Christian Conservative Activists Declare Holy War on the Nations' Courts

This week's Newsweek Magazine has an excellent article on the Christian Conservative Republicans' Jihad against the third branch of our government. This sort of rhetoric only serves to undermine the judiciary in the eyes and minds of the people. It is not healthy and serves only a portion of the American population.

That portion that would see our freedoms stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws, limiting abortions, sanctioning discrimination against Homosexuals, introducing biblical verse and doctrine into public school curriculum, hanging the Ten Commandments everywhere, and silencing the Democratic Party, or anyone who dared speak out against their increasingly radical and intolerant views.

It is a sad frightening spectacle unfolding within the Republican controlled halls of Congress and within small-minded conservative organizations across the country. In my mind, they and not the Courts are the real threat to the American way of life and system of governance; they and not the Courts are the activist who would re-write our laws to suit their narrow view of life, and we, the majority must fight back!

There are some conservative Christian Republicans, Tom Delay and Representative Steve King who would fundamentally change the structure of the Court system. King recently stated: "We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court...It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table." While it is true that Article Three does not speak to the size of the Supreme Court, any attempt to change the composition of the Court would cause (I would hope) tremendous upheaval in the electorate, because I dare say most Americans look to the Supreme Court as their last bastion best hope for justice. Congress would, at its own peril realign the Court.

It is ironic that while we have American troops dying oversea to secure the blessings of liberty for others, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are under sustained attack by conservatives here in America; that while we fight fundamentalist Islam oversea, fundamentalists Christians are on the march in America and threaten to do what Osama Bin Laden dreams of: bring down the American Republic and replace it with a Theocracy; that while the American government shouts platitudes about the rule of law abroad, the rule of law, and the cause of justice is under seize by religious zealots here at home.

Is this the America we want to live in, one dominated by religious zealotry? Is this the America we want to bequeath to our children, an America where the judiciary is stripped of real power by religious extremists and is but a rubber stamp of the Congress and President? What then of our rights under the Constitution? What institution will protect our fundamental and Civil freedoms? Will we all have to prey before class; will public office holders have to swear allegiance to God before being allowed to take office; will agnostics and atheists be persecuted wholesale? How soon before the U.S. slides into Third World nation status, and the bold experiment ended in failure because the ignorant shouted the loudest?

Tom Delay's Dying Words?

Tom Delay that bastion of un-questionable morals and ethics, is once again speaking out of the side of his ill-informed mouth, once again attacking the third and co-equal branch of government for its failure to-gasp-rule the way he wanted them to in the Terri Schiavo case.

Speaking on Fox radio (where else?), Delay stated, "[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also dismantle courts and reorganize them." Huh? Do we now live in a Third World dictatorship where the Judiciary serves as a rubber-stamp for the power hungry, or worse yet, does not serve at all? This irresponsible statement from a man, a representative of the people, only proves that Delay is out of touch and out of step with the world.

Delay went on to attack Reagan appointee Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for having the audacity to look, in part, to International Law in formulating opinions, and for using the Internet to do legal research. Delay stated,

[W]e've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States. That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.

Say Tom, isn't that ignorance dripping from the corners of your mouth? The foundation for American Black Letter Laws finds its beginnings in the federal and the many constitutions, but the courts also rely heavily on precedent established under Common Law. And our Common Law tradition springs not from the constitution, but from Great Britain, which has a long history of Common Law practice. Early Supreme Court cases were festooned with references to British Common Law cases, and indeed these cases formed the foundation of our own Common Law jurisprudence.

And America should not be an intellectual island where International Law is ignored because we arrogantly believe that our laws and our constitution are superior to all others, and that we have nothing to learn from other societies. That sort of hubris would never escape the lips of one more informed, more cultured, and more nuanced about the world at large.

As for Justice Kennedy using the Internet to research cases, ever heard of Lexis-Nexus, or Westlaw representative Delay? They are after all widely utilized legal references; V. Edward to Tom: here is a quarter, buy a clue! Delay's political demise cannot come soon enough for me.

Bill Frist's Christian Jihad

In the latest broadside to be fired in the ongoing war between the Democrat's and Republican’s in the Senate over the time honored tradition of the filibuster, the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has decide to brand Democrats "enemy's of Christianity," on a nationally televised broadcast entitled "Justice Sunday" on April 24, sponsored by the ultra-conservative Family Research Council.

Jihad: Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against individuals, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam...

The Councils' president Tony Perkins has stated in a letter to supporters that "[W]e must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith." The letter went on to state: "[F]or years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms...filibustered nominees are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction...[T]hese are people whose only offense is to say that abortion is wrong or that marriage should be between one man and one woman."

Is there any wonder that I have such a bad taste in my mouth whenever the words Religious Right are uttered in my presence?

Now it is one thing to visit a church or religious organization in search of votes, quite another to deliberately set out to brand your opposing Senators anti-Christian; attack a co-equal branch of government whose only offensive is doing their constitutionally mandated job; and debase yourself and your institution by groveling at the feet of the ignorant Bible-quoting minority for votes. Whatever respect I have for Bill Frist—and trust me it could be measured in stingy spoonfuls—has completely evaporated with this detestable stunt.

Have Republican lawmakers completely lost sight of their fundamental obligation to the constitution, to the American people, and America itself? Or is that they do not understand, or respect the document, We The People, our country? How much longer are the silent majority going to remain so while the fundamentalist Christians chip away at our constitutional institutions and rights as citizens? Enough is enough already!

The Looming American Theocracy

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…US CONT, amend 1.

The Founding Fathers have failed. They knew the dangers of allowing religion to invade the body politic and infect it with misplaced righteousness, and they attempted to separate the two, leaving politics to the Public Square and religion to the privacy of church and home. They attempted to enshrine the notion in the federal constitution, but their wording was too vague, their intent is lost on the often rudimentary and perfunctory understanding most Americans (including politicians) have of their own founding document. The Founding Fathers have failed, or is it we who have failed them?

There has been a new trend afoot across the landscape of American society. It arguably started with the election of Ronald Reagan and it continues apace today. That trend has taken religion out of the private sphere and thrust it—sometimes by force—into the Public Square with disastrous results to the fundamental rights of all Americans. Across this great land, the Religious Right populated by Christians of all stripes is making its voice heard, from pharmacists refusing to dispense medications, to the insistence by some that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public venues; from the new push to teach Intelligent Design alongside The Theory of Evolution, to the pervasion of religious rhetoric in the body politic; from the right to life movement to the enshrinement of discrimination in state constitutions in an attempt to deny homosexuals and lesbians the right to marry—in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Across this great land, secularism is under siege.

It is in my mind a dangerous trend that borders on fanaticism, the same extremism we are fighting in other parts of the world that seek our destruction. It is ironic that we seem to be accomplishing from within, what they seek to bring about from without; namely the collapse of American democracy, and the rise of Theocratic state, one based not on Islam, but on Christianity. It was faith, or more accurately, misplaced, and misrepresented faith that saw the Congress of the United States pass a law designed to help the one, and not the many; that saw the Congress cross the line and violate the separation of powers so vital to the continued well-being of our nation; that saw the President violate his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is this religious fanaticism and the pandering to thereof that increasingly pits the Legislative and Executive against the Judicial in an effort to discredit the latter in the eyes of the American public.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States…US CONT, art. VI, clause 3.

The seminal 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing et al. laid the legal and Constitutional foundation for the Separation of Church and State Doctrine that is both embraced and rejected by the American populace. In it the Court ruled:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

The case itself, which I counsel all to read, is stimulating and illuminating reading in that the justices recount the history of religious persecution and the oft disastrous results of mixing religion and government. And the case points out that the Founding Fathers had solid reasons for erecting a wall between religion and government. Their reasoned arguments make sense to those who seek to keep religion private and prevent it from unduly influencing public law and policy. On the other hand their arguments seem to fall on the deaf ears of those who seek to make all citizens subject to the conservative dictates and confused morals of Christianity.

