2009 Value Voters Summit - Know and Beware Of The Participants

The 2009 Value Voters Summit is underway through Sunday, Sept. 20th.  Several leaders of the Republican Party and various organizations with socially conservative agenda attended and spoke.  Whether you are conservative, liberal or moderate, you should know the people attending this summit and what they are promoting because they intend to retake the White House and Congress and legislate their social doctrine.  Get informed and take a position.  You might be voting for or against one or more of these people in 2010 and 2012.

The following are the titles of several of the sessions at the summit:

• TRUE TOLERANCE: COUNTERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
• OBAMACARE: RATIONING YOUR LIFE AWAY
• MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
• GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: THE NEW FACE OF THE "PRO-DEATH" AGENDA
• SPEECHLESS - SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS
• THE NEW MASCULINITY (an anti-Feminist movement)
• THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY
• DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD
• ACTIVISM AND CONSERVATISM: FIT TO A TEA (PARTY)

I collected some background information on only a few of the speakers.  Know what they have said and done so that you will know where they would lead you.

Gary Bauer, President of American Values (ran for U.S. President in 2000 as a Republican)

• More $ for defense & police; less $ for welfare & arts.
• Spend surplus on defense, debt, & Medicare; not education.
• End funding of NEA.
• End affirmative action
• If not prayer, recite Declaration.
• The law recognizes and encourages heterosexuality.
• Posting Ten Commandments will reduce crime.
• No same-sex marriages.
• Ban gay hiring.
• Miranda rights not as important as victim rights.
• Allow Ten Commandments in schools & disallow Nazi salutes.
• Vouchers for home-schooling as well as private schools.
• Africa: Needs better governments, not bailouts.
• Restrain and reverse liberal judicial activism.
• No campaign contributions from Hollywood.
• Legislating morality ok, if it’s our best values.
• Require teen moms to live with parents.
• "I don't see why Christians should censor themselves out of any forum in which our perspectives can be heard. I disagree with the theology of many groups that I address; Jews, for example, who do not accept Jesus, or atheists."
• Nine members of Bauer's 2000 campaign staff quit in a month’s time, including Charles Jarvis, Bauer's campaign manager, and Tim McDonald, former chief of advance operations. Jarvis and McDonald said publicly that they resigned in protest of Gary Bauer's "inappropriate" behavior in travelling alone and spending time behind closed doors with a 26-year-old deputy campaign manager. The boards of two religious groups long connected with Bauer, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, have warned him to not travel alone with her or meet behind closed doors for extended periods.

Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute

• “Many citizens who oppose gay marriage also oppose civil unions. The coalition believes it is confusing and unethical to restrict citizens to one vote on two opposing issues, which this amendment would have done.”

Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.)

• Mike Pence is a member of House committee called Operation Offset. They proposed a $543 billion military spending-cut to offset the cost of the Hurricane Katrina "relief and reconstruction effort" of the Gulf Coast. They are, for instance, asking troops to 'accept reduced health care benefits for their families.' Additionally, 'the stateside system of elementary and secondary schools for military family members could be closed.'
• Wants to enact legislation that will prohibit any president from appointing so-called Czars. Has called for a background investigation of Obama’s czars. Czar is a term coined by the news media. It is not an official title. The first czar was appointed by Roosevelt during WWII; he was responsible for finding enough rubber for the military. GW Bush had 46 czars.

Governor Mike Huckabee, 2008 Republican Presidential candidate

• Won the straw poll at the Values Voter Summit as the favorite Republican Presidential candidate for 2012. Tied for 2nd place in the poll are: Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Mike Pence. Top issues identified by the straw poll voters are: abortion, protection of religious liberties, same-sex marriage and tax cuts.
• As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee used his influence to prevent an investigation of his son’s killing of a dog by hanging while working as a camp counselor. Huckabee’s son was fired. The local prosecutor asked the state police to investigate. Huckabee’s chief of staff and personal lawyer asked the director of the state police to deny the request for an investigation. The director refused. Seven months later Huckabee fired the director because “I couldn’t get you to help me with my son when I had that problem.”

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

• Has repeatedly boasted that he will “break” Obama by defeating health care reform.
• Has made a habit of comparing government under Obama to fascism.
• Favors eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and Federal income tax.
• Openly gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools.
• Single mothers who live with their boyfriends should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

• Accuses Congress of being un-American and calls for an investigation of its members.
• "We're running out of rich people in this country."
• “The recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds.“
• Thinks that President Obama is possibly trying to control the nation's food supply.
• Calls on Americans to "make a covenant, slit our wrists, be blood brothers” against health care reform.
• In a speech to the House, connected the 1970s swine flu outbreak to Democrat Jimmy Carter being president, even though it was actually Gerald Ford in office at the time.
• “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, “Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.””
• Argued in the House that the threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense because “Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”

Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute

• Opposes same-sex marriage.
• “I think the idea that Texas is going to somehow suffer because it's not becoming like Massachusetts is silly. Texas is attractive for many people for the reason that it is not like Northeastern states. Those kind of traditional moral beliefs that provide children with both a mom and a dad are the reason that people are attracted to Texas.
• Warns that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are going to destroy religious freedom by passing the Freedom of Choice Act, repealing DOMA, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, passing hate crimes legislation and, most ominously, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Carrie Prejean, Former Miss California

• “I am disgusted at the way that some people can be so intolerant. It disgusts me.”

Stephen Baldwin

• Baldwin’s organization, Operation Straight Up (OSU), distributed “Freedom Packages” to soldiers serving in Iraq. The package included the video game “Left Behind” whose players wage a violent war against United Nations-like peacekeepers who represent the armies of the Antichrist.

Rev. Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Senior Pastor, Antioch Bible Church, Kirkland, WA

• Urged Christians to buy up Microsoft stock then dump the stock at the same time to drive the stock price down to punish Microsoft management for supporting gay-rights legislation.

Representative Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

• Blunt told the following story at the Values Voters Summit to explain the state of pandemonium in Washington. “A long time ago in India, Blunt said, a group of British occupiers set about building a golf course from what was formerly a stretch of wilderness. Much to their surprise, as soon as the first balls were played, monkeys would run out and play with them. The monkeys might throw a ball from fairway to sand, from sand to fairway -- or even back at the golfer. Eventually, the golfers had to agree to a new rule, never before used in the game. "You have to play the ball where the monkey throws it. And that is the rule in Washington all the time."
• Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
• Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects.
• Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance.
• Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
• Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health.
• Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.
• Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay.
• Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
• Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage.
• Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US.
• Voted NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts.
• Opposes the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Bill O'Reilly Supports A Public Option For Working Americans

I applaud Bill O'Reilly's support of a Public Option within Health Care Reform.

The Huffington Post  9/17/09:  Bombastic Fox News host Bill O'Reilly made a rather notable policy pronouncement on Wednesday's show: he supports the creation of a government-managed health care plan if it provides working Americans with an affordable option to other private insurance plans.

In other words, he supports the public option now being hotly debated in Congress.

As noted by DailyKos' Jed Lewison, O'Reilly had the following exchange with the Heritage Foundation's Nina Owcharenko:

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?

OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.
Indeed, supporters of the public option do so for the very reasons O'Reilly notes. A study by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found that "a public coverage program similar to Medicare would reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and reduce premiums by about 20% on average. Within about a decade, 105 million people would be enrolled in the public plan, and about 107 million would have private insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund."

See Video and full post.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

Will The Extreme Rhetoric Of Anti-Obama Demonstrators Lead To Violence?

For the second time since Obama's innaguration the GOP and the Democrats are at odds over whether anti-Obama sentiment and rhetoric could result in violence.

In April, the Homeland Security Department issued a report that warned that Obama's presidency could give rise to an increase in right-wing extremist group membership and activities.  The GOP demanded and received a retraction and an apology from Napolitano of Homeland Security.  However, future events proved that the warning was valid and the GOP's response was wrong.  Membership in extremists groups has increased, right-wing demonstrations are increasing in number and the demonstrators are becoming more angry and threatening.  Some demonstrators have brought firearms to townhall meetings and political demonstrations.  Right-wing violence has also increased with the murder of a security guard at the Halocaust Museum in Washington, DC and the assasination of a prominent abortion doctor.

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed a concern that the rhetoric of right-wing demonstrators could incite violence.  Pelosi said that similar rhetoric in San Francisco in the 1970's preceded the assisinations of the mayor and a council member.

In response, Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, stated, "the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda."

The GOP was wrong when they opposed the first warning and they are wrong now.  The intensity of the demonstrations is continually increasing and demonstrators and GOP politicians are using increasingly threatening rhetoric - many are calling for secession and armed revolution.  The GOP wants Americans to believe that these demonstrators represent the majority of Americans and as such have a constitutional right to resist acts of oppression by the Left-wing and the Obama administration.  The GOP is only using the extremists to advance their agenda to defeat all efforts by the Democratic lead Congress and Obama.  The GOP is only serving the interests of the corporations and industries that support them financially.  For that the GOP is willing to accept the violence that will ultimately result from the extremists that they are inciting.

