimination does not hold up and insults those minority races who have suffered serious discrimination based on the color of skin alone. Unlike skin color, partners are chosen. A black man or woman cannot choose to be yellow, brown or white. But I can choose to be “married,” yet choose to be “single.” I don’t expect to be called “married” as the result. I received tax benefits as “head of household” while a single mom raising two children because our society honors family. Gays receive “Civil Union” status and benefits. In fact, Civil Unions with no children receive more benefits than I had as head of household working hard to raise mine alone.
If I want stature in society as a single mom, I’ll earn it. My behavior in society is what gives it to me, not demanding a title that does not describe who I am because I like the stature it gives to those who fulfill its definition.
California is now the only place in the world where you don’t have to be a resident to be married, true if you are gay or otherwise. This means the percentage of gay married couples in California is about to dramatically increase as people come from around the nation and the world to take advantage of our “equal rights” decision. This raises serious questions that no one yet can answer. What if the tables are turned, if 1% heterosexual and 99% gay, what then? Are children and society benefited? If so, let’s encourage it through tax incentives and other benefits, as we have for marriage, but for Civil Unions. But we don’t know that is does and, in fact, impericle evidence shows otherwise.
Given these as precedent, what other self-described groups have equal right to expensive benefits paid by our tax contributions? Singles like me who prefer not to marry? What about men and women who prefer more than one partner? Gays have long been considered “abnormal.” With normalization of their condition or choice, whichever you chose to call it, possibly there will be other life-style choices to follow that will become normalized, as well.
Possibly pedifiles should demand all of the same. All it takes is a desire to learn from recent history to see that what was considered abnormal (gays) yesterday is considered normal today. Therefore more of what is considered abnormal today should be given the “rights” of gays and social status of married couples, if they can be proven “normal” over time, since it is only normalization that drives the change.
Perhaps we should also allow them all to be called “married” so they can enjoy the same social status as a man and woman, and now two women, and two men, and later three women, or singles, or a man and a young boy. This is a sea change in historical thinking, based on a judicial action by four judges that overrode the popular vote.
For those in favor, am I a Christian brainwashed by my belief in the bible, or are you, by your faith in secularism? Are we ready for this? Empirical evidence suggests strongly otherwise and Biblical principals warn strongly against.
I am now hearing many conservatives say they support the change, being fooled by the “equal rights” argument, so that the November vote for marriage amendment is likely to be affected by the “normalization” of this topic. Yet, none of these critical questions are being asked, let alone discussed and definitely not answered.
Let’s not let our confusion be called compassion for a small segment of society who demand special rights and titles while excluding others and refusing to look at the consequences and fairness to all.
Ours is a society formed on biblical principals, no one can argue it. Many believe, including me, that our Constitution is a God inspired document, and our judges have the honorable task of defending it. Those who believe as I do respect our judges and share a fundamental belief in goodness of the American Regiem and soundness of its founding principles. We believe in a higher law and that this country, due to its basic belief in God and Jesus of the bible has made possible the most hopeful set of human relations the world has ever seen. That we are the last great hope in this world. Millions annually flooding our borders confirm.
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the people. The people have voted on this issue.
Finally, and separately, the term separation of church and state traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists (later grossly misused in courts to form contrary agenda to remove God from society), was not intended by Jefferson to protect the state from our churches, but rather to protect our churches from the state. Many who understand this, also believe to stray from the bible is to stray from the original intent of the Constitution.
I concede that our society has become so secularized that many now disagree. But for those who believe the Bible has any authority, and I believe it should, the following two passages, must be taken entirely somehow figuratively, at best, in order to continue in the direction we have now chosen while confident we are on the track led by God as He clearly presents Himself in our bibles:
Romans 1:26-32: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. for even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
1Corinthians 6:8-10: “No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit the kingdom of God.”
http://www.obamacreep.org
Well, it looks like the ‘ No Standards, No Rules ‘ Rules for Radicals -Barack Obama’s mentor Communist Saul Alinsky ( It’s true ! ) folks are up to thier same tricks , as always :
Attempt to smear with any vulgar depraved smear at good, decent. life loving folks who light up the room when they enter, and sending the lewd left Democrat dirty rats scurrying back to their seweraged ‘ life ‘ full of darkness, stench and every foolish antic on display for the world to see.
The Democrts promote all that is crass, worthless, evil , debauched, and lewd in American society. Hence the term ‘ The Lewd Left ‘ . They are the hate mongers.Ours is the God of love, their’s is the God of the penis in the behind of other men; the Father of lies Satan.
During the 90’s Democrat Clinton promotion of the things their men do with each others penises and behinds , High school kids were seen on the front page of the Whittier daily newspaper in an article protesting at the California Stae Capitol Building. The article was titled ‘ Teens Experimenting with Homosexuality ‘ . Note the word ‘ Experimenting ‘ . Theywere not homosexual or lesbian teens , but teens influenced by Bill Clinon and Al Gore’s forcing the homosexual lifestyle in the face of Americans on a daily basis in the Democrat liberal bias news media.
Talk host Michael Medved noted that AIDS is spread mainly by anal penetration by men to men.
We will stand anywhere anytime in the face of any evil Democrat . ” For you Oh’ Lord will bless the righteous, with favor wou will surround him as with a shield. ”
– Psalms 119
David K.
In addition , I’m the person who gave the Rosie the idea to use ‘ Rosie The Riveter ‘ so eat that peice of cake . – David K
You do not believe Rosie Avila can win but : I have seen my prayers answered in ways you would not believe, things so shockingly incredible I can tell you without a doubt God and Jesus Christ here, angels too . I am NOT talking about Pentecostles false laying on of hands and fake speaking in tongues. I am not talking about false images supposedley seen on trees, windows, on a peice of toast, or choclate statues.
Folks one should fear God , that you are not with God.
” With men it is impossible, but with God , all things are possible” – Jesus Christ
” If any have faith as of a mustard seed , he will be able to say to this mountain, ‘ Be ye removed and be cast into the depth of the sea ‘ , and it will be done for him.” – Jesus Christ
” God is able to do exceedingly above all that we ask or think of him …” – Paul the Apostle
If Rosie does not win , it would be because the Lord took her the first 5 rounds , with a knockout punch in the last 5 rounds later !
We do not know what the Lord has in store . We may see our prayes answered this election – Rosie on Capitol Hill in Jan. 2009 challenging the San Fran Gran Nan’ Nancy Pelosi on the House Floor with Rosie’s shining example of grace, beauty, intelligence, wisdom, determination, dignified, honorable, noble representation of her constituents of the 47 th U.S. Congressional Disitrict , and love of Country.
– David K