As we sail deeper into the bosom of the 21st century, America is ever morphing into a multi-cultural society, one in which peoples from diverse religious backgrounds increasingly interact both publicly and privately. Islam, by all accounts, is the nation’s fastest growing religion; like it or no, the religion is here to stay and flourish. But so too is Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions of the Far East. Yes, we are a nation born of Christian people, but we can hardly lay claim to being a wholly Christian nation when so many religions are practiced freely within our borders.

The government (state and federal) must represent these Americans too; the message must not be sent through plaques and monuments erected on public property, or through political rhetoric, that other religions have no place in America; that Christianity is the favored religion. That is a direct affront to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Nor must the government seek to ban personal freedoms based on religious dogma as the Republicans seek to do by banning Gay Marriage and trying to enact an Amendment banning abortion. Nor must School Boards seek to force our public schools to teach religious dogma; we rail against this in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, how can we condone it here in America?

I am personally of no faith, I am an agnostic, and came by my position within myself, using logic, history, and the oft heinous behaviors of mankind towards one another as my guides. I do not prescribe to the belief that the Bible (which is full of glaring contradictions, wonderful poetry, spectacular fables, and is after all is said and done a great work of fiction) holds the answers to all of life’s mysteries and problems, and I certainly do not believe that our government received its mandate from God as many of those in the Religious Right movement believes. Our government springs from the will of the people as embodied in the Constitution. It is the constitution politicians owe their “public” allegiance to, not the Holy Bible.

Not that I do not understand the need for religion in some peoples lives. Indeed, religion can offer stability and focus in lives that suffer from a lack of both. It can offer moral grounding, and sound societal principles that can last a lifetime, but religion is not for everyone, and everyone does not need religion to live a happy and whole life. The government must represent ALL American on a fair and equal footing before the law, not just those Americans who clutch the Bible close to their breast. The government must not be seen to endorse any one religion over another in order to hold true to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment. To do otherwise is to invite the very melding of religion and government the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.

Ask yourself this question: is worship of the Devil a legitimate religious practice, and if so, if that religion seeks to have the Ten Commandments of Devil worship displayed on public grounds, on what basis could that be prevented if the Ten Commandment of God are also displayed therein? And if the answer is no, that Devil worship is not a valid form of religious worship, why not; what makes it any less legitimate than the worship of God? After all, the Devil is actually mentioned in the Bible, in the very first chapter. And what of worship of Witches, and Pagan worship, and the other myriad religions that now make up the American cultural landscape; should they be given equal footing and display rights in the public square that Christianity now enjoys? If the government were to hold true to the First Amendment, how could they be legally be denied equal access and space? Remember the 1st Amendment proclamation: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

Religion and religious teaching and dogma have no place in the public arena, they should remain private. If Christians—who now claim by the way that they are being persecuted by not being allowed to insert Intelligent Design into public school curriculum—want to limit their personal freedoms that is their choice to make; do not seek to impose your beliefs on others. If you morally object to contraception, do not practice birth control, and do not become a pharmacist, where you can interfere in the (legitimate) health care of others; if you do not believe in pre-marital sex, don’t engage in it; if you do not believe in Gay marriage, don’t practice it; if you do not believe that abortion is right; don’t have one; if you believe in Intelligent Design, or Creationism, learn it in the church or at home, but do not seek to have it taught in the public schools.

Leave the rest of us alone; don’t seek to have your misguided beliefs legislated into public laws that we all must follow. If you want you have a right to freedom of religion, then conversely, I—and others of like mind—have a right to freedom from religion.

History has shown that any society that sought to incorporate religious doctrine into the very fabric of public law, has suffered at the hands of those who would use such laws to oppress the populace, especially women and minorities. And one only has to look at modern-day Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and other countries where Islamic law holds sway to validate my assertions. In all of these countries, women and minorities are the ones being oppressed in the name of religion. Real human progress has stopped and whole segments of the population are valueless. Is this what we want for the U.S.; a Theocracy, a nightmarish script straight from the pages of A Handmaid’s Tale? Is this where the Grand Experiment in representative Democracy is leading us? Are we casting aside the constitution if favor of the Holy Bible?

Regarding Terri Schiavo

I can understand both sides of the Terri Schiavo debate, but at what point do you let go of a loved one. Terry is clearly not going to get any better, and I think it is cruel and selfish for the parents to let her linger in her current state. To what end? What is Terry’s quality of life? If it were her wish not to suffer in this state, then her desire to be let qo should be respected. It is, or was, her life after all, and if we do not have ultimate dominion over ourselves, what type of real freedom do we have?

And I think the Republican led Congress has way overstepped it authority on this one and will hopefully get slammed by the federal courts. The Republicans talk a blue streak about the need for government to stay out of our lives, for government to get off of our backs, for the federal government to respect states rights and here they are mucking around in a very, very personal issue; the hypocrisy is galling. Would any of us want Congress butting into our personal business?

It is clear to this citizen that the Republican’s seem to distain the third branch of government (the “unelected” judicial branch) and seek to discredit it in the minds of the citizenry by calling into question the very legitimacy of its rulings on the law by stating that they are not elected. Even a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (AS) furthered that ignorant school of thought in a speech last week chastising the Court’s recent ruling vis-à-vis the right of the states to execute minors.

The Republican’s also state that we are (the United States) should uphold the principles of a “culture of life,” but they think nothing of cutting funding for Medicaid and other medical and or social programs for the poor (guess they are not included in the culture of life, because their lives are worth less then others); letting tens of thousand die in Sudan; turn a blind eye to torture and murder in U.S. detention faculties overseas; refuse to support common-sense prescription drug coverage for all Americans; and support the state-sanction murder of U.S. prisoners. Sounds like a culture of life to me, how about you?

California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

In what is another battle won on the same-sex marriage front (yes I support same-sex marriage--albeit a temporary victory--a state court in the nation's most populous state, California, has ruled that a law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer stated in his opinion that "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."

The judge's ruling is sure to be appealed by any number of conservative groups and perhaps even the state, and it might be a while before we see final resolution on the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage violates the California state constitution. But it is gratifying that yet another state court has ruled that laws outlawing same-sex marriages are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clauses of the states' founding document. California's ruling comes close on the heals of two such rulings in Washington state, and one in New York in the past six months.

California's Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged in a hearing in December that the state is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he cited tradition as the reason the state should uphold the existing definition of marriage. Judge Kramer disagreed stating "[T]he state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."

I couldn't agree with the judge more! Once again this is not an issue of tradition, or religion, or even morality, it is an issue of equal protection before the law. It was tradition until recently to deny people of different races the right to marry; surely no one in the Year 2005 would (rationally) defend the right of the state to deny mixed race marriages on the basis of tradition. A tradition, no matter its intent or import to a segment of society, should not be adhered to if the fundamental constitution rights and or statute mandated Civil Rights of the citizenry are trampled, or otherwise set aside in order to honor said tradition.

Homosexuals (Gay men and lesbian women) are citizens of this nation, and their respective states, and such are constitutionally guaranteed equal protection before the law (see the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution as well as state constitutions). And if the state can find no compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage, it must allow it; marriage after all is a fundamental Constitutional right codified under Loving vs. Virginia. It matters not--or should matter not--what religion--any religion--has to say about the matter, because the institution of marriage as regulated by the many states is a Civil Institution, govern by civil law.

However, this might all be a moot point if California voters approve an amendment this coming November to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. If approved this amendment would follow 13 other states that did the same thing last November, effectively halting freedoms march in parts of the United States, relegating Gays to the status of perpetual second class citizens.

As I stated in a previous articles posted herein, the passage of these amendments to the various state constitutions underlies that by-and-large the American people (ordinary citizens and law-makers alike) lack even a basic understanding of the constitution and how our government is supposed to be run. Not do they understand or appreciate the tenets of real freedom and equality. That is frightening for the future of our nation…but the battle in this war is far from over…

Teaching Biblical Script as Science; Is it Any Wonder Johnny Can't Compete?

You have to hand it to the Christian Right, they are nothing if not determined to force their narrow-minded views informed by the Bible and faith on us all; believers and non-believers alike. Their latest front is really an old front closed, but reopened on a different vista, but it is the same old battle: to get creationism into the public schools.

