Commentary, Earl Ofari Hutchinson,Pacific News Service, May 23, 2005
Editor's Note: In the partisan showdown over President George Bush's controversial judicial nominees, Senate Republicans are pulling a page from the playbook used to confirm Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. LOS ANGELES--As the GOP attempts to force a Senate vote on the first of seven of President Bush's judicial nominations, for one nominee they've torn a page from the old playbook used to get Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed in 1991.The moment President Bush nominated California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown in 2003 to the appeals court, civil rights, civil liberties and women's groups relentlessly hammered her for her ultra conservative court opinions and rulings on abortion, tort reform, the death penalty and affirmative action. Republicans faced a similar situation with Thomas 14 years ago, and their game plan then was simple. They cast Thomas as a black man that had battled against segregation and was now under fire from racist, elitist white Senate Democrats. Then they muddied his record of conservative activism and mobilized black evangelicals and conservatives to back him. Thomas followed the script to a tee. He repeatedly harped on his hardscrabble upbringing, in a fatherless home in poor, backwater Pin Point, Ga. This "up from segregation" bootstrap tale brought tears and praise from conservatives. The tale was designed to divide and confuse Thomas liberal and black opponents. Similarly, Brown's backers have repeatedly noted that she is the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper. Her rags-to-judicial-riches tale is designed to touch a public nerve and divide and confuse her liberal and black opponents. When Anita Hill tossed her incendiary accusation of sexual harassment against Thomas into the confirmation fray, the volatile elements of sex and race landed squarely on the nation's table. An angry, indignant Thomas blurted out the eternally memorable line, "This is something that not only supports but plays into the worst stereotypes about black men in this society." It hit like a sledgehammer. The strategy to play the race and sex card was not wholly Thomas'. His chief backer on the committee, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, urged Thomas to make Hill's attacks a racial issue. That could stir black anger over racial stereotyping, and put civil rights leaders on the defensive. Polls taken the day after he accused Hill of racially degrading him showed that Thomas had turned the tide in his favor. Hatch dredged up a similar line to defend Brown. He claimed that her critics abhorred her not because of her judicial views but because she is a conservative black woman who has dared stand up for her conservative convictions. Brown took the cue and called the attacks against her insulting, and implied that she was being singled out because of her race. The Swift Boat Veterans, the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, conservative legal advocacy groups, conservative family groups and columnists Thomas Sowell and Robert Novak have taken the same line. They lambast Senate Democrats as bigots who are tormenting a black woman who had overcome segregation and poverty.A crucial part of the conservatives' strategy to evoke sympathy for Brown is to mobilize black ministers and conservatives. They did the same with Thomas. The day after Hill made her charges, a parade of black ministers held prayer vigils on the Capitol steps backing Thomas. A group of black women cheered him as he entered the Senate hearing room. The Traditional Values Coalition, headed by California minister and conservative family values stalwart Louis Sheldon, organized that rally. But the gathering served notice to the press, the senators on the committee, civil rights leaders and Democrats that many black ministers, long thought to be the bedrock of civil rights and social activism in black communities, were conservative and backed Thomas's stance on abortion and family values issues. Black ministers and their congregations could be organized for conservative causes. The black evangelicals are back for Brown. Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently corralled a group of leading black ministers and staged a rally at a park near the Capitol to support Brown. Frist and the ministers proclaimed her a "legal hero" to black America and denounced the threatened filibuster by Senate Democrats. The aim again was to counter the fierce attacks on Brown by the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the National Bar Association. A black rally organizer branded the criticism of Brown by these groups as "partisan rhetoric." When the chips were down with Thomas, conservatives used race to trump politics. The "black brother under attack" theme helped narrowly put him over the top in the Senate and onto the high court. Now it's the "black sister under attack" theme with Brown. GOP conservatives hope their Thomas playbook plan will work with her, too. PNS contributor Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of The Crisis in Black and Black (Middle Passage Press). May 23,2005
I know I'm late on this one, it's been sitting in my save area to get back to and this is the first chance I've had for a while. It's still important as we may now face an empty seat in the Supreme Court, with the fact that the one judge has had to face and fight cancer. He gets my appaluse for staying as long as he has and I hope he isn't leaving too soon. I do think he needs to take care of his health though.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Some of William Pryor's history and why he shouldn't be seated.