Carrying Firearms Near The President

One of Chris Matthews guests on Hardball, today, is a university professor. The subject was the recent public statement by President Jimmy Carter that some of the extreme protesters at rallies and townhall meetings oppose President Obama because they do not accept an African-American as their president. The GOP and conservative pundits are calling the statement outrageous. The Democrats, including the White House, are politely disagreeing and as usual prefer to avoid a serious discussion of racism in the US.

Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, said that President Carter is wrong. To support his opinion he pointed out that Obama won the election and early on had an approval rating of 70%. If only one-third of the 30% that disapproved of Obama did so because he is Black, I think that is a significant population. One that could easily account for many of the extreme political demonstrators. To further make his point against President Carter, Joe Scarborough asked Pat Buchanan for his opinion. What a joke. Pat has personally spewed racist remarks on Scarborough's show about both President Obama and Justice Sotomayor. Why didn't Scarborough ask David Dukes if the demonstrators are racists or just fervent patriots opposed to health care reform.

I agree with President Carter. I think that many of the protesters are opposed to a Black as president rather than just health care reform. If I was Obama, I would probably rather see the issue dropped rather than to have it debated since getting health care reform legislation passed is far more important and may be jeopardized by accusations of racism from the White House. Nothing will get the Whites that are on the fence to join the racist element more than to have a Black president accuse White Americans of racism.

I know a racist when I hear one. I'm not saying that every person prejudice person is a skinhead, but I do think that a lot of the anger and distrust is fueled in part by the protester's prejudice.

Chris Matthews' guests, the university professor and a past-president of the NAACP both agreed with President Carter and both, especially the professor, thought that it was a mistake for the Democrats to pretend that racism isn't a factor. They also thought that the GOP was making a very bad mistake by not calling on the demonstrators to stop the racist demonstrations before violence occurs. The GOP has instead attended these demonstrations without urging the demonstrators to be civil and even used the same rhetoric as the demonstrators.

The university professor on Hardball was especially concerned that the demonstrations would turn violent or inspire others to violence. He said that bringing firearms to a townhall meeting was unacceptable. He said the government should enact legislation that makes it illegal to carry a firearm within one mile of the president. In fact, the professor thought that 80% of Americans would support such a law. From what planet is the professor visiting our Earth?

You couldn't get 80% of Americans to support that law even if the president was a White Republican and you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting half of America to approve of such a law if it is being promoted by a Black president that is accused by so many of masterminding a Socialist-Communist-Fascist-Nazi-Muslim Terrorist take over of the United States.

Acorn - A Frenzy To Condemn

A major issue within Acorn was recently revealed by a conservative sting that Acorn and some liberals call entrapment. The sting consisted of a young man and a young woman portraying a pimp and a prostitute looking for a loan to purchase a house to be used for prostitution. The couple asked for and received advise from some of the several offices that they visited. The couple was advised on how to borrow the money for an illegal business without being caught. Some of the Acorn offices either refused to talk to the couple or called the police to report them. But, a few offices gave them the advice they sought.

No matter how you look at this the Acorn employees/volunteers that advised the couple were very wrong to do so. I find it hard to believe that an honest person of average intelligence could be lulled like innocents into committing this wrong. The Acorn staff that advised the couple were either stupid, dishonest or a combination of both. If this is entrapment, then it was well deserved.

This doesn't prove that Acorn management promotes or condones such acts but it does strongly suggest that Acorn is not adequately managing their organization down to the local staffs. How are these people hired, trained and supervised? The size of an organization is no excuse for allowing it to get out of control to the extent that it is abusing, if not violating the law.

The government agencies that employ Acorn are also at fault for not ensuring that Acorn management had the systems in place to properly hire, train and supervise their employees/volunteers. Acorn has been working for the government for 15 years. The Federal government has paid them about $53 million during that time period. The government agencies using Acorn should cease doing business with Acorn while they evaluate its management systems to determine whether to continue using Acorn in any capacity.

You can find violators of policy and the law in every large organization. During my 30+ years with a large corporation, there were several instances of illegal activity. Each of the violations was committed by one or a few mid-management personnel. The offenders were punished by the company and/or law enforcement and policies adjusted as necessary. The corporation did not deserve to be dissolved because of these violations, which were neither widespread nor frequent. The same might be true of Acorn.

On the other hand, investigators might also find that Acorn is thoroughly corrupt as was Arthur Andersen, which was the accounting firm for Enron. In which case, Acorn deserves the same end that Arthur Andersen met. Arthur Andersen voluntarily surrendered its licenses to perform accounting in the US after having become one of the largest accountants in the world.

Some of the politicians that had not taken action to adequately investigate Acorn when there were already suggestions of misconduct, are now in a frenzy to be seen and heard condemning Acorn. Typical. One of them is U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who was a guest this week on Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC. Shelby stated that he has been following Acorn for a long time. Shelby believes that the government should permanently cease doing business with Acorn and that Acorn should be investigated. Shelby stated that Acorn is thoroughly corrupt. Scarborough asked Shelby what departments of the government actually use Acorn. Shelby didn't know. Scarborough asked Shelby for specifics about the corruption but Shelby said he only knew that the corruption was widespread. Scarborough asked him how many organizations like Acorn are providing similar services for the government and how much the government has spent on them. Again, Shelby didn't know.

If Shelby has been following Acorn for a long time and knows that the corruption in Acorn is widespread such that they should be disqualified as a government contractor, why doesn't Shelby know everything about how Acorn is used, how much they have been paid and the other instances of corruption?

Could it be that Shelby is just blowing off his big mouth for political purposes?

If Acorn has been working for the federal government for 15 years for a total compensation of $53 million, the the agencies of the federal government that employed Acorn deserve to be investigated if corruption within Acorn is actually widespread as "reported but not substantiated" by Richard Shelby, Big Mouth Political Opportunist.

Employee Free Choice Act: Card Check

Unions and most Democrats want to replace the current National Labor Relations Board process by which employees of a company can unionize with Card Check.

The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace in the United States is a sign-up then an election process. In that, a petition or an authorization card with the signatures of at least 30% of the employees requesting a union is submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who then verifies and orders a secret ballot election. If over 50% of the employees based on the secret ballot elect to form a union then the NLRB will order the employer to recognize the union. Two exceptions exist. If over 50% of the employees sign an authorization card requesting a union, the employer can voluntarily choose to waive the secret ballot election process and just recognize the union. The other exception is a last resort, which allows the NLRB to order an employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards if the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.

Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), if the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, the secret ballot election is bypassed and a union is automatically formed without requiring a secret ballot election. Under The EFCA, if over 30% and fewer than 50% of employees sign a petition or authorization cards, the NLRB would still order a secret ballot election for union representation. In other words, the current threshold to have a secret ballot election is signatures from 30% of employees. The EFCA would keep that threshold, but make a new threshold of signatures from 50% + 1 of employees to bypass the secret ballot election and automatically be unionized. Therefore a petition signature would have the same weight as a "yes" vote in a secret ballot election.

I personally believe that employee bargaining through unionization is often necessary to ensure that employees are treated fairly. I also believe that some unions abuse their power almost as much as the employers did prior to unionization and employee protection laws. Card Check would eliminate the need for a secret ballot if more than 50% of the employees sign a public petition or authorization cards.

I used to belong to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I had no reason to believe that the IBEW was a corrupt organization that bargained unfairly. However, I did witness and was often affected by abuses by the local union leadership of both employees and union members. Local unions leaders and members alike use intimidation to contol how their membership votes. A union member that does not agree with the politics of the union leadership can find himself unemployed or working on jobs with the least hours and the worst conditions.

Later, I worked 30 years for a Fortune 100 company that owned dozens of manufacturing facilities and roughly half of those facilities are unionized. I saw abused by both the local union members and some of the plant managers. I was never aware of abuses originating within the senior management of the corporation. I was aware of intimidation of employees by employees when union certification or decertification was to be voted on.

Therefore, removing the requirement for a secret ballot, except when the NLRB has proof of unfair employer practices that could impact a secret ballot, puts too much power in the hands of the unionizers and the employees, who favor unionization, who can and, in my opinion, often will intimidate employees who oppose unionzation or are undecided about unionization. The secret ballot is fair to both the employees and the employer. It protects the employees from harassment by either the unionizers or the employer.

What is your opinion?

Family-Values Legislator Resigns Over Sex Scandal

By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer Juliet Williams, Associated Press Writer – Thu Sep 10, 7:47 pm ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A scandal involving a family-values legislator caught boasting about his sexual escapades with his lobbyist mistresses created an embarrassing distraction for lawmakers Thursday, further diverting attention from California's major policy issues in the crucial final days of their session.