I am continually amazed that Americans in increasing numbers fail to grasp the foundations of their own government; i.e. the doctrine of Separation of Church and State for starters. Could it be that as each generation is born, we slip further and further away from even a basic understanding of what the constitution means? I was shocked when Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, stated from the bench during arguments concerning the Ten Commandment case before the court, that government(s) derives its power to govern from God! Funny I thought the government drew it power to govern from We The People as embodied in the U.S. Constitutions and many subordinate state constitutions.

Scalia's statement can only serves to embolden those who seek to replace Civil Law with Canon Law and thrust religion and biblical teaching into the public sphere. Never mind that not all Americans are Christians or even believers in God, what matters is that their agenda governs. Never mind our collective freedom to be free of religion if we so choose. If they believe in God and the Bible, so should we all believe and live by the word. Never mind that the Religious Right continually and habitually seeks to deny freedom to others based on faith!

In a recent Washington Post article, the paper reported that the religious doctrine of Intelligent Design (regurgitated Creationism), is being push in nineteen states from Georgia to Ohio, Ohio to California, with stops is Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington state, and points in between. The proponents of Intelligent Design would have us believe that the concept, in which the human race was created by a higher intelligence, is science and deserves to be taught beside the Theory of Evolution as a viable alternative to the latter. Problem is the concept cannot even begin to be proven, much as the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven; indeed the existence of God and or other higher beings must be taken on, well faith. Since it implied that this higher being that created mankind is God, or a God-like being we must take it on faith that it true. Faith is not the basis for sound public education; therefore, Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom of any public school.

True the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, but at least there are some science backing the assumptions that man evolved over time from primitive creatures who share a common ancestry with apes, monkeys etc. Science bares this out; science on the other hand offers no proof that one all-mighty being created all we see on Earth and the Universe. Therefore I submit again that there is no place for Intelligent Design in the public schools.

Some may point to the bible as compelling evidence of Intelligent Design, but once again, nothing in the bible can be proved; it is all conjecture, written over the span of at least 500 years and by different men with their own agenda. The tome is very contradictory and meandering, and if take literally offers no real guidance at all. The Bible is filled with loft words, but we must take it on faith that the Bible is indeed the word of God, and faith once again is not the basis for sound scientific education.

I am against teaching the theologically inspired Intelligent Design in the public schools. Not only is it scientifically unsound, but it violates the Separation of Church and state doctrine set up by the First Amendment. If we allow Intelligent Design to be taught in the public school, would we then have to allow other religions to insert their believe(s) of how mankind came to be into the public school curriculum? We would if we were to remain true to the constitution, for the state cannot favor one religion above another.

Religion and religious teaching and or doctrine has no place in the public arena, it should remain private. If Christians--who now claim by the way that they are being persecuted by not being allowed to insert Intelligent Design into public school curriculum--want to teach the ID let them do it at home and in the church. What I ask is wrong with that? Leave the rest of us alone; if you want you children to wallow in ignorance fine, but don't ask my children to share their fate.

It Is Past Time For Tom Delay to Go!

Does anyone but me get a bad taste in their mouth whenever they utter the words Tom Delay? This man could be the poster child for all that is wrong in the halls of Congress. And one has to ask: at this point is Tom Delay really representing the people of his district, or following his own purulent self interests?

And if the latter is true—how far will his fellow Republicans and constituents let him go before shouting enough is enough? I for one would not shed a tear if Delay were brought down and brought do hard.

The powerful Congressman from Texas has been admonished three times over the last year for official misconduct by the House ethics committee, but still he seems to remain as powerful as ever, suggesting that Republican Party’s claim to the moral high ground on ethics is lodged deep within the bosom of hypocrisy. And once again Tom Delay is in the news for allegedly violating House ethics rules by taking a trip sponsored by foreign interests.

And yet the ten member (five Republicans and five Democrats) House ethics committee formally the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is powerless to act because of rules changed pushed by Delay’s political toady House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)—who I am ashamed to say represents my district in Illinois—who recently replaced the chairman and two other Republican members, with Congressmen more loyal to the leadership. Then came the rule changes pushed by the Republican leadership that make it impossible for the committee to investigate a member of the House for wrong-doing without a majority vote. The rules used to stipulate that in the event of a tie an investigation would be triggered thereby upholding the bi-partisan flavor of the body.

The rule changes have effectively stalemated the committee and allowed Tom Delay to thwart the system set up to weed out those who would abuse their power. The committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), said recently in an interview that

"[T]hese rules undermine the ability of the committee to do its job…an ethics committee has to do a good job if it's going to do any job at all."

He made these remarks after the committee met, stalemated, and fail to agree to start an investigation into Delay’s latest violations of House ethics rules.

These are far from Delay’s only flirtation with lapse ethics. In Texas, three of his close associates have been indicted on charges of illegal corporate campaign contributions and money laundering by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, based in Austin. It is alleged that most of the money was raised from corporations in 2002 and fueled the now famous (infamous if you are a Democrat) Republican takeover of the Texas legislature. Such contributions are a violation of Texas state law.

The three associates are Jim Ellis, a close Delay political associate, fundraiser Warren RoBold and John Colyandro, executive director of DeLay's political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). In addition to the charges of illegal contributions, indictments on charges of money laundering were also leveled against both Colyandro and Ellis.

Can any rational thinking person believe the Delay did not have a hand in the wrongdoings? And again House ethics rules were changed by the Republican leadership to protect him in case he is indicted.

What of our vaunted American system of checks-and-balances if one party can run rouge-shot over the other in an undecidedly undemocratic flaunting of power? Has Delay grown too powerful and the Speaker too weak, and the House too sullied with the excrement of the Republicans flagrant and abusive power-grapping shenanigans to be trusted with the peoples business?

Related Storeis:

DeLay linked to fund-raising for PAC under investigation

Texas Dems See Violations in DeLay Actions


DeLay PAC Lawsuit Goes to Trial in Texas


DeLay: More Cash—And More Questions

Who Needs a Minimum Wage Anyway?

Yes, it is time for the Republicans to show us (Americans) the true meaning of family values by once again denying the working poor even the promise of a decent wage from which to raise their families. Can a family of three, let alone a family of four or five survive on $824.00 a month? Can a single person for that matter?

The Democratic proposal—sponsored by that champion of the American worker, the Honorable Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts—was to increase the minimum wage by 41 percent, to $7.25 and hour over the next two years. It was roundly defeated by Republicans in the Senate in what was largely seen as a known outcome. Before the 49 to 46 vote count an angry Senator Kennedy denounced the coming defeat saying,

"The height of hypocrisy will be this afternoon, when those individuals in this Senate say no to a minimum wage increase of $7.25 an hour when this institution voted themselves a $28,500 pay increase over the last five years…minimum wage has been flat all these years, but not for the members of this Congress."

And he is right, after four years without a salary increase, the members of Congress quietly voted themselves one in the fall of 1997. The 2.3 percent hike amounted to about a $3,000 a year increase, bringing the average Congressman’s salary to $136,673. Leaders of both parties got considerably more; e.g. the Speaker of the House, then one Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), salary rose to $175,445.

And it didn’t stop there; Congress has voted itself a pay raise almost every year since 1996 seeing their income raise approximately $24,500 since January 1998 to some $158,100 by January 2004. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage standard has not been adjusted since 1996. Anyone who runs a household will relate to you that $5.15 an hour is not enough to live on, not with the price of everything it takes to live a decent life continuing to increase on an almost monthly basis.

I am not saying the members of Congress do not deserve a raise(s), they do after all have to support two separate households, but the disparity between their salaries tan those of their constituents is grossly out of whack.

The Republicans of course denounced Senator Kennedy’s bid to raise the minimum wage saying that it would do more harm than good. Senator John E. Sununu, (R-NH) said that by

“raising minimum wage, you are pricing some workers out of the market…it is an economic fact. Proponents of the minimum-wage increase like to dismiss this."

Someone please explain to me what this means! What market is he referring to; the market to flip burgers for a living? Or is he saying that paying unskilled workers $7.25 an hour will make them too expensive to hire? If so by whom? Even the unskilled deserve a decent wage, a place to live, and sleep, and eat and raise a family if they so choose.

