Taking Justice and Peace Out of 'Justice of the Peace'

If anyone began to somehow doubt that a reservoir of bigotry and stupidity still exists, Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell proves that it is alive and well.

The Justice of the Peace (who obviously hasn't received the 42 year old memo on the Supreme Court ruling of Loving Vs. the state of Virginia that ruled states must recognize interracial marriage) is refusing to give a marriage license to a black and white couple, saying he is concerned about any future children that the couple might have and their well being. Actually judging from Bardwell's belief, if he is a father I would be much more concerned about his children.

Bardwell, and here's a kicker emphatically states he is not racist, saying he issues licenses to black couples and white couples all the time, just thinks that interracial marriages just don't work out.

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Someone needs to inform this racist boorish idiot that this is the 21st century and that Dixie died a long time ago. Then they need to fire him. Its amazing that people would admit to this outdated ideology that has no place in a modern civilized society, and given that he is no doubt breaking the law it is even more disgraceful that any state, county, parish, or community in America would have such a man as a public servant.

Meanwhile the couple in question is consulting with the U.S Justice Department Civil Rights division to see what they can do.

Illinois Teacher Uses term "Black Fags" says he didn't mean to offend anyone.

In other racist and homophobia related news,Illinois High School teacher Dave Burke was teaching a economics related class when according to one openly gay High School Senior in the class Burke posed a question to the class.

"How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?"

As glaring in its homophobia and racism as this statement is, Burke's attorney wanted to make it clear, that if by some off chance anyone was offended that it was not his intention to offend anybody.

Hunter said during a lecture on tax dollars on Oct. 5, Geneva High consumer education teacher Dave Burk started talking about the National Endowment for the Arts, asking his students, "'How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?'"

Burk's attorney, D.J. Tegeler, said Monday he was not personally aware of the terms Burk used to his classes, but that Burk apologizes for any offense.

"Mr. Burk is cooperating fully with both the principal, the dean of students and the School Board," Tegeler said. "Mr. Burk's biggest problem is he does not want to intentionally offend anybody and if he did, he apologizes."

No Mr Burk, the biggest problem is that you have a poorly developed mind and a pre-civil war mentality at least in your statements. Burke was later issued a warning by the school.That's accountability for you.

As one person later said, a bigger waste of the people's tax dollars then the National Endowment for the Arts is this guys salary.

Sotomayor Confirmed

Following all the curiosity, publicity, genuine questions, right wing race baiting and xenophobia, confirmation hearings, and political debate; Justice Sonia Sotomayor was approved to fill the post of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court vacated by retiring Justice David Souter.

Sotomayor is now only the third female jurist to serve on the U.S Supreme Court and the first Hispanic. At about 3:00 PM Eastern time she was officially approved by the U.S Senate by a margin of 68-31. Senator Edward M Kennedy (D-MA) was absent and not voting due to illness, but has expressed support for approving Sotomayor. Sotomayor won unanimous approval from the 59 Democrats voting as well as the Senate's two independent Democratic leading Senators and nine Republican Senators.

Republican Senators: Alexander (R-TN), Bond (MO), Collins (R-ME), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R- NH), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), Snowe (R-ME), Voinivich (R-OH), dissented and voted to confirm her.

So after all the screeds and the pressure exerted by religious and racial special interest groups to placate the prejudices of conservative elements in society and and overwhelming Democratic majority in that chamber, conservative Republicans who have railed against her need to look at and question what the logical point of their caterwauling has been. Granted there are always legitimate questions about the record and decisions rendered by a Judaical nominee, but during the conformation hearings questions about her decisions seemed in short supply.

The most raucous voices against her stoking flames of prejudice on the waves of talk radio and in the arena must realize that after all their diatribes they likely still have their resentment smoldering within themselves and have gained little else. All that talk that sought to infer that because she is an Hispanic woman and is said to have empathy for parties involved in a decision, she must hate whites and only have empathy for non-whites; brings out the most base and ignorant sentiments of elements of America that refuse to advance to a more civilized and ideal nation.

