FYI here's the people opposing the tea parties:
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/201 ... other.html
let's run down the list:
openly socialist/communist
they want black reparations
they depend on the government to create jobs (something they can't do)
pro-abortion
anti-Israel and probably anti-Jew
they don't denounce hamas and islamo-fascism/terrorism
they believe America is the root cause of poverty in the world
anti-capitalists
pro-illegal immigration

they were bussed in by their unions, given free lunch and free rides and many were on the clock while in attendance
this was the definition of an "astro-turf" movement, as Nacy Pelosi likes to call it. Beck's rally didnt have free busing or mandatory attendance by a few dozen unions, it was some 500,000 people taking their families across country to see the capitol and the rally. i spoke to tons of people from the mid-west and west coast. we saw license plates from the 4 corners of the state, including alaska. they werent being paid or compensated for coming. they werent given a free lunch or told by their job that they had to show up.

So which group is the mainstream group here, the tea parties or these nutjobs?

I fucking hate those people. Someone should put them all on a boat and rig it with explosives.

yeah fundamentalists are retards (in all seriousness)

Audio from talk show host Mark Levin about the Christine O'Donnell 1st amendment/separation of church and state "gaff":

http://www.l33tincorporated.info/audio/ ... ligion.mp3

Audio is long, but it DEMOLISHES the idea of "separation of church and state". The 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of religion, aka the establishment clause. This, for 175years, meant simply that the federal government could not impose on anyone/select a national religion, prevents a religion from controlling the government (a theocracy like King George being the head of the english church he created or modern Iran with the state islamic church formally running the government), and also from government intruding into religion.

There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution; it was created out of thin air by a court less than 75 years ago largely by an anti-Catholic Klansman SCOTUS justice and pro-secular, anti-religion justices. These people want religion removed entirely from society, and especially on public display. before this court decision, there was no precedent in US history to back up the removal of personal beliefs from public grounds, nor should there be. The constitution doesn't bar it from public grounds just as it doesnt bar you from putting a baby jeebus on your front yard.

Our money says In God We Trust; the pledge of allegiance even states we are "one nation, under god"; and court houses have displayed the ten commandments and other christian ideals for 200 years. What happened was that progressive lawyers during this era, which really began under Wilson and exploded under FDR, believed that, contrary to the express and explicit beliefs of the founding fathers, the Constitution was open to interpretation that changed based on the times. This is patently and completely false and has no historical basis. These were ideologues who wanted to "fundamentally change America" and found that the easiest way was skip passing new laws or Amendments (most fundamental, game-changing laws were done as Amendments back then) since these could be repealed and to fundamentally change the way in which lawyers and judges interpreted the law itself.

When you say that the constitution is open to interpretation "of the day", you're saying that the law doesnt matter since it can change. laws themselves do not change, neither does the constitution. This is precisely why the amendment process exists, to fundamentally change law or adjust "for the times", but since even these laws arent guaranteed permanency, if you change how you apply the law, you can literally do almost anything you want.

This is exactly what Hugo Black and the other 4 justices did when ruling that the 1st amendment meant there was "a wall" between religion and government. they reinterpreted the Constitution to accomplish their goal: reduce the role of religion. This process has been going on at least since FDR in the 30s and has changed how the constitution is applied and taught. This has been the single greatest process opposing liberty and freedom in this country, when your laws take on new meaning without the words ever changing, you can have whatever laws you want.

FUCKING WOOT

that is all.

This is why Prop 19 failed: