Out-Of-State Hate, Complete With Fake Gay Sniper Video

Via WVBlue, I see that some out-of-state goober has decided the strategery for WV’s Republican party in the 2010 election cycle is….*sound of trumpets*…SCARY GAY PEOPLE!

Complete with an offensive video (YouTube) that includes a gay sniper about to shoot at a family blowing bubbles.  I kid you not.  The sniper scope view aimed at the heterosexual family shows up at :58.

Beyond offensive.

Why target WV?   Because they think we are too stupid to think for ourselves.  We’ve had to deal with this level of GOP dumbassery before:

Campaign literature mailed by the Republican National Committee warns voters in two states that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if "liberals" win in November.

The New York Times reported that the mass mailing was sent to voters in Arkansas and West Virginia, and was part of a GOP effort to mobilize religious voters.

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

Good ole RNC. Targeting only AR and WV with those mailers: do I sense a cynical attempt to scare the bejeebers out of the uneducated hillbillies? Isn’t that rather insulting?

Why yes, it is.

I think Sen. Byrd hit the nail on the head with this the last time around:

The hypocrisy of the Republican National Committee’s desperation tactic is an insult to the intelligence of voters in my state. The Ninth Commandment, passed down from God to Moses, states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." What could be more false than an advertisement implying that so-called "liberals" want to ban the Bible? The political hacks behind that blasphemous flyer should be required to re-read the Book of Exodus. There is no free pass from the Commandments in an election year.

All West Virginians should be insulted by such dirty tricks. Paid henchmen who talk about Democratic politicians who are eager to ban the Bible obviously must think that West Virginians are gullible, ignorant fools. They must think that West Virginians just bounced off the turnip truck. They must think that spreading nonsense about banning the Bible is a sure-fire way to get votes in an election year. But the people of West Virginia are smarter than that. We are not country bumpkins who will swallow whatever garbage some high-priced political consultant makes up. West Virginians are smarter than that, and they deserve an apology from the Republican National Committee for this insulting mailing.

Dear GOP: the time for scare tactic politics is long passed. People in WV are scared enough about keeping their jobs, their crumbling infrastructure, and how we can move this nation forward.

Right now? Boogah boogah scary gays ooogah boogah is about as useless at putting food on the table and paying the bills as a strategery can get.

Pardon me while I laugh at you.  Because if all you have is tired, offensive tricks from yesteryear?  Laughter is the least of your worries.  

UPDATE:  A bit more background in the Charleston Gazette:

The site, wv4marriage.com, was launched last month and features an online form so clergy can report their results. While the site’s owner is not apparent from its pages, the contact listed on its domain registration is CampaignSecrets.com, a Georgia firm that bills itself as "focused exclusively on electing Republicans to local office.”

So, let’s see here — a religious group contracts with a GOP organization dedicated to electing GOP lawmakers on an issue formerly pushed in WV by the RNC. Does anyone see problems in terms of 501(c)(3) or (4) status being violated here? Because I think I have some questions…

71 Responses to "Out-Of-State Hate, Complete With Fake Gay Sniper Video"
Peterr | Monday February 16, 2009 06:00 am 1

Christy, does this kind of garbage ever get covered in your local WV media?

It reminds me of some of the stuff I used to see in deep southern Illinois, and folks there really got sick of it fast.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:02 am 2
In response to Peterr @ 1

Am trying to help gin up some coverage on this — but, yes, the mailer from the 2004 election cycle got a lot of local media coverage in the newspapers, anyway. This is really beyond appalling.

The fact that the state GOP glommed onto this with their 2009 agenda speech and that the video appears to have been produced by someone in Georgia in conjunction with a local nexus of “evangelical” pastors says coordinated strategy…again…to me. Am going to try and do more digging.

Marion in Savannah | Monday February 16, 2009 06:05 am 3

Well, I guess we can give them some points for recycling, right? /snark

dakine01 | Monday February 16, 2009 06:09 am 4

It’s rather a wonder, they didn’t add Kentucky and Mississippi to that one. Oh wait, Kentucky and Mississippi both have two ‘Republican’ Senators and WVa and AR have “Democrats”

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:09 am 5
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 2

Updated above — the Charleston Gazette has an AP stringer story that just went up today about this as well. I’m sensing some questions ought to be asked on tax status on this — the Georgia organization that’s put together the website and is hosting the video and such has a mission that is “dedicated to electing Republican lawmakers.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, Peterr, but isn’t affiliating with a political party a big no no in terms of issues advocacy and tax status?