This Date in History 1964

Following thier June disapperance in Philadelphia, Missisippi; the bodies of three young men registering blacks to vote; Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwarner, and James Chaney were discovered. Two movies were made about the murders.



Also in 1964 the USS Maddox and the USS C Turner Joy reportdly came under attack off the coast of North Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf Incident which would put into motion what would become the introduction of active American armed forces into and the U.S bombing of North Vietnamese allied targets by the U.S in Vietnam. Later there would be great doubts on whether or not the second attack took place that ultimately led the U.S into the war.

NY Times Reports that Cheney Advocated the Use of Millitary Forces on U.S Soil to Apprehend Terror Suspects

A report over the weekend from the New York Times, states that in 2002 President Bush was advised then by--- surprise, surprise--- Vice President Dick Cheney and several Cheney allies that the President should deploy elements of the U.S Military to be deployed into a Buffalo, NY suburb to apprehend the so-called Laqawana six, a sextet of Yemense immigrants suspected of being an Al-Queda cell.

The rationale for a measure that resembles a measure that would be taken in a South American, African, or Middle Eastern autocratic government; then an American government was that the amount of evidence was not sufficient to charge the men and find them guilty. Cheney, his chief legal advisor David Attington, and some of the more neoconservative elements of the administration and Defense Department also advocated the use of Federal Military troops to apprehend the men and hold them as enemy combatants.

Thankfully for the people of Buffalo New York, the Empire State, legal precedent, U.S History, America, domestic security, and the U.S Constitution; Bush rejected the proposal by Cheney, and in a phrase I would seldom use in describing the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration--- cooler heads prevailed. The FBI arrested five of the six individuals while the one remaining member was apprehended overseas.

WASHINGTON — Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

Regardless of the actual outcome and decision however, it is tragic and horrifying that the U.S Federal government would even contemplate using U.S military forces on its own soil to apprehend terrorism suspects and set a precedent that could allow this to be done in the future and done for other reasons. You show me a government that unleashes its armed forces on its domestic soil with no oversight, and I will show you a land ruled by tyrants. Even if you support the secretive nature and acquisition of Executive power under the Bush/Cheney administration is a non-issue and the President was bold and successful with his foreign and national security policy; do you really want say the Obama administration tio have such a power to deploy U.S military forces into U.S cities and small towns to arrest terror suspects and be used for intelligence gathering purposes? I don't, nor would most of those who truely treasure freedom. I don't think any administration without the approval of congress and the respective states should have that power.

The fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure of Americans, residences, and property. A 1878 law, the Posse Compatius Act made law in the wake of southern reconstruction, prohibits the deployment of active duty U.S military forces on U.S soil without the explicit consent of the Congress or the Constitution.

The fact that this would be suggested by any administration is shocking, terrifying and a sorry point in the history of the constitution, the American Executive Branch, and U.S History. But what is not surprising is that a suggestion would be expressed so vigorously and with such zeal if expressed at all would be from someone in the Bush/Cheney administration, and even less surprising is that it would be expressed by Dick Cheney, who relishes the accumulation and showcasing of authoritarian Executive power and such contempt for the freedoms and checks and balances that secure the values of freedom, that he comes off as being more fit as the leader of a third world military Junta or a totalitarian regime, then a strong liberty loving republic with robust democratic roots such as America. Cheney and other elements in the Bush/Cheney administration have mocked the idea of oversight, shunned anything resembling public disclosure for nearly anything, believes the fourth amendment and other privacy and civil liberties freedoms that are the reason America is great, and have cast aside the Geneva Conventions and the concept of Human Rights that America and much of the civilized world have promoted for a little over half a century.

Many in America now, especially on the Conservative right are accusing Obama and the federal government of overreach into the affairs of states and endangering freedom with such policies as the Stimulus package and his call for Health Care Reform; even calling branding him a socialist and a fascist. However, some of these same elements aren't disturbed by such a blatantly illegal and atrocious exercise of power; and are ignorantly willing to cede any freedom if it is under the auspices of security. That is when questioning the government and applying laws that ensure that law abiding Americans and the foundation that the great chapel of America is constructed on, is most vital and that when some of the interests of the public and elements of the U.S government diverge the greatest.