William Pryor: Ideology Over All
By Ralph G. Neas
The case against Alabama Attorney General William Pryor’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is a simple one. Despite the denials of his friends and admirers, Pryor has consistently used the power of his office to try to change the law to suit his ideology. In doing so, he has jeopardized the rights of Alabamans and all Americans. Giving him a lifetime seat on the federal appeals court would further jeopardize those rights. Pryor’s devotion to a states’ rights philosophy has already contributed to a weakening of federal protections for those most in need. In reviewing his record in the office of the attorney general and his extensive speeches and writings, even a casual observer must conclude that, for William Pryor, his states’ rights ideology conquers all. Over the past half-dozen years, Pryor has urged the Supreme Court — often in cases where Alabama’s interests were not at stake — to advance the states’ rights interpretation of the Constitution. In the process, he has helped to weaken civil rights protections for millions of Americans. Alabama’s argument before the court in Garrett v. Alabama was that key remedies provided in the Americans With Disabilities Act do not apply to state employees, because the Constitution shields states from such suits. Although it was based on the once discredited states’ rights interpretation of the Constitution, Alabama won the case, effectively ending protections against age discrimination for millions of state employees across the country. In another case, Pryor successfully argued that congressional efforts to end age discrimination — and provide a remedy for victims of such discrimination — were not appropriate with respect to state employees. Pushing this same states’ rights philosophy, Pryor has filed a brief before the Supreme Court supporting the state of Nevada in a case that would leave state employees with no real recourse for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The outcome of this case is pending. Although Pryor has praised the Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of states’ rights, he has been critical when his interpretation of the Constitution has been rebuked. For instance, the Court rejected as “cruel and unusual punishment” Alabama prison guards’ practice of handcuffing a prisoner to a hitching post and denying him clothing, water, and even bathroom breaks. Pryor had defended these barbarous actions and complained that the high court was using “its own subjective views on appropriate methods of prison discipline.” Yet interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its protections is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. As a veteran observer of judicial nomination hearings, I can recall more than one of President Bush’s nominees grudgingly asserting to a panel of senators that he or she would follow the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, as it was “the law of the land.” But Pryor has called the ruling “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” During an April 1997 rally, Pryor decried the decades-old precedent of Roe. He said, “I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution…” In a survey of state attorneys general on the issue, Pryor said, “Abortion is murder and Roe v. Wade is an abominable decision.” Pryor opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.One of Pryor’s most memorable efforts to move the law closer to his ideology is seen through Alabama Justice Roy Moore’s crusade to defy a federal court order and display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and on other state property. Moore parlayed his refusal to remove such a display, even after a court ordered him to do so, into a successful campaign for the state’s top judgeship. There, he again displayed his Ten Commandments, this time on a granite monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. William Pryor has backed Judge Moore, even though the judge’s actions plainly violate the Constitution’s requirement of the separation of church and state. Pryor, like Moore, fails to understand the purpose of the Establishment clause. It is not hostility to people of faith but respect for the beliefs of every person that underpins the separation of church and state, which Pryor seems to hold in such low regard. Out of respect for freedom of conscience, government officials are prevented from using their power to promote specific religious beliefs. Pryor flouts the spirit of the Establishment Clause. Speaking at a rally in support of Judge Moore in 1997, Pryor said, “God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians…to save our country and save our courts.”Pryor’s efforts to push the law in the direction of his own ideology have also damaged the interests of the people of Alabama. In fact, Pryor’s ideology may have cost the people of Alabama millions in the settlement from the suit by state attorneys general against tobacco companies. According to Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, Pryor fought against his fellow state negotiators in talks with tobacco companies. “But tobacco lobbyists saw him as a friend. He was their friend,” Moore later told the Decatur (Ala.) Daily News. “He defended them at all costs.”In the end, Alabama did not receive as generous a settlement from the litigation as other states, even though it had lost just as much revenue in health costs for tobacco-related disease and death. Moore says that this is because Pryor “did a better job of defending the tobacco companies than their own defense attorneys.”Pryor also believes it is acceptable to imprison gay men and lesbians for expressing their own human sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. He filed a brief in the Supreme Court asking the Court to uphold the Texas “Homosexual Conduct Law,” under which two gay men were arrested and jailed for engaging in private consensual sex. In his brief, Pryor presaged the recent comments of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, equating for legal analysis the consensual acts between two people of the same gender — criminalized by the Texas statute — to “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia.” As the Tuscaloosa News explained recently, “It is a long step from sanctioning, or even tolerating, consensual private activity between two adults to permitting abusive crimes such as pedophilia. The law is perfectly capable of drawing such distinctions in theory and in practice.” It is disturbing that Pryor apparently cannot draw those distinctions. These are just some of the reasons why Pryor’s confirmation would pose a threat to the rights of the Americans who seek justice every year in the 11th Circuit. The federal appeals court is almost always the last best chance for justice for these citizens of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, considering that the Supreme Court hears fewer than ninety cases each year. Pryor is far from being, as one supporter stated, “utterly fair… and demonstrably nonpartisan.” Pryor instead has demonstrated that he uses his position to remake the law in order to suit his extreme ideological beliefs. For these reasons, he is, as the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote recently, “unfit to judge.”
And now with the compromise that the senate made to day this individual who isn't fit to be a federal judge will be seated. I'm crying for my country that is slowly, but now picking up speed becoming a theocrasy and that is not what our "Founding Fathers" wanted. The Main part of the Europeans to land on these shores was to get away from this same type of behavior. They were tired of GOVERNMENT CONTROLED RELIGION and we don't need it now and we don't need it here.
By Ralph G. Neas
The case against Alabama Attorney General William Pryor’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is a simple one. Despite the denials of his friends and admirers, Pryor has consistently used the power of his office to try to change the law to suit his ideology. In doing so, he has jeopardized the rights of Alabamans and all Americans. Giving him a lifetime seat on the federal appeals court would further jeopardize those rights. Pryor’s devotion to a states’ rights philosophy has already contributed to a weakening of federal protections for those most in need. In reviewing his record in the office of the attorney general and his extensive speeches and writings, even a casual observer must conclude that, for William Pryor, his states’ rights ideology conquers all. Over the past half-dozen years, Pryor has urged the Supreme Court — often in cases where Alabama’s interests were not at stake — to advance the states’ rights interpretation of the Constitution. In the process, he has helped to weaken civil rights protections for millions of Americans. Alabama’s argument before the court in Garrett v. Alabama was that key remedies provided in the Americans With Disabilities Act do not apply to state employees, because the Constitution shields states from such suits. Although it was based on the once discredited states’ rights interpretation of the Constitution, Alabama won the case, effectively ending protections against age discrimination for millions of state employees across the country. In another case, Pryor successfully argued that congressional efforts to end age discrimination — and provide a remedy for victims of such discrimination — were not appropriate with respect to state employees. Pushing this same states’ rights philosophy, Pryor has filed a brief before the Supreme Court supporting the state of Nevada in a case that would leave state employees with no real recourse for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The outcome of this case is pending. Although Pryor has praised the Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of states’ rights, he has been critical when his interpretation of the Constitution has been rebuked. For instance, the Court rejected as “cruel and unusual punishment” Alabama prison guards’ practice of handcuffing a prisoner to a hitching post and denying him clothing, water, and even bathroom breaks. Pryor had defended these barbarous actions and complained that the high court was using “its own subjective views on appropriate methods of prison discipline.” Yet interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its protections is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. As a veteran observer of judicial nomination hearings, I can recall more than one of President Bush’s nominees grudgingly asserting to a panel of senators that he or she would follow the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, as it was “the law of the land.” But Pryor has called the ruling “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” During an April 1997 rally, Pryor decried the decades-old precedent of Roe. He said, “I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution…” In a survey of state attorneys general on the issue, Pryor said, “Abortion is murder and Roe v. Wade is an abominable decision.” Pryor opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.One of Pryor’s most memorable efforts to move the law closer to his ideology is seen through Alabama Justice Roy Moore’s crusade to defy a federal court order and display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and on other state property. Moore parlayed his refusal to remove such a display, even after a court ordered him to do so, into a successful campaign for the state’s top judgeship. There, he again displayed his Ten Commandments, this time on a granite monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. William Pryor has backed Judge Moore, even though the judge’s actions plainly violate the Constitution’s requirement of the separation of church and state. Pryor, like Moore, fails to understand the purpose of the Establishment clause. It is not hostility to people of faith but respect for the beliefs of every person that underpins the separation of church and state, which Pryor seems to hold in such low regard. Out of respect for freedom of conscience, government officials are prevented from using their power to promote specific religious beliefs. Pryor flouts the spirit of the Establishment Clause. Speaking at a rally in support of Judge Moore in 1997, Pryor said, “God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians…to save our country and save our courts.”Pryor’s efforts to push the law in the direction of his own ideology have also damaged the interests of the people of Alabama. In fact, Pryor’s ideology may have cost the people of Alabama millions in the settlement from the suit by state attorneys general against tobacco companies. According to Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, Pryor fought against his fellow state negotiators in talks with tobacco companies. “But tobacco lobbyists saw him as a friend. He was their friend,” Moore later told the Decatur (Ala.) Daily News. “He defended them at all costs.”In the end, Alabama did not receive as generous a settlement from the litigation as other states, even though it had lost just as much revenue in health costs for tobacco-related disease and death. Moore says that this is because Pryor “did a better job of defending the tobacco companies than their own defense attorneys.”Pryor also believes it is acceptable to imprison gay men and lesbians for expressing their own human sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. He filed a brief in the Supreme Court asking the Court to uphold the Texas “Homosexual Conduct Law,” under which two gay men were arrested and jailed for engaging in private consensual sex. In his brief, Pryor presaged the recent comments of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, equating for legal analysis the consensual acts between two people of the same gender — criminalized by the Texas statute — to “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia.” As the Tuscaloosa News explained recently, “It is a long step from sanctioning, or even tolerating, consensual private activity between two adults to permitting abusive crimes such as pedophilia. The law is perfectly capable of drawing such distinctions in theory and in practice.” It is disturbing that Pryor apparently cannot draw those distinctions. These are just some of the reasons why Pryor’s confirmation would pose a threat to the rights of the Americans who seek justice every year in the 11th Circuit. The federal appeals court is almost always the last best chance for justice for these citizens of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, considering that the Supreme Court hears fewer than ninety cases each year. Pryor is far from being, as one supporter stated, “utterly fair… and demonstrably nonpartisan.” Pryor instead has demonstrated that he uses his position to remake the law in order to suit his extreme ideological beliefs. For these reasons, he is, as the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote recently, “unfit to judge.”
And now with the compromise that the senate made to day this individual who isn't fit to be a federal judge will be seated. I'm crying for my country that is slowly, but now picking up speed becoming a theocrasy and that is not what our "Founding Fathers" wanted. The Main part of the Europeans to land on these shores was to get away from this same type of behavior. They were tired of GOVERNMENT CONTROLED RELIGION and we don't need it now and we don't need it here.
On this day I again greive for my country
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night to clear the way for confirmation of many of
President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, leave others in limbo and preserve venerable filibuster rules.
"In a Senate that has become increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of 14 senators _seven from each party — to pledge their "mutual trust and confidence" on the deal.
"The Senate is back in business," exulted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reflecting the view that a showdown would have would have had a long-term detrimental impact on Congress' ability to conduct the nation's business.
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.
The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.
"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.
While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate.
And Republicans said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly.
Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive — although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.
"Checks and balances have been protected. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing," Reid said.
The White House said the agreement was a positive development.
"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up or down votes for all the nominees."
The deal was sealed around the table in Sen. John McCain's office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to Tuesday's anticipated showdown.
Nominally, the issue at hand was Bush's selection of Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.
There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice
William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.
Under a complicated situation in effect on the Senate floor, an agreement among six senators of each party was sufficient to avert the showdown. Six Democrats agreeing not to filibuster assured judicial nominees of a yes-or-no vote. Six Republicans signing the accord meant Frist and other GOP leaders would not have the votes to strip Democrats of their ability to filibuster.
The agreement came as Frist, R-Tenn. and Reid, D-Nev. steered the Senate toward a showdown on Bush's nominees and historic filibuster rules, under which a minority can prevent action unless the majority gains 60 votes.
For decades, Senate rules have permitted opponents to block votes on judicial nominees by mounting a filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be stopped only by a 60-vote majority.
But Republicans, frustrated by Democratic filibusters that thwarted 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees and prepared to block seven of them again, threatened to supersede that rule by simple majority vote.
WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night to clear the way for confirmation of many of
President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, leave others in limbo and preserve venerable filibuster rules.
"In a Senate that has become increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of 14 senators _seven from each party — to pledge their "mutual trust and confidence" on the deal.
"The Senate is back in business," exulted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reflecting the view that a showdown would have would have had a long-term detrimental impact on Congress' ability to conduct the nation's business.
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.
The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.
"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.
While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate.
And Republicans said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly.
Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive — although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.
"Checks and balances have been protected. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing," Reid said.
The White House said the agreement was a positive development.
"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up or down votes for all the nominees."
The deal was sealed around the table in Sen. John McCain's office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to Tuesday's anticipated showdown.
Nominally, the issue at hand was Bush's selection of Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.
There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice
William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.
Under a complicated situation in effect on the Senate floor, an agreement among six senators of each party was sufficient to avert the showdown. Six Democrats agreeing not to filibuster assured judicial nominees of a yes-or-no vote. Six Republicans signing the accord meant Frist and other GOP leaders would not have the votes to strip Democrats of their ability to filibuster.
The agreement came as Frist, R-Tenn. and Reid, D-Nev. steered the Senate toward a showdown on Bush's nominees and historic filibuster rules, under which a minority can prevent action unless the majority gains 60 votes.
For decades, Senate rules have permitted opponents to block votes on judicial nominees by mounting a filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be stopped only by a 60-vote majority.
But Republicans, frustrated by Democratic filibusters that thwarted 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees and prepared to block seven of them again, threatened to supersede that rule by simple majority vote.
Oppose Owen, Brown, and Pryor to Federal Court
Dear Senator,
Please oppose the confirmations of three extremely anti-choice nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench: Priscilla Owen's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and William Pryor's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
(Edit Letter Below)Federal judges must fairly apply the law and follow court precedents. These nominees have records of extreme judicial activism. If confirmed to the federal courts, they will likely disregard established precedent and chip away at our most cherished constitutional rights. Please vote against confirming Owen, Brown, and Pryor to the federal bench.
Please oppose the confirmations of three extremely anti-choice nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench: Priscilla Owen's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and William Pryor's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
(Edit Letter Below)Federal judges must fairly apply the law and follow court precedents. These nominees have records of extreme judicial activism. If confirmed to the federal courts, they will likely disregard established precedent and chip away at our most cherished constitutional rights. Please vote against confirming Owen, Brown, and Pryor to the federal bench.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Dear Representative:
I write in regard to the Interior Appropriations bill. Of greatest concern to me is the fact that the bill reported by the committee essentially zeroes out funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and drastically reduces funding for the Forest Legacy Program.
