posted 08-15-2003 09:58 PM            

snips

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore yesterday defied a court order to remove a large granite monument emblazoned with the Ten Commandments from a state judicial building on the grounds that God's law supercedes state and even federal law.
"I have no intention of removing the monument," he said at a press conference in Montgomery. "This I cannot and will not do."
He will ask the U.S. Supreme Court today to strike down the order that would remove his 5,280-pound, 4-foot-high granite monument from its roped-off corner of the rotunda of the state judiciary building.
"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution "invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama´s] constitution unconstitutional."
"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."
The Supreme Court will see things his way, he predicted, "because we are following U.S. Supreme Court law as to its definition of religion, which recognizes a Creator in higher law. So we have every right as a state to acknowledge God."
A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion.
Judge Thompson gave the state until Aug. 20 to remove the monument, threatening $5,000 a day in fines if Chief Justice Moore did not comply.

Chief Justice Moore became nationally famous over the 1995 case and huge crowds turned out in rallies supporting his cause. In 2000, he easily defeated a Democratic opponent to become the state's chief justice.
Yesterday, he hinted that demonstrators may seek to block any effort to move the monument.
"As long as it's peaceful," he told Fox News, "I don't have any opposition to civil disobedience."

posted 08-15-2003 10:46 PM            

I don't care if you are the most devout christian, it's still a seperation of church and state issue..

What a waste of money too.

By the way, I don't really care if there is a huge statue of the commandments, it's the alabama judge bringing religion more and more into it every breath that makes it an issue imo. Statements like God's law is above state law just goes to prove the ulterior motive behind the commandments, and that it will be shot down, not literally of course.

posted 08-15-2003 10:57 PM            

it's the ACLU taking the federal interpretation of SCS where it does not belong...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

posted 08-15-2003 11:12 PM            

thing is there's a lot of shit I don't care for but I don't go filing lawsuits over it...the alabama judge was elected overwhemlingly...the people support him...and last I checked it was of by and for the people...

posted 08-15-2003 11:15 PM            

Anyone includes the people filing the law suits! It's stupid for the courts to be dealing with it, throw that junk out!

"same with them filing lawsuits against Christmas trees on public land..."

Hope that was thrown out faster than you can say punch-n-pie. Christmas is officially a secular holiday.

Edit: blah blah blah!

posted 08-15-2003 11:47 PM            

which says clearly "in God we trust"...

posted 08-25-2003 03:40 PM            

Keyes lambastes clique of "lawless" judges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hannity & Colmes show spotlights the Ten Commandments issue

August 22nd

After eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court voted Thursday to override Chief Justice Roy Moore and remove an embattled Ten Commandments monument from public view in the Alabama Judicial Building, Alan Keyes appeared that evening on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.

Dr. Keyes' appearance on the top cable network's popular show was widely promoted.

Judge Moore's position

At the outset, Dr. Keyes was asked by Sean Hannity to summarize the strength of Judge Moore's controversial position. Dr. Keyes answered by noting the Constitution's separation of "federal" and "state":

"I think that we have to focus . . . on the clear constitutional issue. At the national level, there is no doubt that we are not supposed to have any kind of national, uniformly-imposed regime, with respect to religion. And Congress shouldn't make any laws--the federal government has no lawful basis--for doing so; that was clear in the Founders' statements and intentions. They wanted these issues to be handled at the level of the state governments, and the level of the people, themselves, in and through their state governments. They were to decide to what extent they would acknowledge God, in what way, in what manner they would do so, in and through their government institutions."

"What we're seeing," Dr. Keyes continued, "is an effort to impose a uniform national regime of atheism on religious matters, and that is deeply unconstitutional."

Judicial dictatorship

Challenged by the show's liberal half--Alan Colmes--to admit that the eight associate justices who overruled Judge Moore were "bound by solemn oath to follow the law," Keyes said, "You keep saying 'respect for the law.' Respect for the law does not mean respect for lawyers. And the rule of law does not mean the rule of lawyers and judges. It means the rule of law.

"[Lawyers and judges] are bound by the law. They, too, are required to have a basis in law for what they do," Keyes pointed out.

With that in mind, Keyes then had strong words for the federal judge who ordered the Ten Commandments removed from the Alabama Supreme Court Building, Judge Myron Thompson--calling him "a lawless judge who is taking his opinions out of thin air, not on the basis of any law, and imposing them" on the people of Alabama.

Keyes said, "When people say some law's being broken here [by Judge Moore], I say, 'What law?' [Judge Thompson] is a federal judge. He needs a federal basis for what he's doing. But Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. He has no grounds, no basis whatsoever, from which to address this issue."

In fact, stated Keyes, "The whole train of legal precedents that has been fabricated, fraudulently, from the bench [on the issue of religion in public life] has no basis in our Constitution. And to say that we must simply submit to baseless dictation from the bench is--as Jefferson, himself, pointed out--to surrender to judicial despotism."

Elaborating, Keyes said: "Excuse me for saying so, but I think it's time we got away from this rut of believing that we live under some arcane priesthood of the lawyers, and we don't get to believe the evidence of our own eyes and common sense when we read the basic documents of our country's history."

"We should not turn over our liberties to arcane interpretations and fabrications by a legal clique that desires to amass great power over every aspect of our lives and tell us we no longer have a say. That despotic judicial dictatorship was predicted by Thomas Jefferson, and he said that we should reject it--and we must now," Keyes declared.

The court order's significance

When Colmes labeled as "wrong" Keyes' claim that those judges who want the Ten Commandments monument removed are "imposing atheism" on others, Keyes pointed out that Judge Thompson himself wrote that the state of Alabama "cannot acknowledge God."

"That's what he says," Keyes reminded Colmes. "I didn't make that up. He says that that's the core issue, and he says the answer is no. He is imposing, through his order, this atheism, and he has said so himself."

Earlier appearance on the Sean Hannity show

Earlier in the day, Dr. Keyes appeared on the Sean Hannity radio program and made similar remarks. He said, "The federal courts are trampling upon the Constitution--and they have asserted an absolute dominion to dictate to the people of the states what shall be their ways and limits for reverencing God."

Stressed Keyes, "This was exactly what the Founders explicitly, repeatedly, said they wanted to keep the federal government from being able to do in any way whatsoever. People say there's a long line of precedents with all these court decisions. It's not a long line of precedents, it's a long line of abuses--tending in one direction to establish a judicial despotism and destroy the liberty of the people in their state government to acknowledge and reverence God Almighty."

Dr. Keyes followed up by challenging like-minded Americans to join him and Judge Moore in Alabama:

"For people who profess a concern about our moral heritage, a belief in the Declaration of Independence, and in the relevance and importance of acknowledging our Creator, from Whom we get our rights--if these people are sitting on their hands now, and not coming to Montgomery, then they must not understand the critical nature of this issue."

Judge Moore, himself, also appeared on the radio show moments before Dr. Keyes and repeated his assertion that he has a sworn duty "to acknowledge God" as the basis of Alabama and American law.

Judge Moore's press conference

The show led off with Judge Moore's press conference, in which the judge said he "was very disappointed with my colleagues on the court, who have decided to . . . remove the monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building."

Judge Moore promised "very soon" to file a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, "to resolve clearly our unalienable right to acknowledge God, under the First Amendment," as a state.

He then observed, "Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well"--and he said, "I have been ordered to do something I cannot do, and that is violate my conscience. . . . Enough is enough."

The state's position

Alabama Governor Bob Riley praised the Alabama Supreme Court for "uphold[ing] the rule of law"--as he termed Judge Thompson's ruling--but the governor said he supported Judge Moore's plan to appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. He cited the state's financial circumstances as a reason for immediately complying, to avoid Judge Thompson's fine of $5,000 for each day the monument remained.

posted 08-26-2003 06:57 AM            

Yesterday Roy Moore made that statement.

From CNN:
>Attorney General Bill Pryor said Thursday he would refuse to help Moore violate the court order,...<
National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hillyer062303.asp
"..a southerner of strong faith, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor.."
(Which side of yer mouth is the cheers for the crazy judge comin' from. Huh?)

CNN again:
>Meanwhile, attorneys suing to remove the monument filed a complaint Thursday with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission accusing Moore of violating judicial ethics by refusing to obey a court order.

Supporters cheered Moore's claim that a federal court doesn't have the legal authority to make a state judge remove the monument.
<

>THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. VI.
(paragraph 2)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.<

"Moore's claim that a federal court doesn't have the legal authority to make a state judge remove the monument" is clearly wrong, and in direct violation of the US Constitution.
> And in an article for the Summer 2002 Alabama Law Review, Pryor" (Wrote)" "the States' Rights view of federalism has been discredited," and that it "was fatally flawed by its misunderstanding of the supremacy clause."< (quoted above)
Neil Lewis in the New York Times, that Pryor "has gained prominence .... as an advocate for a greater Christian influence in government."

His comment that: "..It's not about Religion! It's about the acknowlegment of the almighty God!"- Roy Moore

Is clearly self contradictory and further proof that Roy Moore is unfit for office.

Recent developments: http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200308/NAT20030821b.html
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1329
>Pryor offered this statement regarding Chief Justice Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments: "Although I believe the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and that they can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the U. S. Supreme Court building, I will not violate nor assist any person in the violation of this injunction. As Attorney General, I have a duty to obey all orders of courts, even when I disagree with those orders."<

posted 08-26-2003 08:37 AM            

the issue alan keyes spelt out quite clear shitoga....

care to address how we have been fooled all these years about the meaning of the first amendment ?

posted 08-26-2003 03:32 PM            

In 1905, a dozen years before the Bolshevik Revolution that enslaved Russia, the revolution's chief architect,Vladimir Lenin, wrote in Nozvaya Zhizn that "Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church."

"Religion [must] be declared wholly and absolutely a private affair," he continued.

Lenin then added, "Our programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook [and] our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism [as well as] the publication of appropriate scientific literature."

Three years later, American philosopher and educator John Dewey--who later publicly applauded Lenin's violent overthrow of the Russian czar--wrote in Characters and Events that America's "school's best serve the cause of religion in serving the cause of social unification."

Dewey went on to say that a chief function of the schools was to supplant conventional religion with "the spiritual import of science and democracy," which he called "a fuller and deeper religion."

posted 08-26-2003 11:20 PM            

snip :

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

" Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

BAM !

posted 08-27-2003 09:16 AM            

The Monument has been moved from the Rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court Building!

---------------------------------

Are neo-cons minds really totally unable to comprehend such a simple concept as
Freedom from other peoples religion = freedom to follow your own religion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
dr. keyes from the world net daily exclusive article...

snip :

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

" Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

---

[B]THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. III.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; --

Religion is mentioned but once in the US Constitution!
An exclusion, separating religion from government:
"No Religious Test"... "ever"... "to any Office or Public Trust..."
Article. VI.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[b/]
An oblique reference is also in the Preamble to the Constitution:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States,
in Order to ....[b] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"No Religious Test"... "ever"... "to any Office or Public Trust..."
Public funded offices of the supreme Court of Alabama apply a religious test,
every time a non-"Christian" walks in
and finds no reference to any religion other than "Conservatives' "christian" principles" & monuments.
Exclusive of any other religious beliefs.
That is "an establishment" of one religion as being exclusive to that Court & to the State.

As has been decided by Federal Judges,
in hearing a suit by Alabamians whose "free exercise of" their own non-"christian" religion*:
Without Freedom FROM being forced to follow a religion we do not believe in;
there is no Freedom OF Religion!

*Specifically to not have "christianity" forced down their unwilling throats by government power!

The 1st Amendment also guarantees "christians" cannot legally be forced to kneel on rugs and pray facing Mecca, or be forced to burn incense in a Buddhist shrine.

posted 08-28-2003 03:33 PM            

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

now, show me the law that the federal judge based his ruling on...

no pussyfooting around either...

where's the beef !

from bill o'reilly....

What is really behind the Ten Commandments (search) controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama (search) hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers (search) wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

posted 08-28-2003 04:20 PM            

I bet you would have sucked in that Reefer Gas, if you were at that concert.

The Freedom to exercise your religion is a personel issue, and everyone has a different interpretation of Infinite and Eternal.

O'Reiily fails to mention all the horrid things done in the name of a God in the past, and right up to our current, "Hearing Voices" p-Resident.

posted 08-28-2003 05:07 PM            

gasbag...do you smoke pot in front of kids ?

I don't even smoke cigarettes in front of mine...

so there's a bet you'd lose...

your ignorance of this country's history and your willingness to re-write it to fit your skewed concepts of life are very disturbing...

look at it like this old boy...people should be able to do what they do (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone) behind closed doors...period...I don't want people smoking grass in front of my children...any more than you'd want gays to have sex in front of yours...

that's where the Judeo Christian system comes in...right and wrong are clear...the founding fathers knew this...

and that's why there has been a push for 40 years to remove God from our society...by the very one's that you and mech bitch about...your blindness to this issue is also disturbing...

what will happen very soon because of this case, is the states will start removing the legal influence of the federal government on them...

posted 08-28-2003 06:19 PM            

A graven image in Alabama?
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

What is it about "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image" that the people kneeling before 5,280 pounds of stone known as "Roy's Rock" don't get?

Perhaps those believers who gathered in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby should have opened their eyes and read the Ten Commandments before being hauled off to jail.

Graven images are a no-no. And making an idol out of a public official who compares himself to Daniel and Moses has got to evoke a heavenly tsk-tsk.

Don't misread my disappointment with people who allow their religion to be used as a political foil as disapproval of their faith or their right to express it. It's just that the appropriate place for the Ten Commandments to be etched is on the heart, not on a hunk of granite ensconced in a public courthouse.

No one is telling Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is the choir director of this discordant hallelujah chorus, or any of his misguided followers that they can't practice their faith or acknowledge God.

As much as this scene may sound like Armageddon in Alabama, religious freedom is not under attack in America. What higher courts have said is that a monument erected in a public place specifically as an endorsement of religion does not pass the First Amendment test.

The Ten Commandments are displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court. But context is everything. They, along with a depiction of Moses, are part of a larger frieze that includes other historical figures of law, like Hammurabi and Confucius.

Moore has made no attempt to put his shrine in a historical context, nor have any of his supporters suggested that a plaque quoting, say, the Quran would be a welcome addition.

Supporters of the monument's continued presence in a public courthouse are using this issue as the platform for their broader anger over judges who have, in their estimation, turned their backs on the moral "Christian" values that made this country great. They cite, for example, the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Texas' sodomy laws.

"This is not about a monument!" the Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, shouted in network video footage from the steps of the courthouse. "This is about resisting tyranny!"

But activist and tyrannical accurately describe Moore, the "Moses of Alabama," whose defiance of higher courts' orders to remove the monument smacks of demagoguery.

Moore knew the game rules of being a public official when he put on those black robes. He swore an oath -- something that certain branches of the Christian family would view as blasphemous -- that he would uphold the Constitution of the United States. All of it.

Judges can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to enforce and which they want to ignore, just as Christians can't pick which commandments work for them and ignore the ones that are just too hard to keep -- not unless they want to suffer damning consequences.

Public means that every American who walks through the doors of that courthouse -- Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist and pagan -- can expect equal treatment under the law. Just as there is no religious test for the men and women who seek public office, there should be no religious test for Americans to expect justice.

No one is telling Moore that his acknowledgment of God is irrelevant when it comes to exercising justice. I imagine most people who stand before his bench pray that he will be merciful.

The saddest chapter of this story is the number of protesting Christians who believe that they are being persecuted, that this nation has moved away from its "Christian" roots.

Please. Being barred from reciting the Lord's Prayer over the PA system before kickoff at a public high school football game hardly ranks as persecution when in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and India, Christians are being attacked and killed because of their faith.

I repeat: Context is everything.

The apostle Paul warned that Christians would be persecuted for following Jesus. He knew whereof he spoke; he spent enough time in jail because his faith in Christ was an affront to the Roman theocracy.

But it's doubtful that Paul -- the man who wrote that "every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1) -- would have wasted his breath over a rock.

posted 08-28-2003 10:30 PM            

but since your steering this back to religion, rather than focusing on the intrusive behavior of the federal justice system...

two quotes...

quote above the east senate door "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings)

quote above the south entrance : "In God we trust"

let's look at some pictures that hang on public grounds in some of the most honored places in washington...

what's going on here ?

that's not a woman with a cross praying is it !

nope not the track star...

posted 08-29-2003 09:08 AM            

3 pictures say 3000 words.

All in the name of your particular male sky god, which I might add, is as insane and bilious as you and your mentor "Dumbya" Bush.

posted 08-29-2003 09:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
now, show me the law that the federal judge based his ruling on...

---

Acts 28
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
(You still won't accept the plain language of the US COnstitution because your leaders tell you different?

>THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<

Religion is mentioned but once in the US Constitution!
An exclusion, separating religion from government:
"No Religious Test"... "ever"... "to any Office or Public Trust..."
Article. VI.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Called the Separation Clause for good reason.
It is quite explicit in it's intent!

"No Religious Test"... "ever"... "to any Office or Public Trust..."
Can't get any more specific about separation of church and state!

Publicly funded offices of the Supreme Court of Alabama apply a religious test,
every time a non-'conservative Christian" walks in
and finds no reference to any religion other than "Conservatives' "christian" principles" & monuments.
Exclusive of any other religious beliefs.
That is "an establishment" of one religion as being exclusive to that Court & to the State.

As has been decided by Federal Judges,
in hearing a suit by Alabamians whose "free exercise of" their own non-"christian" religion*:
Without Freedom FROM being forced to follow a religion we do not believe in;
there is no Freedom OF Religion!

*Specifically to not have "conservatives' brand of Christianity" forced down their unwilling throats by government power!
The Federal Judges power to make that decision and to enforce their' decision:
>THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. III.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -- <

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
What is really behind the Ten Commandments (search) controversy? [/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. [/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
The agenda goes on and on, [/B]

---

posted 08-29-2003 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
your so full of hate gasbag...

come into the light....

---

Nope, all my friends, my wife, my family, and my collegues all consider me a caring, hilarious, and thoughtful person. That is what I care about. I don't subscribe to one single school of Eternity/Infinity. You want to believe in a male sky god, go right ahead. Just don't tell me I have to see life that way. Do you understand this?

This "will the real god please stand up" nonsense, is what drives people to collect weapons to prove their point. As yourself, they can't prove their point of view is correct, so they try and strong arm people into believing the way they do.

Shatoga,

You are correct that these Neo-Cons are disguising themselves as "Conservatives" to get the Fundamentalist Christian votes. Just like Clinton lied to get "liberal"votes.

posted 08-29-2003 11:51 AM            

[All in the name of your particular male sky god, which I might add, is as insane and bilious as you and your mentor "Dumbya" Bush.
Does "He" talk to you too? ]

A vile, contemptuous remark that surly rivals the most disparaging words ever uttered in the now defunct Rumpus Room.