Republican Mike Duvall resigned Wednesday after a videotape surfaced in which he described to a colleague in lurid detail his sexual conquests, including a spanking fetish, the skimpy underwear of one mistress and his carrying on two affairs simultaneously. He sought to deny the affairs on Thursday.

The fallout from the scandal began to emerge, with calls for an outside investigation in addition to the internal ethics probe to determine whether the alleged affairs might have influenced his votes.

California lawmakers, who face growing public distrust and few accomplishments for the year, were hoping for a flourish of activity on major issues such as water and prison reform as their regular session drew to a close this week.

But the scandal filled the Capitol with gossip and distracted many legislative staffers from the more important business at hand, while further tarnishing the image of an institution that is seen as increasingly ineffective.

"This is a real black eye," said Derek Cressman, regional director for the government watchdog group Common Cause. "I think it's imperative that the leadership of both parties take this very seriously and address it in a fast and strong way."

The videotape shows Duvall during a break from a July 8 committee hearing detailing his extramarital exploits to fellow Republican Assemblyman Jeff Miller of Corona. He is overheard on an open microphone bragging that he slept with an energy industry lobbyist who wore "eye-patch underwear" and that he enjoyed spanking her when they hooked up. He told Miller, a longtime friend, that he also was sleeping with another lobbyist.

"Oh, she is hot!" Duvall said about the second woman.

The 54-year-old married father of two issued a statement denying he had affairs and saying his only offense "was engaging in inappropriate storytelling."

The lobbyist Duvall refers to in his comments reportedly works for Sempra Energy, a San Diego-based energy services company. The allegation that Duvall slept with a lobbyist who does business before his chief committee prompted calls for an outside investigation and tougher rules of conduct for lobbyists.

Duvall was the vice chairman and ranking Republican member of the Assembly Utilities Committee. Duvall, a Farmers Insurance agent in Yorba Linda, also was a member of the Assembly Rules Committee, whose responsibilities include overseeing lawmaker ethics and ensuring sexual harassment laws are followed within the Legislature.

Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech

Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech

Cheney, said Matthew Alexander, a 14-year US military interrogator, fundamentally misunderstands the way America is viewed around the world. The American principles of freedom and democracy are cherished in the Muslim world and the idea, at least, of America is still a seductive one. But it is the behavior of the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the globe that undercuts that image, allowing Al Qaeda to make the argument that America isn't what it stands for.

"Remember," said Alexander, "one of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States, it's to prove that we're hypocrites, that we don't live up to American principles. So when we use torture and abuse, we're playing directly into one of their stated goals."

The Plutocracy That Pretends To Be A Democracy

We don't have government of the people, by the people and for the people as our founders intended. The US was designed to be a republic but it has long been evolving into a plutocracy. The wealthy have a disproportionate influence over the government. As our political system evolves economic inequality increases giving ever increasing control to large corporations/industries. Large corporations are controlled by an elite class whose objectives are to protect and grow the corporation and increase their. The elite control the corporations from their positions as corporate executives and Board directors. Appointments to the Board and the compensation of the Board members are determined by the Board not the shareholders of the corporation. I believe the GOP only represents the corporate plutocrats although it claims to represent fiscal conservatives, social conservatives (Christian conservatives) and Nationalists. While the professional politicians of Democratic party are not above being influenced by the plutocrats, its base of liberals wants to replace our plutocracy with democratic socialism to ensure Social Justice for all.

How long has it been since we had a fiscally responsible Republican leadership? They talk small government but in the last 30 years they've outspent the Democrats. They preach Nationalism while supporting their corporate sponsors who have moved much of our manufacturing offshore and driven up immigration limits to hold down domestic labor costs. Nationalism is just an excuse to spend taxpayer money on the Military-Industrial Complex, which as Iraq has taught us, only increases Corporate profits. The Corporations are even supplying a Mercenary Army whose soldiers we seem unable to control and who make 10 times as much as our Enlisted Soldiers. They call for increased border security but refuse to control illegal immigration through which we have a low income labor force.

They claim to be our moral leadership but care nothing for Social Justice. How Christ-like is that? They oppose all social programs. They opposed the creation of SCHIP and its refunding. They oppose Health Care Reform because reform will reduce Corporate profits - not because they want to protect Grandma from the Death Panel. Starting with Reagan the maximum income to qualify for social assistance was decreased and thus the Near Poor class was created - too poor to enjoy a minimum standard of living but not poor enough to qualify for assistance. It forced some borderline Poor-Near Poor families to choose between "working and having less" versus "not working and having more." Marie Antoinette is supposed to have said, "let them eat cake" when she was told that the peasants had no bread to eat. Ronald Reagan showed the same lack of compassion when his administration declared ketchup to be a vegetable so that they could reduce the cost of Head Start school meals. Yes, indeed, a true American Hero!

The Republicans demonize the poor in the eyes of the middle-class so that the middle-class blames all taxation on the poor. They Republicans leverage this Class hate to generate the votes to maintain their power in the government. When they enact tax cuts, its only the rich that see the direct benefit, the middle-class and the poor will benefit from "trickle down." Has anybody seen any of that action?

Obama and the Party of Change want to reduce if not eliminate Social Injustice. To stimulate the economy, which the Corporate Plutocrats had raped, Obama spent money on infrastructure projects to create jobs and immediate spending. He subsidized local and state governments whose tax revenues had shrunk, threatening to close schools and layoff firemen and policemen. The Republicans solution would have been another tax cut for the rich. Why they cried should the middle-class allow Obama to spend its hard earned money on extended unemployment benefits and road and bridge repair. Their argument has been very successful. They have convinced half of America that Obama's stimulus spending is doing nothing but putting the middle-class in deeper debt. Does the middle-class think that tax cuts for the rich would have been less costly and stimulated the economy more quickly?

The rich and the Republican Party that serves them is laughing all the way to the bank.

Why Gun Rights Advocates Scare Me

I don't have a problem with guns and gun owners as long as the guns are reasonable (no assault rifles) and the gun owners are rational and use their weapons reasonably.

But, I know that the above is not true. Why?

• Some of the guns that owners want to possess and carry are assault rifles. I see absolutely no justification for owning an assault rifle or any automatic weapon. Such weapons are not needed for hunting or personal protection. Anybody that feels that an automatic or assault weapon is needed for their protection is, in my opinion, not rational and shouldn't own a firearm of any type.
• Many demonstrators showed up at townhall meetings with a weapon and at least one of them was an assault rifle. These people brought a open carry firearm into a large crowd which was already angry and demonstrative. This was an exceptionally irresponsible act. This is the act of a person whom I do not want to own a firearm.
• While flying on business a few neatly dressed men in business suits and cowboy hats boarded the plane and one of them sat next to me. He was in his mid-fifties. He told me that he would prefer to be carrying his .45. He then added, "I would feel safer if everybody on this plane was carrying." I assure you that I felt much safer "knowing" that he was not carrying a firearm. If the gun advocates could have their way, they would carry all the time and every place. There is nothing about this man's attitude that is, in my opinion, mature and rational. I don't want anybody with such an attitude to own any firearm.

I'm not opposed to firearms because I think they kill people. Rather, I think people kill people. Firearms in the hands of a responsible person who uses the firearm reasonably is not an issue for me. However, I think that the people who are most interested in protecting their gun rights and who will not tolerate any regulations on gun sales and type of gun are neither adequately mature nor responsible enough to own a firearm.

The United States does not own more firearms per capita than all other developed countries but the percentage of our population that is killed each year with firearms is much higher than in any other developed country. It isn't because we own firearms, it is because of the people who own the firearms. As long as immature and irresponsible people can possess a firearm then I am in favor of enacting strict regulations on the type of firearms that may be owned, how it is sold, who may own it and for what purpose.

Let's grow up. We no longer need guns to defend ourselves from the British, French, Spanish or Mexican invaders or marauding American Indians. Even Wyatt Earp knew that if you let everybody carry a gun in Dodge City some of them will be killing each other for no good reason. In my opinion, anybody that still needs to bear arms for the purpose that our Founding Fathers intended is least qualified to own one.

Words Of "Wisdom" From Glenn Beck

Here is a short list of Glenn Beck statements that confirm that he is a racist whose words are dangerous.

• “Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.” (2003)
• "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it." (2005)
• "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." (2005)
• “The only [Katrina victims] we’re seeing on television are the scumbags.” (2005)
• “Let me tell you something, there ain’t [nothing] better than looking at a hot, naked chick.” (2006)

Please add other Beck gems in your comments.

Birther Will Deliver GOP Response To Obama's Address To Congress

Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany has been selected by the GOP to deliver their response to President Obama's address to Congress on health care reform. Relatively unknown, Boustany may have been selected because he is a medical doctor. The GOP is obviously unconcerned that Boustany was a cosponsor of "The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009" that would require Medicare to pay doctors for providing end-of-life counseling, which the GOP has labeled the "death panel" in its argument against health care reform. The GOP must also be unconcerned that Boustany is one of several Congressional Republicans who do not accept that President Obama was born in the United States and thus qualified to be the president.

The GOP's choice to respond to Obama's first address to the nation was Bobby Jindal who, prior to his speech, was a 2012 GOP Presidential hopeful. Jindals's disappointing speech, among other things, quickly ended his presidential aspirations. But, this selection seems to be an even poorer choice than their first. The majority of Americans are smart enough to believe that Obama is a natural citizen of the United States. How many of them will question Boustany's qualifications because he is a Birther?

Why does the GOP feel that Boustany is the best choice? Will Boustany testify that reform legislation does provide for a "death panel" because HE proposed it? Will Boustany also deny Obama's citizenship?

Is the GOP a piece of "work" or what? This fine group of quasi-racist, bible-quoting, corruption-riddled obstructors of all Democratic legislation is hell bent on doing anything to restore their majority position in Congress in 2010 and defeat Obama in 2012 as soon as they identify who in the RNC is the best choice to be their Great White Hope, to quote Republican congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas. And while they accomplish these self-serving goals they MUST also defeat health care reform for the health care industry that so generously contributes to many GOP members of our Congress. What will they be doing for the American people? Nothing!

Fighting In Sporting Events

The Oregon football player that Sunday punched an opppnent on the field has been suspended from play for the rest of the season. I agree with the suspension and I think most people do. However, I soon realized that punishing this player is inconsistent with the on-field conduct of professional athletes who are role models for amateur athletes.

Fighting among professional athletes is not only tolerated, it is expected in some sports, especially hockey and baseball. Hockey teams have their enforcers. Pitchers intentionally "brush back" the batter by throwing the ball at the batter who is often struck. Then the dugouts empty as both teams entertain the fans with a brawl in the infield.

I have always thought that fighting on the field should be dealt with like fighting off the field. Both, in my opinion, are criminal conduct.

As long as we accept fighting in professional sports we should expect our amateurs to do the same.

What do you think? Should we continue to condone fighting in professional sports? If so, should amateurs be allowed to do the same?

Ann Coulter vs Al Franken - Which Historical Figure Do You Admire The Most?

In 2007 Ann Coulter and Al Franken appeared on the CT Forum. They were asked,

• who in history do you admire the most and think had the most fun?
• who in history would you be and what would you do as that person?

Ann Coulter's response is no surprise. Franken's sense of humor makes Coulter look like the ass she is.

Enjoy the video. I certainly did!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk&feature=related

Palin Invited To Testify Before NY State Senate

New York State Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz, a conservative Democrat, has invited Sarah Palin to testify before the Senate Aging Committee as they determine the impact that Obama's proposed health care reform will have on senior citizens of New York. Several officials from the fields of medicine, politics and insurance will also testify.

Senator Diaz invited Palin after reading a tweet she posted on her Twitter page regarding the "death panel" which she says will be created by Obama's health care reform.

Senator Diaz is as much an idiot as Sarah Palin.

Michele Bachmann Wants Us to Slit Our Wrists

In a speech at a Denver fundraiser on Monday, Michele Bachmann, congresswoman from Minnesota's 6th District, said in regard to the effort to defeat health care reform,

"What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass. Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom and we may never be able to restore it if we don't man up and take this one on."

I guess that the praying and fasting that Michele called for last week didn't pay off as soon as she expected. Did she only lose her patience with God or did she lose her faith?

Bachmann is indeed the Queen of the Wingnuts. It's hard to believe that anybody not in a straight jacket would believe anything that Bachmann says, anymore, but it appears that as long as Bachmann has a spot for fishing along the shallow end of the gene pool, she'll be able to hook plenty of supporters.

Healthcare Reform Misinformation From The Church

My in-laws attend the St. Lawrence O'Toole Catholic Church in Brewster, NY. This past weekend the church distributed with its bulletin a two page warning about specific New York State and Federal proposed legislation. NY State bills are the Marriage Equality Act and the Reproductive Health Act. The Federal bill is Health Reform. Part of the misinformation distributed by the church appears to have been generated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has distributed multiple letters and videos (YouTube.com) attacking health reform.


Any church and its members have the right to disagree with any legislation and to publicly oppose it. However, it is very disappointing that this church has chosen to disseminate misinformation. Apparently this church is willing to break one commandment in order to defend another.

Ted Kennedy's Legislative Accomplishments

Ted Kennedy was a hero to all who joined or supported his fight for social justice. It is a shame that some will not forgive him for a 40 year old mistake. But, rest assured that God did.

Ted Kennedy authored more than 2,500 bills throughout his career in the United States Senate. Of those bills, several hundred have become Public Law. Below are some of those laws, which have made a significant difference in the quality of life for the American people.

• Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986
• Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990
• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990
• National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993
• Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
• Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997
• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in 1997
• Project BioShield Act of 2003
• Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2005
• legislation to create a federal initiative patterned on volunteer programs in several states to feed the elderly, either with meals delivered to their homes or in group settings. Kennedy’s bill established permanent federal subsidies for these programs (the first was $250 million over two years), and he fought the Nixon Administration’s attempts to completely eliminate funding. In 2007, 141 million meals were delivered to 916,000 individuals and 95 million meals were provided to 1.6 million seniors in community locations. It is estimated that over 6 billion meals have been served since Kennedy’s bill was signed into law.
• Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program (WIC).
• Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act
• Project BioShield Act, creating stronger defenses to bioterrorism
• National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993
• legislation that quadrupled the amount of funding for cancer research and prevention (1971)
• Mammography Quality Standards Act (1992)
• 21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act
• Empowered the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) power to regulate tobacco products
• Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act
• Mental Health Parity legislation to help eliminate unjust annual and lifetime limits on mental health coverage
• Mental Health Early Intervention, Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000
• The Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act
• Healthcare Research and Quality Act, which established the Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) Program
• Federal funding of the Vaccines for Children Program
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982
• Voting Rights Language Assistance Act
• Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 (vetoed by Ronald Reagan)
• amendments to extend the Fair Housing Act of 1968
• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Civil Rights Act of 1991
• Employment Non Discrimination Act
• first ever bipartisan campaign finance bill (1973)
• Deregulation of the Airline Industry (1974)
• Immigration Act of 1965, which ended the selection of immigrants on the basis of their national origin that began in 1924
• Refugee Act of 1980 which established a comprehensive U.S. policy to provide humanitarian assistance, admission and resettlement to refugees around the world
• Violence Against Women Act (1994, 2000)
• Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002
• McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill
• “truth in sentencing” legislation to reform the federal criminal code and require all federal judges to follow specific guidelines in sentencing offenders convicted of particular crimes. Kennedy believed in the idea that prisoners should serve their sentences in full.
• 1994 Crime Act, which provided funding for 100,000 new police officers, imposed strict new penalties for crimes involving gangs and firearms, and authorized the Police Corps, a program that gives talented young people college scholarships in return for their commitment to serve as police officers in their communities.
• Equal Rights Amendment
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
• Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978
• Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. The legislation restored strict scrutiny for certain religious free exercise claims. The legislation was in response to the Supreme Court decision -- Oregon v. Smith in 1989, which invalidated the use of strict scrutiny in cases involving acts by governments which had the unintentional effect of violating an individual’s right to free exercise of his or her religion.
• Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
• conducted the first Congressional investigation of Watergate
• strongly opposed the death penalty. His opposition is a matter of principle, based on his understanding of the stark racial disparities involved, the lack of competent legal representation in many cases, and the unacceptable danger that an innocent person may be executed.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. He felt strongly that those who old enough to fight for their country are old enough to vote.
• Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982
• Voting Rights Language Assistance Act
• Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 – passed in spite of President Reagan’s veto.
• Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which was the centerpiece of the War on Poverty and created Head Start.
• Early Head Start, created by Senator Kennedy in 1994, serves infants and toddlers in poverty.
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
• bipartisan Star Schools Program Assistance Act in 1987
• Goals 2000 Education America Act
• Higher Education Act in 1968
• Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 modified the existing vocational education programs and established a National Advisory Council on Vocational Education.
• Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1998
• Workforce Investment Act of 1998 created new training provisions that now guide most federal training investments.
• National and Community Service Trust Act, creating AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service to expand opportunities for citizens to serve their communities, and most recently with his good friend Senator Orrin Hatch, the Serve America Act of 2009
• New National Defense Education Act (2006)
• leading Congressional proponent of a fair minimum wage, which was increased 16 times during his nearly half century of Senate service.
• Pension Protection Act of 2006, the largest reform of the nation’s pension system since 1974.
• Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to restore a fair rule for filing pay discrimination cases.
• bipartisan mine safety reform legislation, the MINER Act
• Employee Free Choice Act, which will protect the right of workers to organize and join a union, and stop the epidemic of employer anti-union violations (introduced in 2009)
• Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000
• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
• National Military Child Care Act (1989)
• National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act of 2008 to improve access to mental health care for our returning Guard and Reserve men and women
• Civil Rights Commission Act Amendments of 1978, which expanded the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Commission to protect people from discrimination on the basis of disability.
• Air Carrier Access Act. This law required that facilities and services be provided to people with disabilities traveling by air.
• Fair Housing Act Amendments to extend the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to include people with disabilities and families with children.
• Crime Victims and Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998
• Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act, which made work incentives for disabled individuals a permanent fixture of the Social Security Act (1986).
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees a free and appropriate public education to children with disabilities, regardless of their severity, in all states (1975).
• Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, which overturned a Supreme Court decision and allowed courts to award sensible attorneys fees to parents of children with disabilities winning in due process proceedings and other court actions under part B of the Education Act.
• bipartisan Family Opportunity Act. The law provides states the option of allowing families of disabled children to purchase health coverage through Medicaid.
• legislation to create a “bill of rights” for people with developmental disabilities. The bill also provided funding for services for people with this type of disability, supplemented funding for affiliated university facilities and created state-based systems of protection and advocacy groups in all 50 states.