Taken together, these two programs are the best tools available to us to ensure that burgeoning population and sprawl do not consume our most important environmental and recreational lands. It is profoundly shortsighted to gut these programs at a time when sprawl accelerates.
I also urge you to support several conservation amendments likely to be offered during floor debate. One, an amendment by Reps. Chabot and Andrews, would eliminate the outrageous subsidy taxpayers give to logging companies by paying for new logging roads in America's largest national forest, the Tongass in Alaska.
The Tongass is a wonderland of wildlife habitat, important to fishers, hunters, Native people and local communities. More roads and clearcuts can only harm them. Already the Tongass has more than 5,000 miles of roads and the timber available from existing roads is more than adequate to supply local mills.
Last year, taxpayers spent $48 million for logging and road building on the Tongass, but took in only $800,000 from logging companies in return. Over the next decade, if the Forest Service carries out its logging plans, the cost could exceed $1.2 billion. It is long past time to stop subsidizing timber companies to ravage one of our great national treasures.
Here are other amendments I strongly urge you to support:
- One by Rep. Alcee Hastings to help to help ensure environmental justice for low-income and minority communities; and
- One by Reps. Bart Stupak and Clay Shaw to prevent the EPA from making final its proposed weakened sewage dumping policy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,S J Wichita, KS
Time and again our leaders have been told there isn't enough VIABLE oil in the area. The oil companies just want to take over and show that they can do what ever they want. We need the area to stay as it is for the wild life, if we don't our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren will lose out. Not to mention the wildlife that will suffer for generations.
I write in regard to the Interior Appropriations bill. Of greatest concern to me is the fact that the bill reported by the committee essentially zeroes out funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and drastically reduces funding for the Forest Legacy Program.
Taken together, these two programs are the best tools available to us to ensure that burgeoning population and sprawl do not consume our most important environmental and recreational lands. It is profoundly shortsighted to gut these programs at a time when sprawl accelerates.
I also urge you to support several conservation amendments likely to be offered during floor debate. One, an amendment by Reps. Chabot and Andrews, would eliminate the outrageous subsidy taxpayers give to logging companies by paying for new logging roads in America's largest national forest, the Tongass in Alaska.
The Tongass is a wonderland of wildlife habitat, important to fishers, hunters, Native people and local communities. More roads and clearcuts can only harm them. Already the Tongass has more than 5,000 miles of roads and the timber available from existing roads is more than adequate to supply local mills.
Last year, taxpayers spent $48 million for logging and road building on the Tongass, but took in only $800,000 from logging companies in return. Over the next decade, if the Forest Service carries out its logging plans, the cost could exceed $1.2 billion. It is long past time to stop subsidizing timber companies to ravage one of our great national treasures.
Here are other amendments I strongly urge you to support:
- One by Rep. Alcee Hastings to help to help ensure environmental justice for low-income and minority communities; and
- One by Reps. Bart Stupak and Clay Shaw to prevent the EPA from making final its proposed weakened sewage dumping policy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,S J Wichita, KS
Time and again our leaders have been told there isn't enough VIABLE oil in the area. The oil companies just want to take over and show that they can do what ever they want. We need the area to stay as it is for the wild life, if we don't our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren will lose out. Not to mention the wildlife that will suffer for generations.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Again against the Necular option
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any attempt to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster.
The Senate has a unique and powerful "advise and consent" role on the President's nominees to lifetime positions on the federal bench. As a result, I am deeply concerned about any attempt that would threaten the Senate tradition of the filibuster, motivated by a desire to push through a handful of controversial judicial nominees.
I believe that the Senate should carefully evaluate judicial nominees and that the right of the filibuster is essential to ensuring a fair and independent judiciary that will protect Americans' constitutional rights.
Not only that, but a fundamentalist against personal choice doesn't reflect who I am or this country. The need to keep the "radical religionist" away from putting their laws on people in this country is important. We have no national religion and putting in the controversial judges will not help in keeping it that way.
The Senate has a unique and powerful "advise and consent" role on the President's nominees to lifetime positions on the federal bench. As a result, I am deeply concerned about any attempt that would threaten the Senate tradition of the filibuster, motivated by a desire to push through a handful of controversial judicial nominees.
I believe that the Senate should carefully evaluate judicial nominees and that the right of the filibuster is essential to ensuring a fair and independent judiciary that will protect Americans' constitutional rights.
Not only that, but a fundamentalist against personal choice doesn't reflect who I am or this country. The need to keep the "radical religionist" away from putting their laws on people in this country is important. We have no national religion and putting in the controversial judges will not help in keeping it that way.
Protect the Senate Filibuster!
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any attempt to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster.
The Senate has a unique and powerful "advise and consent" role on the President's nominees to lifetime positions on the federal bench. As a result, I am deeply concerned about any attempt that would threaten the Senate tradition of the filibuster, motivated by a desire to push through a handful of controversial judicial nominees.
I believe that the Senate should carefully evaluate judicial nominees and that the right of the filibuster is essential to ensuring a fair and independent judiciary that will protect Americans' constitutional rights.
Not only that, but a fundamentalist against personal choice doesn't reflect who I am or this country. The need to keep the "radical religionist" away from putting their laws on people in this country is important. We have no national religion and putting in the controversial judges will not help in keeping it that way.
We did, but at what cost ?
The Senate has a unique and powerful "advise and consent" role on the President's nominees to lifetime positions on the federal bench. As a result, I am deeply concerned about any attempt that would threaten the Senate tradition of the filibuster, motivated by a desire to push through a handful of controversial judicial nominees.
I believe that the Senate should carefully evaluate judicial nominees and that the right of the filibuster is essential to ensuring a fair and independent judiciary that will protect Americans' constitutional rights.
Not only that, but a fundamentalist against personal choice doesn't reflect who I am or this country. The need to keep the "radical religionist" away from putting their laws on people in this country is important. We have no national religion and putting in the controversial judges will not help in keeping it that way.
We did, but at what cost ?
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Restoring the integrity to the federal research
Dear Representative:
I am writing to urge you to help prevent the misuse of government science by co-sponsoring the Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policy Making Act (H.R. 839).
Countless policy and legislative decisions affecting the health and safety of the American public and the environment rely upon transparent, independent scientific information. Over the past several years, however, science has been suppressed, manipulated, and distorted by high-level federal agency officials at an unprecedented level, threatening our nation's unparalleled scientific legacy and capacity.
In one recent example, a Government Accountability Office report found that the EPA had distorted its analysis of the health impacts of mercury on brain development in children and fetuses. The EPA's own inspector general reported that agency scientists had been pressured to alter scientific findings to justify the Administration's industry-friendly rules.
Unfortunately, this sort of political interference with science is just one of many examples. In the wake of these abuses, the scientific community has spoken out, calling for an end to the political manipulation of science.
The Restore Scientific Integrity Act would take significant steps to prevent the misuse of science and ensure that decision makers have access to independent scientific advice. The legislation will:
- Help prevent the manipulation of scientific data by prohibiting federal employees from tampering with or censoring federally funded scientific research;
- Protect government scientists by strengthening whistleblower protections;
- Increase the independence of federal science advisory committees by prohibiting political litmus tests;
- Improve the transparency of the science advisory process;
- Enhance the quality of government science by requiring appropriate peer review process;
- Establishes an annual report to Congress by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the state of scientific integrity in the federal government.
The American public has the right to expect its government to make informed decisions based upon independent scientific input. Please help preserve the scientific integrity that is critical to making decisions that protect our safety and security by promptly co-sponsoring H.R. 839. I look forward to your response on this issue.Sincerely,
I am writing to urge you to help prevent the misuse of government science by co-sponsoring the Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policy Making Act (H.R. 839).
Countless policy and legislative decisions affecting the health and safety of the American public and the environment rely upon transparent, independent scientific information. Over the past several years, however, science has been suppressed, manipulated, and distorted by high-level federal agency officials at an unprecedented level, threatening our nation's unparalleled scientific legacy and capacity.
In one recent example, a Government Accountability Office report found that the EPA had distorted its analysis of the health impacts of mercury on brain development in children and fetuses. The EPA's own inspector general reported that agency scientists had been pressured to alter scientific findings to justify the Administration's industry-friendly rules.
Unfortunately, this sort of political interference with science is just one of many examples. In the wake of these abuses, the scientific community has spoken out, calling for an end to the political manipulation of science.
The Restore Scientific Integrity Act would take significant steps to prevent the misuse of science and ensure that decision makers have access to independent scientific advice. The legislation will:
- Help prevent the manipulation of scientific data by prohibiting federal employees from tampering with or censoring federally funded scientific research;
- Protect government scientists by strengthening whistleblower protections;
- Increase the independence of federal science advisory committees by prohibiting political litmus tests;
- Improve the transparency of the science advisory process;
- Enhance the quality of government science by requiring appropriate peer review process;
- Establishes an annual report to Congress by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the state of scientific integrity in the federal government.
The American public has the right to expect its government to make informed decisions based upon independent scientific input. Please help preserve the scientific integrity that is critical to making decisions that protect our safety and security by promptly co-sponsoring H.R. 839. I look forward to your response on this issue.Sincerely,
Thursday, May 12, 2005
BLACK AND WHITE AND FULL OF CRAP
By Ted Rall Tue May 10, 9:37 PM ET
Lies Run Big, Facts Small in U.S. Media
NEW YORK--One year ago the American media was pushing the Pat Tillman story with the heavy rotation normally reserved for living celebs like Michael Jackson. Tillman, the former NFL player who turned down a multi-million dollar football contract to fight in
Iraq. News News Photos Images Web' Iraq and
Afghanistan News News Photos Images Web Afghanistan, became a centerpiece of the right's Hamas-style death cult when he lost his life in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan. To supporters of the wars and to many football fans, Tillman embodied ideals of self-sacrifice and post-9/11 butt-kicking in a hard-bodied shell of chisel-chinned masculinity on steroids.
Tillman's quintessential nobility, we were told, was borne out by the story of his death--a tale that earned him a posthumous Silver Star. Whether you were for or against Bush's wars, Americans were told, Tillman's valor showed why you should support the troops. Young men were encouraged to emulate his praiseworthy example.
Several thousand mourners gathered at Tillman's May 3, 2004 memorial service to hear marquee names including Arizona Senator John McCain called upon all Americans to "be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf." "Tillman died trying to save fellow members of the 75th Ranger Regiment caught in a crush of enemy fire," the Arizona Republic quoted a fellow soldier addressing the crowd. Tillman, said his friend and comrade-at-arms, had told his fellow soldiers "to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy" to draw enemy fire away from another U.S. platoon trapped in an ambush. "He directly saved their lives with those moves. Pat sacrificed his life so that others could live." It was, as the Washington Post wrote, a "storybook personal narrative"--one recounted on hundreds of front pages and network newscasts.
It was also a lie.
As sharp-eyed readers learned a few months ago from single-paragraph articles buried deep inside their newspapers, Pat Tillman died pointlessly, a hapless victim of "friendly fire" who never got the chance to choose between bravery and cowardice. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Washington Post now reports that
Pentagon News News Photos Images Pentagon and White House officials knew the truth "within days" after his April 22, 2004 shooting by fellow Army Rangers but "decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after" the nationally televised martyr-a-thon.
It gets worse. So desperate were the military brass to carry off their propaganda coup that they lied to Tillman's brother, a fellow soldier who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident, about how he died. Writing in an army report, Brigadier General Gary Jones admits that the official cover-up even included "the destruction of evidence": the army burned Tillman's Ranger uniform and body armor to hide the fact that he had died in a hail of American bullets, fired by troops who had "lost situational awareness to the point they had no idea where they were."
"We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened," one soldier told Jones. A perfect summary of the war on terrorism.
The weapons of mass destruction turned out to be a figment of Donald Rumsfeld's imagination. The Thanksgiving turkey Bush presented to the troops turned out to be plastic, as much of a staged photo op as the gloriously iconic and phony toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad by jubilant Iraqi civilians--well, actually a few dozen marines and
CIA News News Photos Images Web CIA-financed operatives. So many of the Administration's "triumphs" have been exposed as frauds that one has to wonder whether that was really Saddam in the spider hole.
We shouldn't blame the White House for producing lies; that's what politicians do. But we expect better from the media who disseminate them.
Case study: the Washington Post's dutiful transcription of the Jessica Lynch hoax. Played up on page one and running on for thousands of words, the fanciful Pentagon version had the pilot from West Virginia emptying her clip before finally succumbing to a gunshot wound (and possible rape) by evil Iraqi ambushers, then freed from her tormentors at a heavily-guarded POW hospital.
Like the Pat Tillman story, it was pure fiction. Private Lynch, neither shot nor sexually violated, said she was injured when her vehicle crashed. She never got off a shot because her gun jammed. As she told reporters who were willing to listen, her Iraqi doctors and nurses had given her excellent care. She credited them for saving her life. In a weird sort of prequel to the shooting of an Italian journalist, they had even attempted to turn her over at a U.S. checkpoint but were forced to flee when American troops fired at them.
In all of these examples, editors and producers played corrective follow-up stories with far less fanfare than the original, incorrect ones. To paraphrase "X-Files" character Fox Mulder, the truth is in there--in the paper, on TV. It's just really, really hard to find.
Readers of the American press and viewers of American radio and television are likelier to see and believe loudly repeated lies over occasionally whispered truths told once or twice. As a result of the reverse imbalance between fact and fiction, the propaganda versions of the Tillman and Lynch stories, the staged Saddam statue footage, and the claim that Iraq had WMDs are all believed by a misled citizenry that votes accordingly.
For journalists supposedly dedicated to uncovering the truth and informing the public, this is exactly the opposite of how things ought to be. Corrections and exposés should always run bigger, longer and more often than initial, discredited stories.
FOLLOW-UP: Readers who contacted their elected representatives in response to my column two weeks ago about the two 16-year-old Muslim girls detained by Homeland Security because one wrote an essay about suicide bombings (she was against them) have gotten results. Such pressure has prompted the feds to release the girl from Guinea, who has returned to her high school in New York City. But Bush Administration officials have decided to orphan her by deporting her father. The other girl, from Bangladesh, is also being released from prison but HomeSec plans to deport her along with her entire family. While the two girls' release obviously belies the government's claims that they are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States," your letters and phone calls to your Congressperson and/or Senator could help reverse these continuing acts of injustice.
And the liberals have the media??? Yeah, RRRIIIIIIIGGGHHHTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All this garbage is the wonderful right leaning as no one wants to go to jail for being mean to the government. The Shrub and his little buddies have so many folks running scared. But not this old pagan woman. So now will the main press pick up on the lies or will they let it slide still?