This Date in History

On this date in 1964, U.S President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act that ended segregation.

This Date in History - The Stone Wall Riots

This date in 1969, the Stone Wall Riots occurred.

Obama Cyber Security plan

Obama ran a campaign last year that excoriated the Bush/Cheney administration (although he later voted to give telecom companies retroactive community) and has frequently invoked the balance of civil liberties and security.

However very soon the Obama administration could be establishing a new cyber security system that many worry could pierce the Vail of privacy of many on the internet in the name of cyber security.

This venture though sounds fraught with potential landmines regarding civil liberties, the role of the military and intelligence gathering agencies within the United States, as well as turf wars between the National security council and the Defense Department, as well as diplomatic repercussions seeing as how the internet has no boundaries of state and country.

The need for cyber security is paramount and real. However given the thicket of difficulties and bureaucratic tangles involved; not to mention the frightening prospect of the Armed forces and intelligence gathering organizations operating against U.S citizens on U.S shores is a prospect that makes one shutter, rather it be Obama, Bush/Cheney, or anyone else. Even if Obama's intentions are good, good people who do bad things sets a precedent for those with less than noble intentions to do bad things. Hopefully this is just speculation because it is certainly not the change I and millions of Americans cast a ballot for in November.

New York Times:

President Obama has said that the new cyberdefense strategy he unveiled last month will provide protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. But senior Pentagon and military officials say that Mr. Obama’s assurances may be challenging to guarantee in practice, particularly in trying to monitor the thousands of daily attacks on security systems in the United States that have set off a race to develop better cyberweapons.

Much of the new military command’s work is expected to be carried out by the National Security Agency, whose role in intercepting the domestic end of international calls and e-mail messages after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, under secret orders issued by the Bush administration, has already generated intense controversy.

There is simply no way, the officials say, to effectively conduct computer operations without entering networks inside the United States, where the military is prohibited from operating, or traveling electronic paths through countries that are not themselves American targets.

The cybersecurity effort, Mr. Obama said at the White House last month, “will not — I repeat, will not — include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.”

But foreign adversaries often mount their attacks through computer network hubs inside the United States, and military officials and outside experts say that threat confronts the Pentagon and the administration with difficult questions.

Like I stated earlier this whole thing just reeks of overreach and trouble.

This Day in History: JFK civil Rights Speech and the Assasination of Civil Rights Leader Medgar Evers

The date of June 11, 1963 was a significant mark in the history of the U.S Civil Rights movement. One in which their was both an urging for a nation to examine and follow its moral compass as well as a tragedy that stained the earth of Mississippi in blood.

The first was an address by President John F Kennedy on national television that night in which he called on the country at large to examine its conscience in regards to segregation and racism, as well as a request that congress take up Civil Rights legislation.

That night in Mississippi, as the President gave his speech; in a driveway in his Mississippi home a gunshot shattered any sense of peace, striking down and killing longtime civil rights activist and field secretary of the Mississippi NAACP Medgar Evers. Evers died soon thereafter at the age of 37.

The following is a documentary clip that examines both the legacy of Evers and the tense and vicious climate of the segregationist south in the 1960s.

Before the Day Ends....

One last note, On this date in 1971 the two year long Native American Occupation of Alcatraz island ends.

New Hampshire Governor Signs Legislation Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Governor John Lynch (D-NH) has signed legislation legalizing gay marriage in the granite state today. The legislation comes after it was passed by both chambers of the state legislature last month.

It was initially uncertain rather Lynch would sign the legislation. However a compromise that would ensure religious institutions and faiths opposed to the concept of same sex marriage would not be forced to perform ceremonies officiating the marriages.

New Hampshire is now the sixth state in the nation to legalize same sex marriage. Rhode Island is now officially the only New England state not to yet legalize gay marriage.

Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation -- and the fifth state in New England -- where same-sex couples will be allowed to marry.

"Today we're standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law," Governor John Lynch said before signing the legislation in a State House ceremony at about 5:20 p.m.

Lynch said it was a New Hampshire tradition "to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections, and that tradition continues today." The room, filled by scores of the bill's supporters, resounded with applause as he signed.

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, praised the move by Lynch and the state of New Hampshire.

“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation passed by the state Senate and House, New Hampshire has become the latest state to recognize that loving, committed couples, and their families, should receive equal dignity and respect under the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “No religious institution will have to recognize any marriage under this law, as the language proposed by Gov. Lynch and agreed to by the legislature made abundantly clear.”

Despite the religious protections inserted in the legislation, the move didn't happen without protest from some voices. Some people still persist in getting their kicks from bashing gays and invoking God in thier defense.

After the House vote, Barbara Haines, 54, of Manchester, whispered, "Repent, repent," to people passing by her in the State House halls. Haines said God meant marriage to be reserved for a man and woman. "The basis of marriage is in God, and he created the male and female to be married and have a family -- and these people are deceived," she said.

Rod Dreher: Afraid Gays Could Force Christians into the Closet

The Iowa state decision to legalize Same Sex Marriage by the Iowa State Supreme Courtcourt was of course reached with mixed reaction. Gay Rights groups predictably applauded the move, while those opposed like the always inflammatory Congressman Steve King (R-IA) raised the possibility that the state could become "a gay marriage mecca".

But one of the most histrionic reactions was by blogger Rod Dreher who tried to paint Christians as the victims in this matter, by saying that if gays are accepted it could force Christians to be silenced. So he is basically afraid that Gays having full civil rights and legal protections would result in Christians being treated the way that many of those same Christians treated gays. Forcing them to be silenced and scorned by society.

One blogger reacts by telling Dreher to stop his whining, and that acceptance and tolerance of gays is not the toughest challenge Christians have had to pay.

Rod Dreher, commenting on the Iowa State Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, notes that the anti-gay marriage position is being likened to racism and complains that as this mindset takes hold "it will be very hard to be a public Christian".

For heaven's sake. Harder than it was for Christ himself, whose crucifixion we will be commemorating shortly? Harder than for the early Christians who were tossed to lions, not just served with a harrassment summons from the HR Department?

Or harder than it is for Christians in China today? C'mon, you give witness and take your lumps.

Well. Worrying whether the United States will tolerate Christians - I am giving Mr. Dreher HUGE points for creativity.

Now as a straight man, I am sorry but I just don't see how allowing two people of the same gender who have a genuine love for each other to legally codify that love in the covenant of marriage is a threat. Furthermore I don't see why anyone with a life should care. I mean this affects your relationship and marriage how? Are you worried that at the first sight of a gay couple, your lover and you might suddenly be overcome by the urge to be gay like it is a contagious disease? That a couple might break up at the sight of a same sex couple? All I can say is that if a same sex couple is a threat to your marriage or relationship, you are probably gay yourself or your relationship was in critical condition already.

Besides, what is with these people who seem to think that being a Christian is all about denouncing gays, Muslims, and opposing abortion? What about helping the poor and tending to the sick? Those are no doubt referenced in the Bible more times then Jesus denouncing gays.

The Assasination of Dr Martin Luther King

It was forty one years ago last night, that Civil Rights pioneer and Human Rights activist who helped galvanize a movement that would change the course of America and call its people to full fill their ideals and the word of a loving God gave what would be his final speech. It was his famous "Mountain top speech" that would prove to be prophetic. Interestingly, a Communications Professor of mine active in such circles was in the basement of the Church on that night when MLK gave this rousing speech. He reported hearing the thunder of King's voice and the applause and cheers that followed.

The next day,Dr Martin Luther King was in Memphis Tennessee, to stand alongside garbage workers who had been discriminated against. That afternoon when he and a number of others stepped out of a Motel and King stood on the balcony, a gunshot rang out and struck down King killing him at the age of 39. The flame of his promise, eloquence, and compassion seemed extinguished right when the Civil Rights movement was at a high pitch, as their began to be fractures in the movement between King's more peaceful and Christian based voice and the more harsh discontent and impatience of many in the more urban areas. Following News of King's death there
were numerous riots in cities across America.



Indeed a voice as soft yet thunderous, a soul as persistent and assertive yet compassionate as his has never really come onto the scene despite a hunger for one to come forward. But his legacy and impact remain pivotal to modern America and much of the journey he embarked on to complete has remained uncharted.

Betraying American Ideals? Or Protecting America?

"This is Not America" is by David Bowie and the movie is "the Falcon and the Snowman" nevertheless I believe the lyrics accurately reflect my feeling on this.

Bush said in his waning weeks in office that although was immensely unpopular with the American people at least he "did not sell his soul". But according to Bush/Cheney memos released by the Obama Justice Department, many surrounding Bush were advising him that he could sell ours. Right to due process, freedom of speech, freedom of the press; all could be neglected by the President if they could be used to prevent a vaguely defined terrorist attack.


Breitbart.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants.

The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Another memo showed that, within two weeks of Sept. 11, the administration was contemplating ways to use wiretaps without getting warrants.

The author of the search and seizure memo, John Yoo, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

In that memo, Yoo wrote that the president could treat terrorist suspects in the United States like an invading foreign army. For instance, he said, the military would not have to get a warrant to storm a building to prevent terrorists from detonating a bomb.

Yoo also suggested that the government could put new restrictions on the press and speech, without spelling out what those might be.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

While they were once important legal pillars of the U.S. fight against al-Qaida, all of the memos were withdrawn in the final days of the Bush administration.

If this "War on terror" is to protect our liberties why was our government so willing to dispose of them? And these aren't just the liberties of foreigners on American soil, Americans themselves could also be subject to this. If were going to cast aside the ideals of human dignity and freedom why not just get it all over with and surrender to the terrorists? After all if its supposedly that Al-Queda and others "Hate us for our freedom", I am sure they would be willing to let us live once we betrayed over two centuries of ideas that have distinguished us amongst the community of nations. Why send good valiant young men and women to die in the name of our liberties if you are so willing to curb them on a whim? Talk about un-American.

President Obama as well as Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department should repudiate such thinking publicly and repeal any such authority that may have been invested into the presidency and or the justice department. These legal opinions amount to an assault on the U.S Constitution and the American people at large. No President of any party or ideology in this country should have at thier disposal this power and the ability to exercise it unilaterally.

UPDATE 2/3/09 9:24 PM/ET: Here are some of the Bush/Cheney memorandums in question, as released by the U.S Justice Department. (H/T: Hit and Run).

Malcolm X was Assasinated on Feb. 21, 1965

It was yesterday in 1965 that Black nationalist, Human rights leader, and orator Malcolm X was gunned down well giving a speech in Harlem New York. He was controversial and some claim a black racist. Others claim he was a voice of Justice. Some of his rhetoric and calls to action were jarring to many, however there are times when the emotion and the call for justice denied to so many for so long must be amplified.

Here is a clip of an old interview with Malcolm X.



The book "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" by Alex Haley and dictated by Malcolm X himself was published in 1965 around the time of Malcolm X's tragic and violent death. In my opinion it is one of the most interesting books I have ever read.


"The Autobiography of Malcolm X"

Facebook Responds to Controversy

Facebook seems to have done a Mia Culpa today, a few weeks after a change of their privacy and wording in the new terms of use that many have interpreted to be a claim that even after a user deleted their account, that Facebook would still claim ownership to the information and pictures any past user may have posted. Some even reacted by deleting thier accounts in protest.

Facebook denied that such a policy was there intent and have posted this new post on the Facebook blog:

Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long.

More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service.

Liz and Dick

Liz Cheney, the daughter of the Big Dick and a former Middle East diplomat with the state Department early in the Bush/Cheney administration (we all know that did us a hell of alot of good) published a thesis on Executive power in War Time. Slate.com uncovered it, and the legal, constitutional, and autocratic mindset that has become a hallmark of her father's co-administration is spelled out clearly. It is the "Unitary Executive theory" of governing that is purported to have permeated the minds of those in Cheney's office as Vice-President. Bottom line in a time of war the President should have unchecked and unlimited power and it should be Congress that accepts the responsibility for any and all mistakes.

News Liz they have tried these types of power amassing with leaders, they are governments though that usually have either monarchical or a totalitarian structure of government.

From beginning to end, it's clear that Cheney looks upon the model of the powerful executive approvingly. Her most forceful conclusion is that the Founders "certainly did not intend, nor does history substantiate, the idea that Congress should legislate specific limits on the President's power." To ensure American security, it needs to recognize that the "nature of military and foreign policy demand the 'unity of a singular Executive.' "

One cannot help but see echoes of this conclusion in the administration in which her father was so influential. The Bush White House repeatedly embraced the philosophy of acting first and asking for approval later, especially on issues that involved the power of the purse. They embraced a position that Cheney found repeatedly in history: "The president's duty to protect national security sometimes come before his responsibility to keep Congress informed."

If only we could have seen it eight years ago and anticipated what lay ahead.

Larry King Says His young son wishes that He Was Black

Weird, yet profound. Larry King is said to have recently forecasted that within ten years we will have a U.S President that is not only a woman but is a lesbian ( right wing conservative scream here), and now King discloses that his son wants to be black.

Interviewing a visibly uncomfortable Bob Woodward on his eponymous CNN show last night, Larry, 75, gushed: "My younger son Cannon, he is eight. And he now says that he would like to be black. I'm not kidding. He said there's a lot of advantages. Black is in. Is this a turning of the tide?"

Well the statement certainly invites laughter or at least a smile at first glance. But although there still remains a great many disparities in terms of income and race between whites and other ethnic minorities and they will no doubt remain, as everyone has said almost non-stop, the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is a testament to how much progress we made. Think about it, less than two centuries ago, African-Americans were not viewed as Americans, in fact they were treated under law and under the rules of society as property, inanimate objects often battered by their masters and white counterparts. Even as much as 40 years ago vestiges of segregation remained strong not only in the south, but even in Northern parts of the country. Seriously could anyone honestly say or feel 200 years ago, forty years ago, or even 20 years after seeing the inequalities, savageries, and hardship visited upon an African-American that they didn't even respect much less want to be?

U.S and Middle Eastern Countries Against Decriminalizing HomoSexuality

A sad reminder of just how far the U.S has fallen and how much of its image as a stalwart leader of truth and justice for all people's has fallen.

The Bush/Cheney administration, the Christian right, and the Middle East theocratic governments they now condemn and brand as evil for denying many of their citizens equal rights stand together in this instance. The U.S now is the only western country standing against a United Nations declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality.

Now in the United States homosexuality is not illegal. But there are still parts of the nation where an employer can terminate the employment or refuse to hire a homosexual, where hate crimes against people of that sexual persuasion are committed, couples are denied the benefits that would be afforded to heterosexuals, and are barred from so much as speaking freely about their sexuality if they are in the U.S Military.

But even worse in many non western countries, especially some in the Middle East where it is acceptable to execute homosexuals. Yet the United States which positions itself as the island of tolerance, justice , and freedom between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is now in affect tolerating that, by standing with such countries in opposition to this resolution. So much for compassionate conservatism.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

Now the U.S in the United Nations says they are opposed to this because it could make the Federal government impede on some functions normally reserved for the states. Funny, Marriage is usually a legal function reserved for states and municipalities, yet Bush/Cheney and their social conservative allies seem not to hesitate to do just that when the issue comes to banning marriage between gays.

Obama Draws Fire For Inviting Rick Warren to Do Invocation

There is little need for me to inform you over the blitzkrieg of criticism President-Elect Obama has encured from many gay rights activists, liberals, bloggers, and Democrats over his choice of Pastor and best selling author Rick Warren as his choice to deliver the traditional invocation at his approaching inauguration in January.

Critics of that decision are infuriated pointing to his fervent opposition to abortion, his efforts backing Proposition 8 in California which barred Gay Marriage, and his agreement that would should assassinate foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Amadenijad.

Sarah Posner has a piece in the Nation stating that Rick Warren is basically James Dobson or Pat Robertson with facial hair, Hawaiian shirts, and what Warren himself says is a difference in tone, with those titular heads of the Christian Right.

There was no doubt that Obama, like every president before him, would pick a Christian minister to perform this sacred duty. But Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Warren has done a masterful job at marketing himself as a "new" kind of evangelical with a "broader agenda" than just fighting abortion rights and gay marriage. He dispatches members of his congregation to Africa to perform AIDS relief and has positioned himself as a great crusader for bringing his "purpose-driven" pabulum to the world.

Faith in Public Life, a nonprofit cultivated by the Center for American Progress, was so wowed by Warren that it co-sponsored a presidential forum in August at Warren's Saddleback Church. There, his "broader agenda" included asking Obama whether he believed that life began at conception (which Warren believes, he says, based on the Bible, not science) and to ruminate on the nature of evil. (As for Pastor Rick, he believes the Bible dictates that the US government "punish evildoers," as in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Beneath the sheep's clothing lurks a culture warrior wolf. After the Saddleback forum, he told the Wall Street Journal that the only difference between him and James Dobson was that of "tone." After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier" (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals. Obama was pressured to talk about "abortion reduction," but Warren likens such rhetoric likening it to Schindler's List: an attempt to save some lives but not end a "holocaust."

In the world of the "broader agenda" evangelicals, when liberals advocate for gay marriage, they're stoking the culture wars; when a "broader agenda" evangelical crusades against it, he's merely upholding biblical standards. In that tradition, Warren in October implored his followers to vote for Proposition 8 because "there are about 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population...change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years." Warren called opposition to gay marriage a "humanitarian issue" because "God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation."

President-elect Obama in response insists that he has always been a stalwart advocate for Gay Rights and that he is merely trying to be inclusive.

To some degree Warren defenders are right. He has taken actions to reduce HIV/AIDS and combat poverty. And unlike many in the Pat Robertson mold he has given at least lip service to fighting global climate change, being bi-partisan, and expressed at least token opposition to the use of torture or as it is called by its critics "harsh interrogation techniques".

Myself, I am conflicted about this. On one hand some of Warren's views I don't just disagree with but think of as backwards such as Gay Marriage, comparing abortion to the holocaust. Even his opposition to torture while he should get credit for breaking with the Bush loyal Christian right, he has failed to do much to speak out about it, while investing much of his energy in opposing the twin evils of many cultural temporants, two gays who love each other getting married and a woman making reproductive health decisions.

But the number of Ministers in America who support Choice and/or gay rights is sparse in number. My feeling I guess is somewhat of a compromise on the issue. Warren should at least be invited to the inauguration maybe even allowed to speak as other ministers will. But another figure less vocal and less politicized should take the reigns and give the invocation. I don't know like I said I am still a bit conflicted on this one.

Joseph McCarthy in Lipstick

Friday Night Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R- MN 06) not only repeated the scurrilous Bill Ayers Jeremiah Wright attacks against Barack Obama, but she now claims that liberals are anti-American and that many members in congress could be plotting against America.



Next she will likely be claiming that she has a list of 50, or 200, or 100 Al-Queda members who are in the high ranks of the U.S State Department. Joseph McCarthy brought about division, shattered lives, and made the Cold war harder to fight all to enhance his political career. Suddenly I am worried that this clip shows that we could be on the precipice of repeating a shameful and hideous chapter in American history and a grim event in the lengthy history of America's freedoms. Representative Bachmann, Barack Obama and dissent in America is not the problem, your tactics to stir greater fear and suspicion for your own partisan gain is the problem.

UPDATE: (Saturday 11:25A.M ET)- You too can take action to stop these dangerous histrionics by signing this statement, urging Congress to censure Bachmann for stoking such fears. Send a message that McCarthyism and the manipulation of the American polity will not stand.

> Learn more at this blog about the madness of Bachmann and the woman who is described as "Minnesota's answer to Florida's Katherine Harris".