Palli | Monday February 16, 2009 06:14 am 6

Pretty racist …one African American boy on in the adoption photo; slight indication of “light” brown in the wife and son of the family blowing bubbles…this isn’t inclusive propaganda…what would Steele think?

TobyWollin | Monday February 16, 2009 06:15 am 7

I really hate this sort of junk. As a resident of a rural area, I see this attitude all the time that somehow, anyone from a rural area loses a good 50 points on the IQ test immediately.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:15 am 8
In response to Palli @ 6

I’m not certain they really give a crap about being inclusive though, to be honest.

Blub | Monday February 16, 2009 06:16 am 9

doesn’t Georgia have some weird law that equates portrayals of violence against groups as “terroristic acts” and makes them punishable as potential felonies?

I wonder if the sniper portrayal crossing that line… or it may only apply to race.

bonzo1958 | Monday February 16, 2009 06:16 am 10

Christy, I live in the south eastern part of WV and I’ve got to say, some of the people here really are that uninformed, not ignorant, uninformed.
Maybe the Daily Telegraph will pick up the Gazette story.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:24 am 11
In response to bonzo1958 @ 10

I’m just sick and tired of people from out of state thinking they can take advantage of the ignorant hillbillies with this crap. And I don’t know what offends me more — that they do that or tht the state GOP goes along with it because they’d rather go with scare tactics than not treating West Virginians like easily led by the nose sheeple.

JayBur | Monday February 16, 2009 06:25 am 12
In response to Blub @ 9

It’s okay if Neegroes are in the crosshairs, whites, of course, would be a felony…

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:25 am 13

Although, honestly, I’m worried that this sort of tactic will work to some extent because far too many people ARE stupid. Any thoughts on how to effectively push back against this sort of offensive malarky would be much appreciated.

MDCitizen | Monday February 16, 2009 06:28 am 14

John Grisham’s latest book, The Appeal, describes a similar scenario, in Mississippi. As I read it, I felt like I was seeing the activities of the Republicans for at least the past 30 years all neatly laid out, almost a “how to” manual. The people who do this sort of thing are shameless and they never give up. It was disheartening to wake up to the next chapter of a book I thought I finished last night!

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:29 am 15
In response to Blub @ 9

That’s a really creepy part of the video, isn’t it? So much for religious messaging…

Peterr | Monday February 16, 2009 06:30 am 16
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

Yes it is illegal for a 501(c)3 to affiliate with a partisan political party. Whether this group is a 501(c)3, however, is not at all clear from their website. Indeed, the lack of an “about us” page is a huge red flag to me that something’s not kosher. The whole site is about you and what you can/should do — nothing at all about the people putting the site together.

They clearly are trying to get pastors to take a more pro-active role in contacting members of the state legislature (complete with a lobbying-tracking tool: “here’s who I met with/called, and here’s what they said”). Nothing illegal about that, per se, as clergy are free to contact whomever they want without jeopardizing their church’s tax status.

But it’s the tax status of the group itself that intrigues me. My gut tells me this is an effort to stir up the pastors and churches by a non-religious group, not a religious group putting their tax status in danger.

Transparency, anyone?

demi | Monday February 16, 2009 06:32 am 17

This really gags me. Although, honestly, I haven’t watched the video yet. I haven’t had any coffee this morning and my family is still asleep. Just the thought of it is enough at the moment. Will try to watch later.
Insulting is one word. Go get ‘em, Christy.
But, I am wondering that if this is the best they can do, they must be scared. Not just of low IQs and men marrying other men, but of a new day, when people think for themselves and pay attention to what their government is doing.
They should worry about the constitution being banned, and let the bible hold it’s own weight.

foothillsmike | Monday February 16, 2009 06:33 am 18

I would look for a church that does not buy this crap and give them a loud voice.

Peterr | Monday February 16, 2009 06:34 am 19

As long as we’re being religious about this, Matthew 12:1-3 comes to mind:

1 Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered in thousands, so that they trampled on one another, [Jesus] began to speak first to his disciples, ‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. 3 Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.

It might be helpful for the media to ask why these folks (with their professed religious concerns) are operating in secret, whispering in the dark behind closed doors.

GregB | Monday February 16, 2009 06:37 am 20

Sadly No has a screed from white supremacist Hal Turner and I gotta say it is pretty creepy stuff. These nuts are in high dudgeon already. Ad on that they have mainstream freaks like Glenn Beck pushing the whole “revolution” schtick and it is disconcerting to say the least.

I worry that there’s a new Oklahoma City in the wings. They are getting frenzied at a rapid pace.

McCain is doing his best to get back into George Wallace mode.


Peterr | Monday February 16, 2009 06:37 am 21
In response to Peterr @ 19


Make that Luke 12:1-3

Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my . . .

Marion in Savannah | Monday February 16, 2009 06:38 am 22
In response to Blub @ 9

This web page has the following:

Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37:

(a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated.

(b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another’s household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

(c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both.

(d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:38 am 23

Thanks for the diggs, gang.

One hint: when you are putting together a digg entry, don’t just repeat the title in the description section — pull some text from the post to describe what it is, or add your own description. Just reading the title twice isn’t as intriguing as getting a teaser on the post for folks who rely on digg to get some flavor of what’s being written and see if they are interested. I learned that the hard way a couple of times — the digg software automatically inserts the title in the description section, so you have to manually add a description into there on your own. FWIW…

Marion in Savannah | Monday February 16, 2009 06:39 am 24
In response to Marion in Savannah @ 22

The web page didn’t come through properly. It’s:


Frank33 | Monday February 16, 2009 06:40 am 25

Thank you once again Christy. I guess a conspiratorial mind set might think that the neo-conservatives are mobilizing their no-nothing base out of desperation. But the operative word should be projection. They neo-cons are projecting their very own propaganda and their threats of violence that they make routinely.

One out of work wingnut murdered two people and shot six other “liberals” at a church.

“Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, ‘because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.’…

“Adkisson told Still that ‘he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.’

“‘It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement,’ Police Chief Sterling Owen said.

“Adkisson was a loner who hates ‘blacks, gays and anyone different from him,’ longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel.

On hate radio and hate Teevee, lies and threats are made on a daily basis. Limbaugh always encourages the destruction of Democrats and liberals. As I reported, he wants to turn the power of government against anyone he does not approve of. That includes censorship. But millions of families a years are losing their homes and their jobs, and it cannot be blamed on the socialists.

Kassandra | Monday February 16, 2009 06:43 am 26
In response to MDCitizen @ 14

Grisham’s book IS good isn’t it. I read it several weeks ago. David Balducci has an improbable yet highly entertaining global politic thriller out which cuts quite close to the mark too.

That said, people would be REALLY STUPID to believe anything like this,esp the bible being banned (altho I don’t think that would be such a terrible idea; it caused nothing but trouble for millennium!) Of course, if they listen to Limbaugh, their brains are toast anyway.

Really makes on wonder how stupid the REPUBLICANS are for putting this crap out there in the first place. anybody see SNL? They republicans portrayed were too close to type and so it really wasn’t very funny, but it makes you kinds see where this horsesh*t comes from:

demi | Monday February 16, 2009 06:44 am 27

The Out Of State Hate part is equally creepy. As someone put it here the other day, totally fries my wires. Maybe I’m also overly sensitive because of the OOSH consequences during the last election here in California with Prop 8. Still very bruised by that.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:47 am 28
In response to Kassandra @ 26

The really sad part is that people DO fall for it. The GOP wouldn’t keep using the “scare tactic” crapola if it weren’t successful a lot of the time.

That’s the scariest part of all for me, frankly.

perris | Monday February 16, 2009 06:48 am 29

the video says “government has protected the institution of marriage for thousands of years”

how rediculous, “the institution of marriage” used to mean harems and slaves, is that the protection the video is talking about?

george washington was married without a government license and the license was first established to prevent blacks from marrying whites

as far as I am concerned government should provide NO marriage license, that should be up to each of our respective beliefs

solai | Monday February 16, 2009 06:50 am 30

Offensie and insulting. On the plus side, however, I’ll bet Palin thinks you’re all real Americans.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 06:51 am 31
In response to solai @ 30

Oh. yippee.

Cellar47 | Monday February 16, 2009 06:54 am 32

My lover Bill (we’ve been togehter for a mere 38 years) is from West Virginia. The narrator of the propaganda clip doesn’t speak with a West Virginia acent. Therefore there’s a good possibility this campaign isn’t going to work because of that.