Are we striving to become more like Third World nations where unskilled labor is an expendable resource we as a society can write off at will. That because they as unskilled, their worth as citizens is not work measuring. What about the children? How moral a choice is this?

I agree with Senator Kennedy on one other point: the hypocrisy of the Republicans is glaring…shame on them for once again showing the average American that their concerns matter not a wit…what a wasted vote. Is this the America we want to bequeath to our children?

Can The U.S. Claim Sole Credit For Democratic Movement Sweeping the Middle East?

Is Bush right when he announces that "freedom is on the march"across the Middle East? It certainly appears as though there has been an attitude shift in and among the people of the Middle East of late that seems to embrace the tenants of democratic principles.

Lebanon is just the latest example in a growing list of countries where freedom is the new buzzword. Egypt’s president recently called for multi-party presidential elections, after almost four decades as authoritarian rule. Even the Palestinians are beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel that might shine the light of freedom upon their war weary heads. Can a nation built on democratic principles really, finally take form in the West bank and Gaza Strip?

But is this explosion of democratic thought a direct result of the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and the resulting elections held there at the end of January, or would this have come to pass without U.S. intervention? And will freedom ever take hold in the three most important counties in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt? With large populations of Muslim fundamentalist whose interest it is to maintain the status quo, can democratic ideals informed by Western traditions and principles ever really take hold in these three nations?

Can Bush take credit for this movement towards democracy, and in so doing justify a war that has cost so many lives, both American and Iraqi?

Federal Court Orders Padilla Set Free Failing Criminal Charges by the Government

Oh how slowly the wheels of American justice turn, but turn they do. In a ruling yesterday afternoon U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd, sitting of South Carolina, ordered the government to charge Padilla with a crime within 45 days or let him go.

Calling the Padilla case a matter of law enforcement and not a military matter, the judge ruled that the government cannot hold the so-called “enemy combatant” without charging him with a crime. The judge future implied that the President had overstepped the authority of his office is declaring Padilla an enemy combatant stating,

Since (Padilla's) alleged terrorist plans were thwarted when he was arrested on the material witness warrant, the court finds that the president's subsequent decision to detain (him) as an enemy combatant was neither necessary nor appropriate.

Judge Floyd went on to write:

It is true that there may be times during which it is necessary to give the executive branch greater power than at other times. Such a granting of power, however, is in the province of the legislature and no one else -- not the court and not the president.

I agree, the President grossly overstepped the bounds of his office in declaring Padilla an “enemy combatant” while at the same time giving the “American Taliban” John Walker, who is white, a free pass, despite the fact that he was found on the field of battle in Afghanistan. Walker, who was never labeled an enemy combatant, was charged criminally and is now serving time; meanwhile Padilla is languishing in a military brig in South Carolina, charged with nothing. Such arbitrary distinctions clearly violate the 14th Amendment, and shout of racial bias on the part of the President.

It’s a shame that a ruling of this nature had to take as long as it did. But I never lost faith in the justice system to rule in favor of Padilla however long it took. The government will of course appeal, but hopefully the 4th Circuit will rule as the District Court did, and set Mr. Padilla free…however onerous his (alleged) behavior, he is an American citizen and deserving of the Constitutional right afforded to us all.

CNN.com - Canada?won't join?missile defense shield - Feb 24, 2005

CNN.com - Canada?won't join?missile defense shield - Feb 24, 2005
While I certainly understand the need to protect the United States from hostile nations, I do not support spending billion of dollars on a system the will never work in our lifetime. Seems our neighbors to the north share that view. I think the money we are spending on Missile Defense would be better spent on other more pressing matters, oh, like affordable day care, or protecting ports with more Coast Guard vessels, or a real perscirption drug plan.

Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting (washingtonpost.com)

Bradley Figting Vehicle 
Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting (washingtonpost.com) I hate to say I told you so, it seems too easy, but I told you so! It doesn’t take genius to figure out that as the war in Iraq dragged on, Army recruitment would start to suffer. After all, no one wants to sign up to die in a foreign land in a war without a goal or plausible cause, despite the money the Bush Administration is throwing at possible recruits. I state again, it is time to bring back the draft. If we all have to sacrifice for the cause of freedom, is it fair to continue to ask only those who see no other course, to be the only ones to serve?

CNN.com - USS Jimmy Carter commissioned - Feb 19, 2005

U.S.S. Jimmy Carter 

CNN.com - USS Jimmy Carter commissioned - Feb 19, 2005

As a former (always) submariner I take great interest in the Navy’s ongoing submarine programs. And I have been following the Seawolf program from its inception and it’s a shame that the Navy cannot afford more of these boats, but at a cost of 3.2 billion, it not hard to understand why.

I will disagree with the articles’ assertion however that the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is the most heavily armed submarine ever built. The most heavily armed “attack” submarine ever built perhaps, but arguably the Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) of the Ohio class are more heavily armed, as are, or were the Russian Typhoon class SSBN’s. One must not forget that these submarines carry nuclear Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) tipped Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) missiles. For instance, one Ohio SSBN carries some 192 strategic nuclear warheads, on 24 missiles, plus torpedoes making them far and away the most heavily armed submarines in the world.

V. Edward Martin
CTT1(SS) USN (Ret.)

The News & The Ignorant Masses...

The day is a generally depressing one. Even though it’s the weekend I am still not resting as I should; I always seem to be behind on something. And the news is really starting to get under my skin, not so much the news per-se the subject matter. There was a piece on last night about the Evolution debate in the public schools that really pissed me off. Why are we still having this debate? I get so fed up with the Christians and their zeal to make everyone as ignorant as they are. Live your live and let me live mine. If you want to teach your children Creationism do it at home on in Church not in the Public School, where it has no place! The bible is not a text book from which all public school children can or should be taught. Leave it alone already.

To me the sense and sensibility behind the doctrine of separation of church and state is so clear, that any moron could figure it out, but I suppose I am wrong in this regard. Most people are not students of history; most Americans are not students of their own nation’s history, let alone that of the world. Ignorance will spell the end of this Republic, and it is so frustrating, because we have such promise. I only hop I am not there to see the end of it all.

The Budget Numbers Just Don't Add Up

Is any one else waking up in a cold sweat night after night just thinking of the budget deficits our President is proposing despite his pledge to cut the ballooning budget deficit in half by the time he leaves office? I have to wonder, does Bush really think we are all as dense as he is? Probably so. The numbers just don’t add up, despite the rosy rhetoric from the White House.

After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon

I am left with so many questions and very few answers other then the fact that our President is a dullard who lacks common sense, vision, and the wisdom to occupy the Oval Office. Why is Bush so intent on pushing through a tax cut in a time of war? Why is Bush pursuing a redesign of Social Security despite not having the funds to pay for it; where will the estimated 2 trillion dollars com from Mr. Bush? Why has Bush stated that he would veto any attempt to redesign the Medicare Reform Act in an effort to lower the ballooning costs, costs his administration hid from Congress?

One last question: How, given the continued cost of the twin wars, the redesign of Social Security, the newly discovered addition costs of the Medicare Reform Act—none of which is part of your recent budget Mr. Bush—and more tax cuts are you, Mr. Bush going to keep your pledge to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009? What is the plan Mr. Bush?

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

I take no pains to neither hide nor apologize for my rich distain for George W. Bush and his crooked, dysfunctional Administration. It still troubles me greatly that an admitted mediocre performer in life can gain the highest political office in the country. And what rankles me more is that the man is so adept at obfuscating the truth that no one seems to bother calling it to our attention. And so the real state of the Union was buried last night, glossed over by a wink and a smug arrogant smile.

Try as I might my fellow Americans, I can not escape the realization that the state of our Union is precarious; we are a fractured nation, a house slowly dividing, a society leisurely decaying in the quicksand of our own unfettered greed and ignorance of the true meaning of freedom and equality. We are all familiar with that famous axiom uttered with such eloquence by our sixteenth President:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

Can this quote be applied to today’s America? Is the discordant slavery issue of old taken on a new guise and morphed into the Gay Marriage and abortion (Liberals vs. Conservatives) issues of today? There can be little argument that the Gay Marriage and abortion rights issues are dividing the nation, and that our inability to address the twin concerns from a purely legal and fundamental rights standpoint has put liberty and equality in jeopardy for more then half the population. And the President’s call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage; to write into our founding document the articles of discrimination and bigotry is unforgivable, but not unremarkable given the fanatical conservatism infesting our nation and the man who champions their cause.