Michele Bachmann Calls For Prayer and Fasting To Defeat Healthcare Reform

Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina jointly held a townhall meeting via telephone to discuss healthcare reform. Bachmann and Foxx repeated all the lies about the healthcare reform bill being developed in the House, such as the Death Panel. Bachmann stated that the Death Panel is real since Sarah Palin said it is so! Bachmann suggested that it was Religious Destiny that put her and others like her in congress at this critical time. Bachmann then called for prayer and fasting to defeat healthcare reform.

Shall we all pray to God that congress does not pass legislation to reform our ineffective and increasingly unaffordable healthcare insurance and services? Here's some online responses to Michele Bachmann:

"Praying so some Americans won’t get any health care insurance? Does Mrs. Bachmann’s God accept such petitions?"

"I strongly support Rep. Bachman’s call to fast. I think she should begin, NOW! Under no circumstances should she stop until Obama is deposed and Bachman’s vision of righteousness rules this fair land. We’ll be sure and let Rep. Bachman know when she can quit. Maybe she could also hold her breath? Let the countdown clock begin…."

"Fasting is quite easy when one’s foot is already filling one’s pie hole."

"What does this say about the constituency who elected this nut job to Congress."

"Interesting that this chat was sponsored by a “pro-life” group. They will fight tooth and nail to bring every child into this world, at the expense of a mother’s health or the child’s safety, but as soon as they breathe life outside the womb, they’re on their own, including the mother. Interesting…"

CIA War Crimes Will Be Investigated, Finally!!

By now everybody who's not in a coma knows that the Dept of Justice has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations of war crimes committed by the CIA and some of its contractors. The decision was made by Eric Holder in spite of President Obama's preference to only look forward. Months ago Obama ordered that torturers that did not exceed the limits established by a couple of Bush's DOJ lawyers would not be prosecuted. However, the CIA Inspector General's report from 2004 clearly shows that several CIA operatives and contractors far exceeded the DOJ limits established under Bush, which also violate both the Army Field Manual and international treaty.

Those who oppose prosecuting these war crimes warn that CIA personnel will be demoralized, reducing the effectiveness of the CIA. However, the majority of CIA personnel did not commit war crimes and a number of them refused to participate in spite of the directives received from their superiors. I am concerned that these people, the majority of the CIA, will be demoralized if, after having properly refused illegal orders, they see the guilty go unpunished. What message will we send to them if the crimes are not investigated and the guilty prosecuted - no matter whom the guilty are... no matter how high in our government they are now or were then?

I applaud Eric Holder for doing the right thing.

Obama's First Vacation

President Obama has been in office 209 days. He just started his first vacation which will last 7 days. That's less vacation than the average working person takes in the same period of time.

So why do his opponents feel justified in complaining that he is vacationing? Why are they complaining about where he has chosen to vacation? Why are they complaining about how much the vacation might cost when he is personnally paying for it?

This is just another petty attack by those who take every opportunity to disagree with Obama.

For the record, the presidents who spent more of their presidency on vacation than all other presidents are GHW Bush (37%), GW Bush (33%) and Ronald Reagan (15%). For comparison: Carter, 5%; Clinton, 5%; Obama, 3%.

Michael Vick Served His Sentence

I'm an animal lover. I would have given Michael Vick a sentence that would have kept him in prison for a lot longer than 18 months. However, the court sentenced Vick and Vick has served his sentence to the satisfaction of the Justice System. Why then are so many people debating whether Vick has the right to return to his career in sports?

Although Vick has apologized, which is not a legal requirement, many people are not accepting it and feel that Vick has not adequately paid for his crime. They never want Vick to play professional football, again.

Martha Stewart, the perfect everything, in spite of her amazing wealth sold to innocent investors $160,000 of stock in a company that illegally warned her that the value of its stock was going to tank. Martha did her time and, although Martha never apologized for her greed and crime, she has resumed her career that is likely more lucrative since she violated the law than it was before. Who has demanded that Stewart forfeit her career because of her crime of greed?

Vick has served his time for his crime. He doesn't owe us anything else. Society must allow him to resume his life. That's how the system is supposed to work.

GOP & Right Wing - Corruptors Of Our Democracy

A Right Wing fanatic showed up at the president's townhall meeting yesterday carrying a gun and a sign declaring that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time." The complete quote continues with "the blood of patriots and tyrants." The message is clear: this fanatic is prepared to use violence to force his opinion on the People.

Under the most peaceful circumstances it is irresponsible to bring a gun and a sign that threatens to use it to a public forum. Townhalls, thanks to the GOP, healthcare industry paid activists and Right Wing thugs, are not an opportunity for All to speak their mind in a respectful manner - respectful of the rights of those with whom they do not agree.

These activists are corrupting our democracy. They don't believe that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" applies to each and every citizen of the United States. They don't believe in majority rule and respect for each citizen. GOP leaders and spokespersons are publicly promoting this undemocratic conduct. When the GOP has controlled congress and the presidency they did nothing to reform healthcare. Now that the Democrats and Obama are in the position to reform healthcare the GOP says NO. They want to defeat any proposal for reform but can only do so by making false accusations about the proposal. Although some of the accusations are outrageously unbelieveable, many, many people are accepting them as fact.

I support everybody's right to present their opinion and differ with all others but it must be done responsibly. Physical intimidation and violence are not acceptable means for persuading others to accept one's ideas.

I believe that tactics like this will ultimately destroy the GOP. Responsible Republicans - fiscal and moderate social conservatives - will abandon the GOP which has committed itself to far right social conservatives and racists. However, in the process I fear that the United States will not reform its healthcare system.

Finally, what somebody calls the person that shows up at a townhall meeting with a swastika sign or paints a swastika on the office of a U.S. Congressman is not the issue. These acts of Hate and Intimidation are the issues. These are acts of a THUG. Why don't the conservatives who take exception to calling out-of-control protesters THUGS, complain when Palin and Limbaugh call their opposition un-American, un-Patriotic, socialist, communist and Nazi?

Sarah Palin Is Lying About Healthcare Reform

Sarah Palin is lying about Obama's healthcare reform because she is surely not stupid enough to believe what she has said. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

I believe Palin is familiar enough with the reform proposal to know that it does not propose a Death Panel or anything like it.

My son Jon has Down Syndrome. Jon's life has always been and continues to be significantly better because of government funded programs from Early Intervention before he was one year old to the adult employment program through which he has a job. In Jon's life the only significant cut in the Department of Mental Retardation funding occurred under the administration of Ronald Reagan - the same administration that reduced the maximum income to qualify for assistance thus creating a new class called the Near Poor and defined ketchup as a vegetable to reduce the cost of Head Start school meals.

As Alaska's governor, Palin reduced funding of The Department of Education and Early Development of Special Needs by more than 60%.

Palin isn't interested in the truth about healthcare reform. She knows that she must lie to defeat beneficial reform. With much regret I concede that there might be enough voters who are stupid enough to believe her.

Consumer protection laws require truth in commercial advertising. Why don't we require truth in political advertising? Is it only because we cannot find enough people who are able and willing to render an honest opinion that is free of ideological bias? They don't have to judge the opinions they only have to determine if the claims are supported by facts. I believe there are many people who could fulfill this role, however, since they must be appointed by politicians, unbiased candidates don't have a chance.