I didn’t see any sniper in the video.

diablesseblu | Monday February 16, 2009 06:58 am 33

This is scary but the GOP can overreach. Dole’s infamous “Godless”ad is a good example. Some of the wingnuts I know were offended by that one. It’s still a slippery slope to mix religion/politics.

However, what really amazes me is how blind people can be to the hypocrisy of the Republican party. I’m astonished when the likes of Vitter and McHenry keep getting TV exposure.

barbara | Monday February 16, 2009 06:58 am 34

(((spew))) Just sat down with fresh coffee to read FDL. I have nothing new to add to this disgusting mix, beyond coffee dripping off my monitor.

demi | Monday February 16, 2009 06:59 am 35

On the positive side, there are clergy pups who, like Peterr, don’t buy and sell the H8.
I spoke with our family pastor this past week to give him the date for my daughter’s wedding and he told me that for the most part he’s not performing marriages right now. He said after the Prop 8 mess, that if he can’t marry any couples, he’s not inclined to perform any at all. He’s making an exception for my daughter because he’s watched her grow up and we are like family. Just thought I’d lift up that joy in the midst of all our anger and sadness over these issues.

kittykitty | Monday February 16, 2009 07:01 am 36

Assume all have heard Blackwater has rebranded itself:


No longer Blackwater but Xe (pronounced zee)

barbara | Monday February 16, 2009 07:03 am 37
In response to barbara @ 34

I lied. It seems to me that progressives, liberals, Dems spend most of our time being reactive. Republicans keep dumping shit all across the nation (which is, after all, what elephants do), and we are left to attempt clean-up. Hard to convince someone who’s knee-deep in rhetorical feces to ignore it. Where is the message machine on the left? Is pro-active impossible, given the creative bent of the far wrong? Inquiring mind wants to know.

AZ Matt | Monday February 16, 2009 07:04 am 38

I wonder if Michael Steele was asked about this before it was sent out. Many folks just want an excuse to hate and this might add to that hate but the hatred was already there.

DWBartoo | Monday February 16, 2009 07:05 am 39

Good morning Christy and all the rest of you wonderful folks.

Aye, Christy a bit of ‘zing’, or perspective , in the digg, is most useful and helpful.

Though I confess that, at times , it takes a moment to take it all in. Especially when dealing with certain socially destructive ‘patterns’.

Perhaps the digg should be seen as the new zediferous ‘zone’, allowing more than one person to …um … ‘win’?

As an aside, this past weekend I was confronted by the concerns of someone whose views and opinions I value and consider. She said, in essence, that she sometimes worries that those of us who note and comment upon all the negativity are, in fact, ‘feeding’ it.

I, of course, disagreed and suggested that it is the unremarked upon evil that, after a time, becomes merely banal and ubiquitous, and grows, eventually to describe the society in which it occurs.

But I do find this is, quite often, an issue for those who describe themselves as ’spiritually inclined’.

I wonder if anyone here might have some thoughts on this area of ‘concern’ that they might be willing to share?


AZ Matt | Monday February 16, 2009 07:09 am 40

I didn’t notice any families of color in that video so does that mean marriage is only for white people?

solai | Monday February 16, 2009 07:09 am 41

I’m telling the absolute truth here. I’m from Central NY. Mostly republican. The county actually went for McCain in November. The point is that I have never (never ever) heard anyone discuss homosexual marriage. Never ever. Not even from my wingnut friends. I don’t think anyone gives a damn.
This ad may backfire.

twolf1 | Monday February 16, 2009 07:13 am 42

foothillsmike | Monday February 16, 2009 07:19 am 43
In response to DWBartoo @ 39

The rethug strategy playbook is that if you say something often enough it becomes true. I think that it is necessary to debunck early and often. I think also that it is time to start repeating with every rethug attack, that rethug is the party of stupid.

DWBartoo | Monday February 16, 2009 07:31 am 44
In response to foothillsmike @ 43

Thanks, mike.

While I agree with you, completely, for some people with whom we are trying to ‘reason’, the use of the word, “stupid”, however accurate and well-deserved, is sufficient to end any conversation. I find that suggesting such behaviors are ‘destructive’ of democracy and society, reflecting a ‘frightened and angry world-view’ is a little more successful in allowing the conversation to continue …

We are, after all, often speaking with people who are not so given to the extent of ‘consideration’ (that is, ‘the putting together of stars’ or perceiving ‘patterns’), which most of us practice daily.


Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 07:33 am 45
In response to Cellar47 @ 32

The rifle scope crosshairs pop up at :58 and into the 1:20 mark or so in the video. It’s pretty clear…

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 07:35 am 46
In response to DWBartoo @ 39

Digging a post really has nothing to do with getting a “zed” in my mind. It’s not a race — think of it as effective promotion of a particular post that you find intriguing. Think of it as a way to talk folks who may not be interested into becoming interested in the ideas therein…that’s how I look at it anyway.

diablesseblu | Monday February 16, 2009 07:36 am 47
In response to DWBartoo @ 44

Terrific observations. I am astonished by how little information people have….even my well educated, well read relatives.

They will ask “where did you see that”? I think we sometimes forget that most people do not utilize the web as we pups do.

The most effective way to educate is to keep the conversation going … in as non-judgemental manner as possible.

demi | Monday February 16, 2009 07:38 am 48
In response to DWBartoo @ 39

Good Morning David,
I sometimes share your friends concerns. Too much negativity too much of the time cannot be healthy. That’s why I made the comment at #35. But, I also think it’s important to shed light on stories like the one in this thread. I’m glad that Christy asked us for suggestions on how to fight back. It’s not enough for us to be disgusted, we have to come up with solutions.
I feel like I’m repeating what I’ve heard here before, but does that address your question?

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 07:39 am 49
In response to diablesseblu @ 47

I have often found the most effective refutation of this stuff, especially when the conversation is a religious one, is getting down to particular scriptural citations to refute hate, as well as talking in terms of individuals versus the usual stereotypical cardboard cutout scenarios. When you start putting the hate-mongering in terms of people that both of you know — and don’t hate — it becomes a moment to pause and think rather than simply vilify a nameless, faceless scary stereotype.

Has worked for me on homosexuality issues and immigration ones in the past. Might be worth trying…

DWBartoo | Monday February 16, 2009 07:44 am 50

I was merely hoping, Christy, that there might be some way of encouraging more diggs, as it often seems that people hold back or are unaware of that little box until someone else ‘opens’ it.

The ‘rush to the zed’, while amusing, might be slightly shifted into thinking, in an ongoing way, about the very ‘promotion’ that both of us are talking about.

I apologize if my sense of agreement with you was expressed poorly, as I believe the digg increasingly important in catching people’s attention in a universe full of ideas clamoring for attention .


Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 07:47 am 51
In response to DWBartoo @ 50

I think that’s true — I think folks don’t want to be the first to open a digg for whatever reason. I’ve done my own on occasion when it’s a post I want to help get out information on, every once in a while. But I don’t want to do that all the time, ya know?

It’s a conundrum. And you know I really appreciate whatever help anyone is giving. Just thought sharing my own lessons in doing this would be useful, too. It’s tough to keep track of everything all at once sometimes. *G* In fact, it’s exhausting…

diablesseblu | Monday February 16, 2009 07:51 am 52

Yep….there was a big schism here in the local Episcopal church after the selection of Gene Robinson. Several families left the church in a huff (and walked on their pledges to the newly completed education building).

Locals from other churches often comment on who left the church and who stayed. There were several surprises in the contingent who stayed but there’s a common denominator. They all have gay family members (none of whom live here).

And BTW, those who left, their congregation has had its own subsequent split.

demi | Monday February 16, 2009 07:52 am 53
In response to DWBartoo @ 44

the use of the word, “stupid”, however accurate and well-deserved, is sufficient to end any conversation.
In my experience, I’ve found that to be true also. If we are talking about people being afraid that the bible might be banned aren’t we also talking about freedom issues? Trying to have an open-minded discussion about human rights and throwing in a comment like the one above that perhaps the bible should be banned tends to be a conversation stopper for me. Also, any kind of authoritarian attitude tends to do the same thing.

Twain | Monday February 16, 2009 07:55 am 54

Christy, thanks for keeping us informed about the doings of the crazies. I have known many people who have very sparse “book learning” who are a lot sharper than Harvard grads. Common sense works well.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 07:58 am 55
In response to diablesseblu @ 52

It’s amazing how something as simple as humanizing instead of demonizing can make all the difference, isn’t it?

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 07:58 am 56
In response to Twain @ 54

I think that’s very true — the key is getting the common sense to actually kick in, though. *g*

DWBartoo | Monday February 16, 2009 08:00 am 57
In response to demi @ 48

Thank you, demi.