Bush stated last night:

“Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them...Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Are discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance values we want to continue to pass along to our children? And how do they (discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance) sustain a free society? Is Bush saying we don’t want to recognize and celebrate the difference between human beings; is he saying that homosexuals are immoral and incapable of forming families and raising responsible, moral children? And while marriage may be a sacred religious institution, no institution regulated and governed by the many states or federal government can, or should be considered sacrosanct. And I will say it again and again, and again until we all get the message, the tradition of marriage as regulated by the many states (not federal government), is a civil institution governed by civil law. Religion, of course can play a part in the ceremonial aspect of the tradition if the parties so choose, but Canon Law holds no sway over the administration of marriage in America. Marriage licenses are not issued at the local church, you have to go to the county seat to obtain one in my state.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

And if I hear the term “activist judge” one more time coming from the President mouth—a man who should know better then to undermine a fellow branch of government so cavalierly—I think I shall pull what little remaining hair I have from my head! The term activist judge is wholly an invention of the religious right, it is a term used to divide the citizenry, to sow the seeds of disrespect into the fabric of the judicial process in this nation and undercut the rule of law. If the people do not trust the judicial branch to be faithful stewards of the law, how long can the rule of law hold sway in a free society that counts on it to maintain good order and personal responsibility?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

The judicial branch is a co-equal branch of our government, be it local, state, or federal. It deserves, nay should demand, the respect of the other two branches of government. Indeed, the Supreme Court should decry the term “activist judge” once and for all and admonish all who use it including our dimwitted President. This continual undermining of judges and their authority cannot stand, and in the end, is and will continue to subvert judicial authority to society’s determent.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

We cannot be the beacon of liberty and equality aboard if the light of freedom is being extinguished at home. We have lost the meaning of freedom and its sister, equality, within our Republic. We would endow it to our personage but deny it to others for reason of faith, faith; an intangible, something that cannot be proved. Faith is not the basis for public law. Half of the population knows this, while the other half wallows in the ignorance the umbrella of faith provides, convinced that beliefs should govern the masses, should inform public policy, and hold sway over every citizen despite his or her own belief system. Faith is personal and should remain such. Your morals are your own to grabble with, just as mine inform my life. Of course there should be societal norms that govern us all, but those should spring from the Constitution, not the Holy Bible, or the Koran, or any other spiritual tome.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

How long my fellow Americans, will it be before the light of liberty in our Republic goes out? And the Constitution is relegated to just another meaningless artifact, it Articles and Amendments referred to as “quaint” and no longer relevant in a society that places religious beliefs and structured pious control over person above personal freedom and equality?

Am I crying wolf? Is the state of our Union sound or are we like so many civilizations before use slowly eroding, devolving into ruin? Or are we special, immune from the wash of history, strong enough to withstand the ravages of human nature? Will our grand experiment in democracy hold despite the cracks that threaten to split the house asunder? If history is our guide—and we would be foolish to dismiss her as such—then we as a nation are not long for the dais of self-proclaimed greatness, unless we mend the cracks in the foundation of house and truly live the laudable principle enshrined in our national pledge…and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

U.S. Budget Deficit on Track to be the largest in history.

Bush Whitehouse still vows to cut deficit in half.

"In a briefing for reporters on Tuesday, senior administration officials insisted they were still on track to fulfill Mr. Bush's campaign promise of reducing the federal budget deficit by half by 2009. But Mr. Bush is already well behind in reaching his goal...The biggest fiscal problem confronting Mr. Bush is that more than 80 percent of the $2.3 trillion federal budget is currently off-limits for cutting. More than two-thirds of the annual budget goes to mandatory entitlement programs, mainly Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare."


Read also an article in the Washington Post.

Read also an articel in the Los Angeles Times.

Is there anyone who still believes in their right mind that tax cuts are still a good idea? How can Bush cut the deficit without increasing revenues? Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I think it comes down to simple old-fashioned math. How much longer can we as a nation continue to pile on debt before the world tires of financing it? I wonder if the Americans are aware that two banks; The Central Bank of Japan, and The Chinese Central Bank hold most of our Treasury notes. Do we really want to give any two entities that much control over our future? The dollar is already taking a pounding because of our mounting debt and trade imbalance (The Weak Dollar: Protect Yourself). How much longer will it be before the dollar in no longer the preferred currency of International business, and is replaced by the (gasp) Euro?

Bush's Inaugural Speech Was a Meaningless Farce

I don't know about the rest of the American public, or the world for that matter, but I found Bush's Inaugural speech, pretty but without much substance; flowery but totally uninspired. And in some passages the speech was totally ignorant of the subtle nuances of American history and her continuing struggle to lift freedoms banner high within our own borders let alone those of nations still suffering under the slowly dissipating fog of European colonialism.

Yes I know this is the time when all American should rally together and celebrate the peaceful transfer of power, and the swearing in of our President. But something prevents me from wholly embracing this ceremony. Could it be the 40 million dollars spent thus far for this elaborate affair, is a significant sum in this era of huge budget deficits and two ongoing wars? Or could it be that for the Bush Administration it is business as usual? I find it appalling that the Administration refuses to re-reimburse the city for its share of Inaugural, even while it calls for unity and good will. Or could it be that Bush’s speech is tantamount to meaningless gibberish that breaks no new ground; that asks nothing of us and is full of unrealistic and pie-in-the sky goals?

Excerpt from Bush Inaugural Speech:

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation.

Is he kidding? Has he forgotten that a war had to be fought to finally throw off the bonds of servitude that shackled Black man to White in the latter's search for personal wealth and singular privilege? This country, the United States of America, was not founded to advance the cause of all men, but build to progress the agenda of the White man alone!

White supremacy over the black slave forms one of the cornerstones of this nations founding's, soaked as it were in the blood of the oppressed. Freedom for all was not won without the death and rebirth of our nation, and the ugly stain of racism still clings to the fabric of American society like bloody reminder of how the noblest of intentions can be lost in the foul hearts of men who do fully believe in the lofty words from those now hallowed documents that formed this nation.

Excerpt from Bush Inaugural Speech:

Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities...America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause...America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty

Does that include homosexual and Gay Americans who wish the freedom to form families, to marry, to raise children as is their right under the law? How can we spread liberty to other shores when our own people continue to suffer under the yoke of majority rule? When the President himself would call into question the very institution entrusted with the stewardship and proper interpretation of our laws. How can we anoint the heads of those freedom seekers without our borders, while denying the fresh air of liberty and equality and due process before the law to our own citizenry within our borders?

How can we guide fledgling nations to the doors of freedom when our government wraps the hands of tyranny around the necks of those in Guantanimo Bay and other detention facilities that exist in the shadows, but exist nonetheless? And continue to deny these men due process before the law? We are not and never were the world font of freedom, the well of wisdom from which nations seeking freedoms blessings should sip.

We are fast becoming a nation no one would want to emulate, an example no nation would want to follow. As religious zealotry takes hold in our institutions oppressing the minority and ineptitude paralyzes our governments resolve to progess the nation forward with purpose and vision, who are we to lead the world?

Excerpt from Bush Inaugural Speech:

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character – on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.

Noble words, but they ring hallow within a nation filled with millions of self-indulgent islands all bent on their own self interest. The spirit of community is dying in America, replaced by unchecked greed and selfishness. Most Americans now worship at the alter of materialism not God. And those who do claim God as their savior; most bare false witness to the same; their faith is infested by the virus of greed and selfishness.

It was perhaps telling that Bush's speech drew the loudest applause when he stated, "[B]y making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal." Meaning: you are going to get more of your money back in tax rebates and the like. Spend, spend, spend on yourselves…

Where is the integrity Bush speaks of within his own Administration? Why does Rumsfeld continue to serve a full year after the humiliating events at Abu G. unfolded, while an E-4 goes to prison for ten years? Does anyone honestly believe that and E-4 coordinated the events that unfolded at the prison without direction from above?

Where is the tolerance for others the Bush speaks of within the ranks of the religious right; those who threw their support behind him after he said that he would deny the right of gays to marry? Was that intolerance, or just a fundamental disregard for the tenants of liberty and justice for all that passed those 11 Amendments to state Constitution denying the right of homosexuals to marry?

In conclusion, Bush's speech was meaningless to me. It was pretty to listen to, but little more. Its words rang hallow in my ears given the events of his Presidency, and the state of our nation. Words alone cannot serve freedoms cause, words need a leader with vision the carry them into battle. Bush is not and never was that leader.

An Independent Judiciary is Necessary to Ensure Freedom of All

It continues to amaze me how little our third branch of government—the judiciary—is understood by both the learned (who by virtue of education and should know better) and the average American citizen. Granted most of the “activist judges” charges make their voices heard from the political and religious right, but that minority din is increasing in volume as more and more ill-informed citizens—as well as (amazingly enough)—members Congress take up the cause.

The American Judiciary has a long history—some of if not so proud—of interpreting the laws of the legislative branch against the varied state and federal constitutions, and of culling the power of the executive branch. This sort of check-and-balances system was built into the frame work of our government so that no one branch could become too powerful and exercise its power unduly either over the other branches or the American people.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 80, that

It seems scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judicary authority of the Union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases: 1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation; 2d, to all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union;…

Here Hamilton seems to be making a case for judicial oversight of the legislative branch; a mantle the United States Supreme Court has (and inferior courts) covered itself in when it decided Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 shortly after the constitution came into being. Marbury vs. Madison marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional, when Chief Justice John Marshall held that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is. His opinion in this seminal case established the power of judicial review—that is, the court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional. Since Marbury, state and federal courts have accepted this role as a natural and needed check on the legislative branch’s ability and propensity to pass laws which are clearly unconstitutional.

Hamilton wrote further in Federalist 80:

The first point depends upon this obvious consideration, that there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions. What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the State legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them?

Again, Hamilton seems to be making a strong case for the judiciary to check the legislative branch by sitting in judgment of the laws they pass. And I agree with this logical argument; how else would the cause of liberty and equality be served? If the legislative, and to a lesser extent, the executive were left unchecked by the judiciary would tyranny soon take hold? I am of the opinion that it would. One need only to look at the aftermath of 9/11 for lessons is unrestrained legislative and executive power.

But the political and religious Right’s agenda in painting the judiciary in an unfavorable light has less to do with upholding the principles of liberty and equality for all, then it does with denying their fellow citizens those same rights they would hold dear to their own breasts. Those who lack even a basic understanding of the judiciary’s function in our society now seek to diminish its influence by placing conservative judges on various panels. The judges themselves are less of a threat to The People then the perception that the judiciary is doing irreparable harm to American society by upholding the various constitutions which form the foundation of our state and federal governments. Certainly no good can come from this unschooled view of the judiciary’s role in our society. Equal protection under law and due process of law are the bedrocks of our Republic and they should not be denied any citizen of our nation. The members of the judiciary are the protectors of those principles for all American citizens, not just those who proclaimed the God as their guiding light; or wrongly think that marriage as regulated by the states is a religious and not civil institution; or those who feel that God’s law should supersede mans law in the public arena.

A law professor once asked me, in speaking of the Supreme Court, what right do nine old men and women in black robes have to make rulings that affect the lives of almost 300 million people? My response was: if not them who, the people? They cannot be counted on in their self-imposed ignorance to meat out fair and equal justice as it is defined under our constitutional construct; they have proven this time and again throughout American history. If The People could fulfill this function, then what need of we, as a Republic, of a judicial branch? Surely the People could keep the two remaining branches of government in check.

Should we leave it to the legislative branch? No, they are the body creating the unconstitutional laws; the executive? No it does not have the constitutional mandate to interpret the law. So it must be left to the judiciary branch, whose members are schooled and practiced in the subtle nuances of American common law; only they can give a fair and just hearing to those seeking to avail themselves of constitutional protections…

The road we are traversing now, where ignorance is allowed to pervade and hold sway over public discourse on so important a subject is troubling and to me is further prove that our Republic is failing. Once we cease to understand the fundamental functionality of our own governmental components, how can We The People progress as a nation?

Let The Battle Be Rejoined

It has taken me nearly a month, but I am finally over the 2004 Presidential Election. My candidate lost and I have to deal with that, I have to come to grips with the fact that Bush will be in the Oval Office for four more years. Part of me hopes that he will govern this time with humility, but his quip about having “political capital to spend” dashes any hopes of a second term informed by intelligent reflection on the issues and policy tempered by common sense and the best interests of all the American people. And part of me hopes he fails miserably, so that we, the other majority can point to his continued failures and say we told you so. Is that wrong?

But I have learned something about myself in this process, namely that I am not Republican Party material; indeed while I have always considered myself squarely in the Independent camp, I find myself leaning more and more toward Democratic Party ideas and principles. That being said I do not consider myself a liberal, my politics have always taken on a decidedly moderate tenor, but it’s a tune that is increasingly more in harmony with the Democratic Party, and in discord with the Republican Party. I see the Republican Party as an intolerant organization that is increasingly conservative, and run by right-leaning religious zealots; this is not the Party for me. I have even given thought to officially registering as a Democrat, and by the next election cycle I have a feeling the deed will be done.

So now that Bush has regained the White House, we, the other Americans that voted for Kerry must come to grips with four more years of mediocrity, four more years of dysfunction, and four more years of conservative partisan. The net effect is we will have no voice in our federal governmental.

At first the prospect of this left me feeling extremely depressed and feeling lost, my American democracy snatched from me by those whose agenda is decidedly contrary to the tradition and principles engendered in the federal constitution. Having written the foregoing I have to ask: am I being too dramatic, am I allowing emotion to dictate my feelings? I have to answer with a resounding no! I see a real and growing threat to our freedom-loving, intellectually driven society from the religious right whose sole aim—with Republican Party help—seems to be to transform America into the world’s largest theocracy and herald the second coming merely by their ill-informed actions. They must be stopped; they must be challenged; they must be defeated at every turn. And it starts at the grass-roots level.

This is my new focus, my new drive, my new passion, my new crusade. It is a fight we must win if American is to remain true to the foundational principles of our founding. We must once again draw the line between public and private life, secular and religious. Yes, we as a society should be a moral and just civilization, but in promoting moral character, we must uphold human dignity, freedom, equality (before the law) and liberty; our laws take root in the constitution and English common law tradition, not the Holy Bible. Morality, and moral principles are possible outside the realm of religious dictate, and no single code of morals should (or can) be thrust upon a nation as ethnically and culturally diverse as America has become. Morality should not and realistically, cannot be legislated. That is not to say that there should not be societal norms, but again individual and collective human dignity, equality (before the law) and freedom should always be maintained. There is little if no place for religious scripture and law inside the body of civil common law; separation of Church and State must be maintained, if we as a nation are to remain free.

It is ironic that as our serviceman fight for freedom, equality, and liberty overseas, it is being systematically dismantled here at home. Citizens in eleven states voted for state sanctioned bigotry and discrimination in the guise of ill-conceived constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage without proper proof that said marriage do real and verifiable harm to the institution of marriage. Shame on them! But I digress…

As we head into the Christmas season, with its platitude driven slogans and mind-numbing commercials that have little or nothing to do with celebrating the birth of Christ, my soul is unburdened, and my mind clear and focused. I have wallowed in self-pity for the allowable amount of time; I must now rejoin the battle to save America from not only the oppression of theocratic rule, but from fanatical, bottom-line driven, human eating Wal-Mart as well…stay tuned!

Why I Endorse John F. Kerry for President

Every four years We the People of the United States of America are called upon to choose our national leader, the man, or woman who will represent us on the world stage. Four years ago through Supreme Court intervention, George W. Bush became our 43th President. He did not come to the Office of the Presidency of the United States with a clear popular mandate from the We the People, and yet there he was, this vastly unqualified man who would be President.

My president has failed me, he has failed you, he has failed We the People! Over the course of the proceeding four years he has in my mind subverted the constitutional process that provides the foundation for our Republican form of governance. We the People have been neglected, We the People have been forgotten, and We the People of the United States have been ill-served by this President and his ideological administration run amuck.

George Bush is woefully unqualified to assume the mantel of the leader of the free world, and his actions have shown his ineptitude for the position. He is not an overly intelligent man, nor is he thoughtful, or imbibed with wisdom or vision, all qualities needed to be a successful President who moves the nation forward with clarity and purpose. George Bush has failed this simple test repeatedly, in that;

He has failed to lead with vision, intellect, reflective thought, common sense, and within the bounds of our Constitutional Republic.

He promised to bring honesty and integrity to the back the White House, but he has instead cloaked the People’s house in secretly and perpetrated well documented duplicity upon the American people.

He promised to conduct American foreign policy with humility and the treat our allies with respect and dignity, but instead has isolated the United States by his unilateral policies and alienated our allies with his arrogant posturing and general lack of international understanding.

He has violated the trust of the American people and the world by breaking a treaty confirmed with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, and sought to elevate the United States above other nations by turning his back on the U.N. and setting aside other negotiated agreements meant to bring civility to the world.

He seeks to quiet the dissenting voice of Americans by systematically, and willfully denying access to his presence of any American who might hold views contrary to his own, using decidedly undemocratic tactics such as labeling supports of John Kerry subversive and threats to the President, and having such people arrested if they refuse to relinquish their Constitutional right to free political speech.

His lack of leadership, refusal to seek advice from any person outside his very narrowly defined inner circle, his choice to ignore the admonishments and to heed the advice of the outgoing Clinton administration on matters of terrorism, his refusal to listen to his own counter-terrorism chief, and his single-minded fanatical fixation on Iraq, led to the disaster of 9/11, and the murder of almost 3000 innocent people.

He has taken our nation to war with a sovereign nation for reasons shown to be false or otherwise misleading, and in the process indirectly caused the deaths of over 1080 American soldiers (over 7000 wounded), and countless Iraqi men, women, and children.

He compromised the War on Terrorism and allowed Usama bin Laden to escape American and world justice, by going to war in Iraq, a nation that did not constitute a clear and present danger to the security of the United States; meanwhile those countries that do pose a threat, Iran and North Korea are allowed to develop nuclear weapons unhindered by American scrutiny or pressure.

He has irresponsibly abandoned all fiscal reason by pushing through the Republican led Congress five tax cuts, creating the largest budget deficit in the history of our nation, thrusting upon the shoulders of our children a burden that is rightfully our generations’ to bear.

He has forsaken the environment in an ill conceived plan to fatten the coffers of the energy concerns in this nation without regard to the American people, and he has recklessly allowed elements known to be harmful to human health to once again proliferate our air and water.

He has sent our military to war unprepared and ill-equipped, to conduct all phases of a military action in Iraq, and refuses, even after ample evidence has shown the folly of his present course, to bolster their numbers, clinging unwisely to a position sure to lead to disaster and Civil War in Iraq, thereby un-stabilizing the entire region, vacating his stated goals of bringing democracy to Arab states.

He has failed to bring to the Congress a viable coherent energy policy to begin to end the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of energy; this failure has led to greater dependence on foreign source of energy at a time when America should be turning to self-reliance.

He has failed to work in a bi-partisan manner with Democratic Party members in Congress, as he pledged he would do during his run for the Office of President, resulting in a misrepresentation of all of the people before the Congress.

He has introduced religion into the policy of the United States Government, causing tax monies to be diverted from programs after Congress refused to enact his faith based initiative program, circumventing the Constitutional budgeting process, and he seeks to amend our constitution so that gay and lesbian Americans cannot marry, violating the 14th Amendment, and sewing discrimination against a group of people once more into the fabric of our governing principles.

He has mismanaged the nation’s economy, ignoring and even praising the outsourcing of core American jobs to overseas concerns, ignoring the plight of the middle & lower-class American worker, and failing the leadership test once more by refusing to address the issues that would help keep American jobs in America, and he has done nothing to stem the rising tide of imports, pressure China to float it currency on the world market, and check the slide of the dollar against other world currencies.

He has ignored the heath and welfare of senior citizens and the disabled by failing to pass a credible, fair, and truly usable Prescription Drug Plan, refusing to allow Medicare to negotiate for reduced cost of prescription drugs, despite the fact that the Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affair already do so and realize substantial savings.

He has failed to put forth a Health Care Plan that would begin to address the swelling numbers of uninsured across America, at the very time America business of all sizes are asking their employees to share more of the burden on the increasing cost of health insurance, leaving all Americans vulnerable to the resurgence of diseases thought long tamed.

He has failed to address all of the reasons health care costs continue to rise in America; e.g. he clings stubbornly to the notion that litigate alone accounts for the sky-rocketing cost of mal-practice insurance, despite the evidence that insurance companies are attempting to increase revenues lost playing the stock market by increasing mal-practice premiums.

The President’s failure of leadership, vision, and constitutional perception, coupled with his lack of a real moral center based on sound Christian Principles, has led me to this place. I cannot abide a President who lacks an even basic understanding of the world in which we live, and relies on beliefs, rather than intellectual curiosity to inform his life-altering decisions. I cannot abide a President whom I can out-think at every turn; who slaughters our language whenever he speaks; who has earned the disdain of the world by his reckless and arrogant pursuit of neo-conservative policies no matter how ill-advised; who is controlled by those who have not the best interests of We the People at the forefront of their every action.

I am ever mindful of the Preamble to our great Constitution that begins with We the People of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect Union...under this President we have not pursued a more perfect Union, our nation is not a better place because he is our President, indeed it is worse, our lives are not better, our cities not safer, our children’s futures not assured, our liberties not protected, our standing in the world not more respected. And for underlying reasons, I cannot and will not support George W. Bush for reelection. I will vote for a change, I will vote for an intellectual, I will vote for a man who understands and respects the constitutional principles that form the foundation of our society, I will vote for a man who questions, a man with vision and wisdom, and a path that will (hopefully) take America to a brighter tomorrow infused with the light of promise that We the People can once more grasp the American dream without trepidation that tomorrow it might be snatched away at a whim. I will vote for a man with common sense, decency, moral character, and a record of unwavering public service to his country, who truly asked not what his country could do for him, but what he could do for his country. I will vote for John Kerry.

The New York Times > Opinion > John Kerry for President

The New York Times > Opinion > John Kerry for President

Kerry to Bush: Yes I am a Liberal and Wear It Proudly

Lib•er•al—politics; progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

Here we go, when all else fails trot out the label, Liberal, and suddenly the issues don’t matter anymore. When all else fails and you can beat your opponent on the issues, label him a Liberal, because we all know how bad they are. I say Kerry should embrace his Liberal leanings and give speech to that effect.

Here is the Democrats chance to wrest control of the word away from the Republicans and redefine it; make it work for them instead of against them. Make it indistinguishable from the principles upon which this nation was founded, turn it around, and make conservative the label not to be branded with. I have written a little speech Kerry could give, entitled Yes, I am a Liberal.

Yes, I am a Liberal; for I believe in the Preamble to the United States Constitution; that We the People form the central nexus of our government; that liberty and equality are rights ALL Americans should enjoy, that we have come together as a nation to promote the general welfare of the people and society; and that we cannot secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves or our prosperity if we allow fear to dictate our actions at home and abroad.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that a leader no matter his stripe should practice humility, embrace integrity, and speak with honesty to the American people and indeed the world at large. A leader should lead with a clear vision of where (s)he wants to take our nation and a wisdom to get us there without violating the underlying principles our Founding Fathers set forth. We are a Republic and because we embrace this form of governance, I believe the President, the Congress, and the judiciary is answerable to you the People; we serve you, you do not serve us.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe in continually improving the process by which We the People are governed. I believe in an open government that trusts the people with the truth, a government which places the wellbeing of the people above those of the special interests whose sole aim is the furtherance of their narrow agenda at the country’s expense. I believe the business of the United States should not be solely business, but that we as a nation should strive everyday to live up to the principles embodied in our founding documents; indeed they deserve more then lip service and occasional reference for personal gain. And I believe the Pledge of Allegiance should be embraced in its entirety; how can we be One Nation under God, if we do not embrace Liberty and Justice for all?

