He reappearance in the forefront of politics reminds me of the new fashion trend that put the "ug" in "ugly". Boot wearing became popular fashion faux pas in the 80's with the pant legs tucked snuggly into the tops. I was in high school at the time and only the sluts wore them. Sorry ladies, Uggs fall into this same myopic view for me. Anyway, Gingrich has a tangenical parallel to these ugly boots in the same way a stupid fad reappears for the next generation.
Gingrich has blasted the court system in response to a Texas Judge's decision, based on the misconception of the elusive Constiutional clause "Separation of Church and State", to ban certain words in school:
In particular, Gingrich has criticized the US. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, on the West Coast, as well as U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Texas, who ruled this year that a public school district in Texas could not, among other things, use the words “prayer,” “amen,” “invocation” or “benediction” during a graduation ceremony.
This is Texas, for crying out loud, where post-church pot lucks are as plentiful as the love of football and the US military. By, the way, just to backtrack a bit, I challenge you to find the clause "Separation of Church and State" in our constiution. Not an interpretation of the Establsihment Clause of the First Amendment mind you, the actual phrase. By the way, if this picture of Newt doesn't scare away voters I don't know what will. Moving on...
Gingrich was doing ok in this latest rant until I read this gem:
...judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage or against prayer in school are “activists” who should be thrown out.
Sorry, Newtie. Freedom doesn't work that way. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it and we live like old school Communist Russia where car drives you. No one gets to dole out their interpreatation of freedom based on the antithesis of their "Icky" factor. Well, at least that's how it is supposed to work.
At least he is condemning "activist judges" and didn't single out either liberal or conservative. In an effort to balance my views and to stimulate intellectual growth, I spend a lot of time reading Huffington Post comment sections. Most commenters are not surprising in their support of all things liberal even to the extent of just making rash statements with no factual basis. Of course this practice is not limited to one political or social ideaology, but I see it more on HuffPo since it is a left leaning news source. It is fun to troll sometimes, however.
Here is an excerpt of a comment from someone named outlandish who has over 3000 followers. I imagine I would have more than my modest 65 if I would litter my comments with "Bush sucks", "I love Obama!" and similar leftists comments that adorn the majority of posts. This person really loves liberal judiciary practices does make a few good points:
"A liberal court will uphold the rights for women to choose and maintain the establishe
A liberal court will protect your property rights and protect your house and land being usurped by a corporatio
A liberal court will decide if police activities and excessive Read More... use of force are justified.
A liberal court will balance out the effects of disenfranc
A liberal court will protect your rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water and eat safe food.
A liberal court will protect you from the excesses of government overreach.
A liberal judge is sworn to uphold the constituti
No wonder the totalitari
It holds far too closely to the American ideal and the rights of the people.
It has opened the door though, for whoever wins the nomination and plays perfectly into upholding corporate citizenshi
A controlled 1 party court is the hallmark for a totalitari
Eye opening, isnt' it? The poster really lives up to the user name 'outlandish'. I have a problem with people who demonize one side and hold up their own as the only way things should be. Liek I said, there are some salient points in that post but there are key phrases which scream "liberal kook" to me- particularly the one where liberal juges swear to uphold the consitution and do. Really? Let us examine some of the more popular decisions cast by liberal judges (that made the news) in a similar posting style as outlandish:
A liberal court will uphold the Second Amendment, but only as little as they can get away with.A liberal court will throw you in jail for shooting an intruder in your own home.
A liberal court will allow a sex offender to continue to live next door to a day care center.
A liberal court will sentence a man to death but rarely carry out the death sentence.
A liberal court will disallow the pledge of allegence in schools and take away the lease of land from Boy Scouts.
A liberal court will vilate Federal Election laws and the 14th amendment.
A liberal court will allow a minor to undergo an abortion in complete secrecy from the parents.
These are all decisions that are provably true and painted with the same broad strokes as my ultra liberal counterparts previous statements about liberal judges. Unfortunately, we need both types of judges to keep somewhat of a balance as they are prone to making laws instead of interpreting them.
It is shaping up to be just like every other election of the last (at least) 20 years where we will be forced to cast a vote for either a turd sandwich or a big douche. Obama will win with another landslide unless the GOP can get someone that will identify with the voters and, more imortantly, do what is best for this country. As it stands, there are slim pickins.