Don't listen to the political rhetoric. Read the reform proposals and judge them for yourself. We won't all agree about the reform. But, we should agree to be honest with each other.

Texas Governor Plans To Secede From The Federal Healthcare Program

Texas Governor Rick Perry wants no part of the Federal Healthcare Reform. He doesn't want the federal government to screw up healthcare in Texas. Perry thinks that Texas is doing better and will continue to do better on its own. Perry has been the governor of Texas for 9 years. Let's see how Perry is doing with healthcare in Texas.

1 in 4 Texans is uninsured; 25% of its population. Only 15% of all Americans are uninsured.

Texas employers insure fewer of its residents than 45 states.

Texas spends less than 44 states for healthcare per Texan.

Texas spends less than 36 states for healthcare per "insured" Texan.

Texas receives 10.4% of all Federal funding for the SCHIP program which pays healthcare expenses for children of low income families but SCHIP enrollment in Texas is only 7.4% of the U.S. enrollment. Therefore, the "Federal" cost per child in Texas is 40% higher than the national average.

Healthcare in Texas is poor.

Why then does Governor Perry feel that Texans will get better healthcare if Texas is not involved in the Federal Healthcare program? Is Governor Perry concerned that all Texans have access to affordable healthcare or is he more concerned that the healthcare industry continues to make a good profit?

No Honor In The GOP

Barack Obama's citizenship was first challenged when he decided to run for the presidency. The accusation that he was born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii is still being made by a group of nuts referred to as Birthers. The Birther's campaign to unseat Obama because he is not a citizen has actually intensified recently. Several congressional Republicans have publicly supported the Birther's challenge. In spite of clear and legal evidence that Obama was born in the United States, these Republicans claim that they have not seen the proof of citizenship that the Birthers are demanding. The rest of the elected Republicans as well as the Republican National Committee remained completely silent on the matter until this week when an RNC spokesperson released this statement, "Chairman Steele believes that this is an unnecessary distraction and believes that the president is a U.S. citizen." Steele waited until Obama had been president for 6 months before finally coming out against the outrageous Birther accusation. The McCain campaign team never acknowledged Obama's U.S. citizenship and John McCain only did so when one of his supporters asked him if Obama was a Muslim and not an American.

You may be saying that it's politics as usual and the Democrats would do the same thing if the situation was reversed but that is not true. McCain was actually born in a foreign country - Panama - where McCain's father was serving in the U.S. Navy. When McCain opponents started challenging McCain's citizenship and right to run for the presidency, Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced a resolution in the Senate proclaiming that John McCain was a U.S. Citizen. The resolution was co-sponsored by Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jim Webb and Republican Tom Coburn. The resolution was proposed only two months after the accusations about McCain became public.

While there is no less evidence that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, several congressional Republicans and many Republican spokespersons, including Liz Cheney aka "Little Dick," continue to challenge Obama's U.S. citizenship. One statement released by an RNC spokesperson, rather than a public statement from Chairman Steele and/or congressional Republican leaders, is not enough and has come way too late.

The RNC and elected Republicans have not come out against the accusation in support of their president for political reasons; not because they are so stupid or so uninformed that they believe the accusation. In spite of their claim to be the moral leadership of the U.S., the RNC and elected Republicans have proven again to be anything but.

If you happen to be one of the Birthers, be ashamed of your utter stupidity and should I say racial bigotry. If you are a Republican and you believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen, then I suggest that you write your party leadership and your elected Republican representatives, if you have any, and demand that they publicly oppose the Birthers and strongly proclaim that Obama is a U.S. citizen.

If you happen to be undecided about Obama's citizenship, I suggest that you wake up and start using your brain.

The Arrest of Professor Gates - Update

I think Obama is technically incorrect to support Gates since Obama admits not knowing all the facts BUT we should not be surprised that a black man’s initial response to such a story would be to take the side of the black man arrested. I don’t think a typical American minority person, especially a black, should be expected to "react" differently in situations like this.

However, Obama is not a typical black man when he opens his mouth in public. As the President he should not have commented until he adequately understood what took place. He certainly has enough resources at his disposal to inform him well in a short time.

When our politicians have spoken out as white men or Christian men rather than for all Americans, the majority has rightly disagreed with their narrow-minded positions. We should not make an exception for Obama.

The Arrest of Professor Gates - Who's Responsible?

I've read two accounts of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. One account was written by a friend, Lawrence Bobo. The other account was provided by the attorney for Henry Louis Gates, Jr. They are, in my opinion, very different accounts. The attorney's account would leave one to believe that the policeman had no cause to make an arrest. But, the account by Lawrence Bobo convinced me that Gates was responsible for his own arrest even though Bobo blames the policeman for a false arrest. Gates and a second black man broke into a house that he had just rented when he found that the door was damaged and the key would not open it. This activity was reported to the local police who responded as though it was a possible burglary.

I agree that race continues to be an issue in the US. Having a black man as president gives white America a new perspective that is not wasted on many, if any, whites and it gives blacks a new perspective of themselves and hope for continued improvements in race relations. However, I think Professor Gates is responsible for his arrest. Professor Gates could and should have reacted like an “unknown person” confronted by a policeman investigating the report of a possible crime. Instead, he chose to assume that the white policeman was disrespecting him because he was black. Then again, it may have been a “class” issue: the working class cop versus the “famous and successful Harvard professor”, according to Lawrence Bobo. I can’t be sure whether either the policeman or Professor Gates turned this into a “class” issue but Lawrence Bobo’s own words suggest to me that he has a “class” attitude. I didn’t recognize the name Henry Louis “Skip” Gates in spite of the fact, according to Lawrence Bobo, that Professor Gates is “one of the most readily recognized black men in America and the most broadly influential black scholar of this generation.” I looked at a photo of Professor Gates and he was not familiar to me. That doesn’t mean that Professor Gates is not highly recognized and most broadly influential. What it means to me is that at least Lawrence Bobo, if not Professor Gates, is wrong to assume that the policeman had to have recognized Professor Gates by sight and by name and was bent on punishing him for his race and/or his status.

Let me know what you think after you have read both views.

Secret CIA Program - A Legal Not Political Matter

CIA Director Leon Panetta recently disclosed to Congress a secret CIA program authorized by Dick Cheney in 2001. By order of Dick Cheney, Congress was never briefed on the program. This act alone is a violation of federal law. If Cheney did not want Congress to know that the program existed then one can only conclude that Congress would not have approved of the program's activities because those activities also violate the federal law or international treaty.

The GOP would have us believe that an investigation of the secret program would only be motivated by politics for the purpose of damaging the GOP and members of the Bush Administration. They further claim that the investigation would embarrass the US and likely threaten US security. John McCain asked, "What's going to be the positive result from airing out and ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should never have? "And," added McCain, "we are committed to making sure it never happens again." McCain would have a stronger argument against an investigation if the guilty admitted their wrong doing and condemned their own acts. Without that the nation has not adequately admitted that wrongs were done, never should have been done and should not be done again. Without a full admission of guilt those who believe that wrongs were not done will commit, or permit others to commit, the same wrongs in the future.

I agree that a political motivation exists but politics must not also prevent the US from investigating criminal activity, especially within the government, and prosecuting those responsible for it. The US has already lost moral ground with other nations and the only way to recover it is to thoroughly investigate and prosecute these crimes. Finally, the only way to ensure that future administrations do not violate the law is to demonstrate that future violations will not go unpunished by punishing the violators within the Bush Administration.

I don't doubt that the country will be deeply split if the Department of Justice proceeds with this investigation but that is not a reason to ignore criminal acts. The country has been deeply split before and each time has risen from it a better country for fully enforcing our Constitution. The strongest example is the secession of the Southern slave states following the election of Abe Lincoln who campaigned against the expansion of slavery. The cost of doing the right thing was high but the need was greater.

Our Constitution is only as powerful as our commitment to enforce it. Enforcing the Constitution is not "politics as usual" it is a matter of Law and the survival of our Constitution.

Fox & Friends Host Is An Idiot - Maybe A Racist

Watch this video of "Fox and Friends" host Brian Kilmeade proving that he is at least an idiot if not also a racist. How does this gang stay on the air? The first time I watched this show, the female host stated, while responding to an accusation that the United States would preemptively use nuclear weapons, "the United States has never used its nuclear weapons." Has she not heard of "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" that were dropped on Japan and killed more than 200,000 people? Murdock doesn't care who he hires at Fox as long as they will tell his lies. Is it possible that Murdock's lackeys are stupid enough to believe what that are saying?

Are Mexican Army Interrogators CIA-Trained?

"Mexico Accused of Torture in Drug War PUERTO LAS OLLAS, Mexico -- The Mexican army has carried out forced disappearances, acts of torture and illegal raids in pursuit of drug traffickers, according to documents and interviews with victims, their families, political leaders and human rights monitors." (By Steve Fainaru and William Booth, The Washington Post)

I bet the United States Government doesn't have the nerve to complain to Mexico that the methods they are employing against suspected drug traffickers are human rights violations. Yet, if they do I won't be surprised. After all, John McCain stated that the United States does not have to worry that other countries will also violate the Geneva Convention Treaty if the United States refuses to prosecute its own treaty violators. Why? "Because other countries know that the United States will punish them for their war crimes if they torture our military personnel," said John McCain.

Apparently the Golden Rule and international treaties apply to all nations except the United States.

Rev. Al Sharpton - Playing the Race Card over Michael Jackson

I have never been a fan of the Rev. Al Sharpton because he too often creates a race issue where one did not exist or he throws fuel on a small issue, making it worse rather than better.

Now he is using the death of Michael Jackson to accuse the news media and the entertainment industry of slighting Michael Jackson by their "inadequate" coverage of his passing and recognition of his talents. It was my opinion that the news media and the entertainment industry could not have spent more time and resources on Michael Jackson since his passing. Was there anything else on TV for days after Michael Jackson died? The news media over-reports on many events until most of us are sick of the subject and they haven't made an exception for Michael Jackson.

Sharpton called on the news media and the entertainment industry to recognize Michael Jackson on the occasion of his passing in a manner equal to that which was afforded Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. I'm very sure that Sinatra's passing did not give rise to as much positive coverage. I even doubt that Elvis Presley was lauded more than Michael Jackson although the news media could and did make more of the cause for Presley's "passing."

I don't question whether Michael Jackson was a significant talent and I don't resent the attention that he has received due to his very significant fan following. However, as a person, rather than a musician, Jackson deserves significant criticism although now is not the proper time. Matter of fact, his parents also deserve significant criticism, in my opinion, for their contribution to the making of Michael Jackson, the person.

If the impact of Al Sharpton's statements were limited to his reputation then I would not mind that he is making a fool of himself, but his conduct is a negative impact on the race issue in America. What's worse is that his impact is often negative.

More Anti-Obama Lies From Rush Limbaugh

While on a recent 1,300 mile roadtrip I happened onto Rush Limbaugh's radio talkshow. I think we should listen to both sides of all the issues which affect us or on which we want to have an opinion. So, I decided to listen to Rush.

The Obama Administration had just announced that the federal government would provide cash awards for the development of technologies that will reduce America's reliance on carbon based fuels. Rush stated that the cash incentive is sufficient evidence that nobody knows how to achieve the goals that Obama set and that these technologies are not currently cost justified. Rush also complained that the government should not spend money to develop technologies that the private sector is not willing to invest in. For example, one of the goals is to increase the automobile mileage to at least 70 mpg without significantly increasing the cost of the automobile. I agree that nobody knows how to do this or that 'somebody' would already be selling the technology like hotcakes to a hungry man. I don't agree that the United States should wait for the private sector to develop new technologies which will benefit the the country as a whole but cannot be cost justififed by the private sector. If that were the case the world would not now have the internet and Americans would not have the federal superhighway system.

Rush Limbaugh is smart enough to know that he is lying to his fans but he also knows that most of his fans aren't smart enough or informed enough to know that they are being lied to. Such is the strength of the talking heads of the far-right base of the nearly deceased and thoroughly insignificant GOP.

More Richard Nixon Tapes!!!

I get to post twice today thanks to Gov. Sanford of South Carolina and the late and disgraced President Richard Nixon.

More taped oval office conversations of Richard Nixon have been released. These tapes reveal that he was a racist. While discussing the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion Nixon stated, "I admit, there are times when abortions are necessary, I know that." Nixon cited "a black and a white" as an example. Charles Colson with whom Nixon was speaking added, "or rape." "Or rape," said Nixon. Did the weary Civil Rights Movement know that it had an opponent in the White House?

In another taped conversation with George HW Bush, who was then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Nixon stated, "I noticed a couple of very attractive women, both of them Republicans, in the legislature, I want you to be sure to emphasize to our people, God, let's look for some … Understand, I don't do it because I'm for women, but I'm doing it because I think maybe a woman might win someplace where a man might not … So have you got that in mind?"
To which Bush replied, "I'll certainly keep it in mind."

Nixon's tapes have ensured that his legacy will be as poor as it deserves to be. More poor than we could have imagined without the aid of his tapes.

Can the Moral Majority still think the GOP represents their Moral Interests?

Two more possible 2012 GOP presidential candidates have likely dashed their hopes for nomination by admitting to extra-marital affairs. Senator Ensign got off easy compared to SC Governor Sanford who "disappeared" for nearly one week without a word to his family, his staff or the State of South Carolina. After telling the press that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail he was caught by a news reporter arriving in South Carolina on a flight from Argentina. Now he has admitted to his family, his state and the GOP, which he had hoped to lead back to the White House, that he has been having a affair with a woman from Argentina.

How many moral scandals can the GOP commit before the Moral Majority realizes that the GOP politicians and leadership are giving them lip service only? I'm not suggesting that the Democratic party hasn't had some moral scandals of its own but the Democratic party doesn't claim to be the sole representative of Christian morals and ideals as does the GOP. Recently, Liberty University, founded by the Moral Majority's Jerry Falwell, banned the Democratic Club from the campus because unlike the Republican Party the Democratic Party with which the Club is affliliated "stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University." Can the university still assume that the Republican Party stands for those moral principles?

Who is left in the GOP that "may" still stand for those moral principles? Rush Limbaugh?

Can you hear me laughing out loud?

Is GITMO any better than a North Korean trial?

The following was posted by Mitchell Bard on The Huffington Post:

"North Korea can seize two innocent journalists, put them through a bogus, private, star-chamber trial, and then sentence them to 12 years of hard labor, all without any justification. The United States I grew up in, the United States that fought wars from World War I to the Cold War defending democracy and freedom against repression, could never engage in such conduct like the North Koreans did. And yet, there it is, for all to read, that we took a man and locked him up without a trial for 7 1/2 years, torturing him while in our custody, even though two courts, one in the U.S. and one in Bosnia (one before his detention and one after), found insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime. While we clearly have a more open and democratic society than North Korea does, his experience with us was no better than what the two American journalists are now going through in North Korea. We have to recognize that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang did real damage to core American ideals, and that this damage is still being felt, both at home and abroad." Mitchell Bard's full story

Do you feel, like most Americans, that North Korea's treatment of two American Journalists is a crime and that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is a criminal? Is the detention in GITMO without trial of suspected terrorists less criminal? If you are not just as outraged by the abuse of GITMO detainees as you are about the detention of two American journalists then, in my opinion, you have a serious moral deficiency.

The GOP "Leadership" Is Desperate!

The self-proclaimed GOP leaders are saying anything they can think of to discredit every action that Obama takes. The GOP obviously doesn't care if their statements are true but even I am surprised that they aren't even plausible.

During the BIG GOP fundraiser last night Newt Gingrich charged that Obama's stimulus plan prevents Boy Scouts from holding meetings in public schools. Does anybody with at least half a brain believe that?

Sarah Palin (I still can't believe that anybody takes her seriously) charged that after Obama bails out and buys up all the corporations he will start bailing out and buying up all the bankrupted state governments. At that point Obama will not only be able to hire and fire corporate CEO's, he will also control the states and the People. Does anybody with at least half a brain believe that?

As stupid as those claims are to you and me, there's a large number of people that believe them. I don't wonder why moderate Republicans are leaving the GOP?

Law Enforcement Could Have Prevented Dr. Tiller's Murder

Scott Roeder, an extreme anti-abortion activist, has been charged with murdering Dr. Tiller, who performed abortions, some late-term, in Wichita, KS. I don't believe in abortion unless it is a medical necessity. Dr. Tiller performed abortions that were legal in Kansas. The legality of his abortions was upheld in court.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 1994, forbids the use of force, threat of force or physical obstruction to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. Violation of the Act is a federal crime. In 1994, the Dept of Justice prosecuted 17 violations of FACE. In the years 1994 through 1998, the DOJ prosecuted about 50 violations. While GW Bush was president, the DOJ prosecuted an average of 2 violations per year. The number of DOJ prosecutions would be expected to decrease because the number of FACE complaints per year decreased. However, the ratio of prosecutions to complaints during the Bush administration was only one-third as much as throughout the Clinton administration.

Violations have not decreased for all clinics as much as they have for some because of differences in the enforcement of the law. Law enforcement in Wichita, KS where Dr. Tiller had his clinic was poor to none. After one Wichita city attorney failed to act on one of Dr. Tiller’s complaints, the attorney explained that he would rather be sued by Dr. Tiller than the anti-abortionists.

Many complaints about Scott Roeder were filed with the FBI over a period of years yet Roeder was never prosecuted. The FBI received two complaints from a Kansas City clinic about Scott Roeder one week before the murder and the day before the murder. In the second incident a clinic employee confronted Roeder while Roeder was trying to super glue the clinic’s access doors. Roeder was also videotaped by the clinics security system but the FBI did nothing.

While local law enforcement and the FBI did nothing, Cheryl Sullenger, an advisor to Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group in Wichita, provided information to Scott Roeder regarding the time and place of various court hearings in which Dr. Tiller was involved. Cheryl Sullenger served two years in jail for conspiracy to bomb a California abortion clinic. Sullenger claims that she was only providing answers to Roeder’s questions and was not otherwise involved. It appears to me that Cheryl Sullenger, if not Operation Rescue also, conspired to murder Dr. Tiller.

Scott Roeder was able to murder Dr. Tiller because the DOJ, the FBI and local law enforcement in Kansas repeatedly and consistently failed to act. I expect Scott Roeder to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I question whether Cheryl Sullenger and Operation Rescue will be investigated to determine if either or both conspired with Scott Roeder. I also question whether the DOJ, FBI and Wichita law enforcement will investigate their neglect that enabled this crime to be committed.

Liberty Limited at Liberty University

Earlier this month Liberty University, the Christian Evangelical university founded by the late Jerry Falwell, informed the student Democrats Club that it is no longer recognized as a university club. In an e-mail to the Democrats Club the vice-president of student affairs stated, "I must inform you that the College democrats' club is no longer going to be recognized as a Liberty University club. We are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University. I expressed these concerns when we met, earlier in the spring semester. The Liberty Way states, "It is the duty of every student to respect Liberty's Statement of Doctrine and Purpose. They may not engage in any activity on or off campus that would compromise the testimony or reputation of the University or cause disruption to Liberty's Christian learning environment." The Liberty University School of Law had been working on a policy to govern their clubs and organizations for quite some time. They have now completed that policy and we have adopted it for Liberty University as well. Now that it has been adopted and will apply to all clubs and organizations, it is clear that this club does not comply."

When the bigoted and self-righteous Jerry Falwell chose Liberty as the name for his university, whose liberty did he have in mind? He certainly didn't believe in liberty for his followers and university students.

As a tax exempt religious organization the university is barred from participating in politics and advocating for any political party or candidate. Banning the student Democrats Club because its parent organization is the Democratic Party violates the conditions under which the university receives its tax exemption. Liberty University students who receive federal financial aid or student loans that are guaranteed by the federal government are at risk of losing such funding.

Liberty University can advocate against abortion and same-sex marriage but it cannot advocate for or against any political party or candidate and continue to be recognized as a religious organization. Liberty University and its supporters will complain that their religious freedom is under attack by the Left, by the Democratic Party and by anti-Christians but this will simply not be true.

Military Suicide Rate is High

The suicide rate among active duty military personnel is higher than in the general population. Last year, there were 140 such suicides. That is alarmingly high but the suicide rate among active duty military has always been high, in fact, the suicide rate among inactive veterans is higher than in the general population. This could suggest either that personnel who join the military are already more predisposed to suicide or that the active duty experience causes a change in the personnel that results in an increase in suicide rate and that this change is permanent for all or most of the personnel.

The military is struggling to reduce the incidence of suicide but is still not able to identify all of those at risk of or already contemplating suicide.

When I was in boot camp in San Diego in 1965, five recruits committed suicide and many more attempted it. I was in boot camp for 14 weeks. There were 80 recruits in my company at the start of training. Three of them had nervous breakdowns early on in the training and were discharged. A fourth was sent to a hospital for several weeks before restarting training shortly before my company graduated.

I've always thought that the military should have been able to identify during initial evaluations those people who were at greater risk of a mental breakdown and suicide. It was my impression that the military didn't really care. One night in boot camp while I was on guard duty one of the recruits from another company in my battalion pretended to commit suicide. He cut his wrist with a razor but it wasn't deep enough to do real harm. When the recruit was brought before the battalian duty officer, an older mustang officer, he chewed out the recruit. He told him that the next time he tried to commit suicide he had to cut deeper and cut his throat instead of his wrist at which point the duty officer swiped an object across the recruit's neck as if to cut his throat for him. The recruit fainted. That's how sensitive the military was to the issue when I was a recruit.

Surely, the military is more sensitive and more capable than they were 45 years ago but the statistics show that they are far from being adequately capable.

I suspect that some people think that men aren't made of the same tough stuff that they used to be made of and their weakness contributes to the high suicide rate. That wasn't true 45 years ago and I'm sure that is not true today.

Conservative Mancow Muller says Waterboarding Torture

On May 22, 2009 Erich "Mancow" Muller, a conservative radio talk show host submitted himself for waterboarding. "I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture."

I watched a video of his waterboarding, which was administered by Marine Sergeant Clay South. Muller stopped the waterboarding after 6 to 7 seconds and was visably shaken by the experience. Muller stated, "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens submitted himself to the same thing last year and came to the same conclusion. In fact, Hitchens said that the experience "haunted" him for months.

Sean Hannity, Fox, offered to submit to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture. Hannity has not followed through although given the chance to do so. I'm not going to suggest that Hannity is a coward because he changed his mind. I wouldn't submit myself to waterboarding, but then I already believe that it is torture. Hannity had enough sense to stop short of "torturing" himself and proving to his audience that his mouth is bigger than his lungs are.

Too bad that Muller's experience won't be enough to convince everybody that waterboarding is torture. Many of them will find some way to excuse Muller's inability to endure waterboarding. They will continue to support the use of waterboarding. There are many other supporters of waterboarding who didn't need Muller to demonstrate whether it was torture. These people already believe that waterboarding is torture. They believe that the US had the right to torture the detainees and would approve of the US using torture in the future.

Steve King - Another Worthless Republican Bigot

Iowans made a damn big mistake when they elected Steve King to the US Congress. Steve King opposes the hate crime bill that makes federal funds and legal services available to local and state governments that otherwise might not be able investigate and prosecute hate crimes and expands the law to protect individuals targeted because of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and disability. I've read every word of the bill and I found that none of the complaints about this bill are true.

The first complaint I heard was from religious conservatives who warned that the bill would make it possible for the government to prosecute church leaders who oppose homosexuality. Nothing in the bill supports this outrageous claim. In fact, the bill contains an explicit provision reiterating that free speech rights are not altered by any provisions in the bill. In order for somebody to be charged with a hate crime, the crime has to result in death or bodily injury.

Last month Republican Virginia Foxx, complained that sponsors of the bill were improperly citing the robbery/murder of Matthew Shepard as a hate crime to promote the passage of the bill. Virginia Foxx said that it was a hoax to call the Matthew Shepard murder a hate crime. She did so in the presence of Matthew Shepard's mother. Matthew Shepard died after being tied to a fence post and beaten. His murderers confessed that they pretended to be gay in order to lure Matthew out of a bar so that they could kill him for being gay.

Steve King is now claiming that the bill will protect pedophiles. If Steve King is not lying through his teeth, he is more stupid than anybody I know. There is nothing in the bill that could in any way be interpreted as protective of pedophiles.

There is nothing that opponents of the hate crime bill will not say and do to prevent it from becoming law. Do they hate the victims of hate crimes more than the criminals? Do the opponents of this bill believe that the victims of certain hate crimes are deserving of punishment? It's impossible for me to believe otherwise.

No person that feels and acts like Steve King and Virginia Foxx deserves to hold any government office. It is not a place for bigotry and hatred. Shame on them and shame on the voters that put them in office.

The Big Bang and Creationism

Most of the Christians I know believe the universe was created by God. They do not believe in the prevailing theory of science - The Big Bang. Many of them disagree with The Big Bang Theory without knowing anything about it. They believe that the universe was created by God exactly as stated in the Book of Genesis. I have always believed that the Big Bang and Creationism are not opposing concepts. Why couldn't God be responsible for the Big Bang?

Christians tell me that the Big Bang would have been revealed in Genesis if it had really occurred. How would God have explained the Big Bang to his people thousands of years ago? Would the messages contained in Genesis be better understood if God had provided a scientific description of creation?

The Big Bang says that the Universe was once smaller than a single atom. For an unknown reason it rapidly expanded and began forming stars. Over billions of years some of those stars died and in the process of dying formed all the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The debris from exploded dying stars formed all the other objects in the universe, including Earth, the moon, you and me. We are all stardust. The universe continues to expand at an ever decreasing rate. At some time many, many billions of years from now the expansion of the universe will stop and the last star will burn out.

The Big Bang can't explain the origin of the single particle that became the universe. The Big Bang can't explain why that particle exploded into the universe. Science can tell us what happened and how it happened but it can't explain why. Why is a question that only Religion, not Science, can address.