Your response addresses my concerns most admirably.

And thank you, as well, diablesseblu.

I do think that how we speak to others AND the language (as well as the ‘implications’ of that language) we use will be, increasingly, important, especially in the ‘hard times’ which lie ahead of us.

Language has been savaged quite deliberately, of late, and the social amenities are ignored in the expediency of ‘winning’ at whatever cost.

It is difficult for a democracy to survive when significant numbers of the players see nothing wrong in preventing other from voting and participating or in filling the heads and hearts of others with hateful images and notions.

Frankly, such behaviors, are NOT mere ‘dirty tricks’ but treason of the most awful sort, surpassed only by the willful and deliberate destruction of the Constitution and the Rule of Law, at least so far as I am concerned.

PJEvans | Monday February 16, 2009 08:01 am 58
In response to Peterr @ 19

There are some relevant verses in Matthew, also.

DWBartoo | Monday February 16, 2009 08:05 am 59

The digg should allow the rest of us the opportunity of reducing, at least a little bit, the amount of ‘everything’ with which you so amazingly deal, on a daily (if not, moment to moment basis), Christy.


Twain | Monday February 16, 2009 08:05 am 60

I’m not sure that people care much any more about the gays. Seems to me we have too many other things to worry about – like jobs. Of course, the Rs can try to convince their tribe that gays are taking their jobs. :)

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 08:21 am 61

Pam at Pam’s House Blend dug up a nugget on the GOP operative hosting this dreck. More in the next post

macaquerman | Monday February 16, 2009 08:34 am 62

Thanks for the video. It ’s really a piece of work. Little bubbles of all our dreams about to be blown to shit. Our family become the hunted.

Christy Hardin Smith | Monday February 16, 2009 08:37 am 63
In response to macaquerman @ 62

Yes, I feel oh so threatened in my 16 year marriage by the scary gays.


Honestly, that’s just such a pathetic tactic.

Funnydiva2002 | Monday February 16, 2009 09:08 am 64

…a gay sniper about the shoot at …

Late to the party, but…typo alert!

Thanks for this, Christy. Love your new place!


Funnydiva2002 | Monday February 16, 2009 09:09 am 65

a gay sniper about the shoot at

OK, well, ahem. the quote part got eaten, so try again…


Funnydiva2002 | Monday February 16, 2009 09:10 am 66

a gay sniper about the shoot at
wow…do I have to type it in by hand? No cut/paste function? Weird!

…a gay sniper about the shoot at…
should be “about to shoot at…” I think.


macaquerman | Monday February 16, 2009 09:20 am 67

As well, the shot of the airplane ride resulting in the quickie same-sex marriage in California was an excellent bit of fear-mongering. California, gays, and ACLU all gang(roping) the good folk.
You best hold on to that 16-year relationship. Who knows how long it can last before they come to rip you asunder!!!

dakine01 | Monday February 16, 2009 11:10 am 68
In response to DWBartoo @ 59

But part of the purpose of the Digg is to get folks paying attention to what Christy is writing. By just repeating the title, it doesn’t really give folks a reason to come read the article, thus defeating the purpose of the Digg.

Rather counter-productive in other words.

demi | Monday February 16, 2009 12:27 pm 69
In response to dakine01 @ 68

Ya wanna know what else is counter-productive, in other words?

RJConnors | Tuesday February 17, 2009 04:34 am 70
In response to Peterr @ 16

This is what the Georgia Sec. of State has to say about them.

Business Name History
Name Name Type
Limited Liability Company – Domestic – Information
Control No.: 0656400
Status: Active/Noncompliance
Entity Creation Date: 7/18/2006
Jurisdiction: GA

Source: http://corp.sos.state.ga.us/co…..sp?1212763
Principal Office Address: 1765 RIDGEMILL TERRACE
Dacula GA 30019
Last Annual Registration Filed Date: 11/13/2007
Last Annual Registration Filed: 2007
Registered Agent
Office Address: 1765 RIDGEMILL TERRACE
Dacula GA 30019
Agent County: Gwinnett

RJConnors | Tuesday February 17, 2009 04:39 am 71
In response to Peterr @ 16

You might also want to take a look at a PDF file of their filing at http://corp.sos.state.ga.us/imaging/13225471.pdf

But it looks like they are a regular limited liability corporation.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post