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe in order to truly make America safe we have to look outside ourselves to other nations and peoples and accept their help in this titanic struggle against the evil of terrorism. We need to embark on a new paradigm one which acknowledges that the enemy is not static; the enemy does not share our principles, nor our values, and that in order to defeat them we must forge alliances that bring to bear not just the might of the U.S. Armed Forces, but the collective will of the world to stop this evil advance. And we must acknowledge that while we embrace the fresh air of freedom, not all peoples welcome it, and while we seek to replace tyranny abroad with the sweetness of freedom, we should ensure that tyranny and inequality remain unwelcome at home.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that Health Care for all Americans is a moral obligation, which should not be rationed out like favors, nor held hostage to the whims of the insurance industry, nor the sole responsibly of employers to provide. The government can and should take an active role in ensuring—insofar as possible—that all Americans can count on sound, quality health care for themselves and their families. This is an issue in which all Americans share an equal stake, for sickness and disease makes no distinction between the rich and poor, black or white, city or suburban dweller. And I believe that Americans should not bear on their backs the high cost of prescription drugs; the weight is too burdensome and the cost too high, the stakes for all of us are too severe.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that in order to promote the general welfare that those who can afford to pay more should do so willingly, for we are a nation come together to promote liberty and justice for all; I am my brother’s keeper and he is mine. I ask what is more Christian than that time honored principle? And Americans are fond of saying that this country was founded on Christian ethics, but are those ethics being practiced everyday by We the People? Is it moral to allow any American to starve, to go without health care, to live in sub-standard housing, to go to sub-standard schools, to be left behind? I believe that all should work to make their own way in this world, but when a fellow citizen is in need, it is our obligation as a Christian society to offer them a hand up.

Yes I am a Liberal; I have a relationship with God, he is with me when I walk, he is with me when I sleep; he is with me in spirit always. But that relationship is personal, it is my own, and I do not have the right in this free society to legislate my beliefs into law and force you to share them. That is not what a free and equal society is about; that is not the meaning of liberty. The Lord gave men free will, who is man to take it away in his name?

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that we should pay for our governmental expenses as we go, we should not shift the burden of our reckless spending—and even more reckless tax cuts in this time of war—to future generations. Why should our children and our children’s children be asked to carry a burden we should willingly take upon our shoulders? I believe that in this time of war ALL should be asked to sacrifice, to give back the country that gave us so much.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that that man is a steward of this Earth, not its master. And as stewards we have an obligation to preserve the planet and the life that inhabits it in a responsible way, to take only what we need to live, and to leave the planet in better stead than when we found it. Our obligation is not just to the planet but to ourselves and our prosperity. By this measure we must find a balance between robust economic sustainability and responsible environmental stewardship. Global warming, while not exact in its measurement, is sound science and needs to be heeded. All of the world’s peoples deserve clear air, and water; these are not the sole province of Americans. And again, foul air affects the planet as a whole, it will not stop at the border of the United States, and indeed the U.S. is a larger contributor to the whole than any other nation. Shouldn’t we step to the plate and negotiate sound environmental practices with other nations?

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe in International cooperation, I believe in International law enforcement, and I believe in the International criminal court, an organization that seeks to bring to justice those who otherwise escape it. I roundly reject the argument that American soldiers would be hauled before the court and made to answer for transgressions while conducting war. If our soldiers abide by the Geneva Conventions, of which the United States is a signatory, then shouldn’t they be punished? Should Americans be above the reach of International law? How does our unwillingness to discard the failings of arrogance and embrace humility hamper our ability to lead in the War on Terror?

Yes I am a liberal. I believe is it wrong to take this nation to war, to ask our all volunteer military to sacrifice their lives because the President wanted to invade another sovereign nation. It is clear that the President intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11 ever happened, the tragedy was his excuse to invade Iraq, a country he has never proved presented a clear and PRESENT danger to the security of the United States. The 9/11 Commission’s report quashed any credible connection between Saddam and any terrorist organization, and both the CIA, and the recently released Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD—the Duelfer Report—made it quite clear that Iraq possessed no WMD in 2001; the sanctions were doing their job in containing Saddam. Who can now offer a credible reason for invading Iraq, a war that resulted in some 1025 American servicemen killed, some 7000 wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi dead and wounded? Iraq is the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time, Afghanistan is the right war, and it is one we are still fighting because resources were diverted from it to invade Iraq.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe the conservative movement has done irrefutable harm to this nation and it peoples by seeking to hold on to the past at the expense of the future. Conservatives and the conservatism movement lack vision, and their leaders rule with little if any wisdom. Their policies more often than not fail the American people because they do not hold true to their own values. Conservatives are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and yet the conservative President and Congress have rung up THE largest budget deficit in the history of our nation. Conservatives say they want government out of our lives, and yet they want the government telling us who we can marry, what women can and cannot do with their own bodies, and when we should be allowed to die. Conservatives as a whole as selfish and self-serving, they seek to hold on to their wealth at the expense of the nation as a whole; they champion the individual over We the People, voting for a tax cut in a time of War, when the President calls for sacrifice, but not from rich Conservatives.

Yes I am a Liberal; I believe that a President should be the leader of all Americans not just his base. The President says he seeks to unite and not divide and yet at every turn he speaks the word Liberal as if it were sullied, and the people that subscribe to its tenets as bad. The President said that he wanted to be the President of all the people and yet he has time and again refused to meet with the NAACP and the National Counsel of La Raza despite repeated invitations. And he said he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion and yet he has refused to meet with the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucus’s.

Yes I am a Liberal; to be liberal is to embody what America is supposed to stand for, not what she has come to stand for under the stewardship of the Republicans. To be Liberal is to believe that all people deserve a chair at the table of the American Dream, and not just the folks who can afford the price of admission. To be Liberal is to believe that we need not be isolationist, that we can and must be the leader of the free world, but a leader that leads with humility, intelligence, sound judgment, and wisdom. No we should not cede the defense of the nation to other nations, the very notion is ridiculous on its face, but nor should we rush headlong into War without convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to our nation. Liberals are not the enemy, we are not Godless, we do not seek to rob the rich to give to the undeserved poor; we are Americans who love our country and have and will continue to fight to defend her, against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Having stipulated to the forgoing, my question to President Bush is this: why aren’t you a Liberal? Why aren’t you embracing fundamental American principles? Why are you seeking to divide and not unite Americans in this time of war and shared sacrifice? Why do you not show humility and integrity and tell the American people that you were wrong about Iraq, that it was a war we should not have fought, that people died because the cause was not just and the war was not justified by facts. No man is without fault, and yet you Mr. President are unable embrace yours; is that character trait of a real leader…No

Being Steadfastly Wrong is Not Leadership!

Not to put too fine point one it, but Bush was spanked last night.

It is clear from last night debates that Kerry commands a much clearer grasp of the issues, and a better understanding of America’s role in the world as the Earth only remaining superpower. Ours is to lead by example in league with our allies, not unilaterally, with arrogance and distain perched upon our shoulders.

Bush is nothing more then a puppet, and last night the strings were being pulled and almost seen. He offered nothing new, nothing of substance, nothing but the same tired “lame” message we have all heard before. The bottom line is that we should not be in Iraq, and it is indeed the “wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.”

I will submit for the record that Saddam was a dangerous man and needed to be isolated and contained; we along with our allies were doing that. Iraq presented no clear and present danger to the United States. It is funny how the President seems to think it is okay to play paddy-cake with North Korea and Iran while they openly make nuclear weapons, but Iraq needed to be invaded. And for what exactly; what is this week’s reason?

To those who hold the President to a higher standard then beer buddy, Kerry scored points last night, he spoke from a position of intellect and thoughtful reflection, Bush spoke from the heart. One cannot lead from the heart if the mind is disengaged!