Ok folks I'm off and running to Minnesota for a few days.
Lies Run Big, Facts Small in U.S. Media
NEW YORK--One year ago the American media was pushing the Pat Tillman story with the heavy rotation normally reserved for living celebs like Michael Jackson. Tillman, the former NFL player who turned down a multi-million dollar football contract to fight in
Iraq. News News Photos Images Web' Iraq and
Afghanistan News News Photos Images Web Afghanistan, became a centerpiece of the right's Hamas-style death cult when he lost his life in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan. To supporters of the wars and to many football fans, Tillman embodied ideals of self-sacrifice and post-9/11 butt-kicking in a hard-bodied shell of chisel-chinned masculinity on steroids.
Tillman's quintessential nobility, we were told, was borne out by the story of his death--a tale that earned him a posthumous Silver Star. Whether you were for or against Bush's wars, Americans were told, Tillman's valor showed why you should support the troops. Young men were encouraged to emulate his praiseworthy example.
Several thousand mourners gathered at Tillman's May 3, 2004 memorial service to hear marquee names including Arizona Senator John McCain called upon all Americans to "be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf." "Tillman died trying to save fellow members of the 75th Ranger Regiment caught in a crush of enemy fire," the Arizona Republic quoted a fellow soldier addressing the crowd. Tillman, said his friend and comrade-at-arms, had told his fellow soldiers "to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy" to draw enemy fire away from another U.S. platoon trapped in an ambush. "He directly saved their lives with those moves. Pat sacrificed his life so that others could live." It was, as the Washington Post wrote, a "storybook personal narrative"--one recounted on hundreds of front pages and network newscasts.
It was also a lie.
As sharp-eyed readers learned a few months ago from single-paragraph articles buried deep inside their newspapers, Pat Tillman died pointlessly, a hapless victim of "friendly fire" who never got the chance to choose between bravery and cowardice. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Washington Post now reports that
Pentagon News News Photos Images Pentagon and White House officials knew the truth "within days" after his April 22, 2004 shooting by fellow Army Rangers but "decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after" the nationally televised martyr-a-thon.
It gets worse. So desperate were the military brass to carry off their propaganda coup that they lied to Tillman's brother, a fellow soldier who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident, about how he died. Writing in an army report, Brigadier General Gary Jones admits that the official cover-up even included "the destruction of evidence": the army burned Tillman's Ranger uniform and body armor to hide the fact that he had died in a hail of American bullets, fired by troops who had "lost situational awareness to the point they had no idea where they were."
"We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened," one soldier told Jones. A perfect summary of the war on terrorism.
The weapons of mass destruction turned out to be a figment of Donald Rumsfeld's imagination. The Thanksgiving turkey Bush presented to the troops turned out to be plastic, as much of a staged photo op as the gloriously iconic and phony toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad by jubilant Iraqi civilians--well, actually a few dozen marines and
CIA News News Photos Images Web CIA-financed operatives. So many of the Administration's "triumphs" have been exposed as frauds that one has to wonder whether that was really Saddam in the spider hole.
We shouldn't blame the White House for producing lies; that's what politicians do. But we expect better from the media who disseminate them.
Case study: the Washington Post's dutiful transcription of the Jessica Lynch hoax. Played up on page one and running on for thousands of words, the fanciful Pentagon version had the pilot from West Virginia emptying her clip before finally succumbing to a gunshot wound (and possible rape) by evil Iraqi ambushers, then freed from her tormentors at a heavily-guarded POW hospital.
Like the Pat Tillman story, it was pure fiction. Private Lynch, neither shot nor sexually violated, said she was injured when her vehicle crashed. She never got off a shot because her gun jammed. As she told reporters who were willing to listen, her Iraqi doctors and nurses had given her excellent care. She credited them for saving her life. In a weird sort of prequel to the shooting of an Italian journalist, they had even attempted to turn her over at a U.S. checkpoint but were forced to flee when American troops fired at them.
In all of these examples, editors and producers played corrective follow-up stories with far less fanfare than the original, incorrect ones. To paraphrase "X-Files" character Fox Mulder, the truth is in there--in the paper, on TV. It's just really, really hard to find.
Readers of the American press and viewers of American radio and television are likelier to see and believe loudly repeated lies over occasionally whispered truths told once or twice. As a result of the reverse imbalance between fact and fiction, the propaganda versions of the Tillman and Lynch stories, the staged Saddam statue footage, and the claim that Iraq had WMDs are all believed by a misled citizenry that votes accordingly.
For journalists supposedly dedicated to uncovering the truth and informing the public, this is exactly the opposite of how things ought to be. Corrections and exposés should always run bigger, longer and more often than initial, discredited stories.
FOLLOW-UP: Readers who contacted their elected representatives in response to my column two weeks ago about the two 16-year-old Muslim girls detained by Homeland Security because one wrote an essay about suicide bombings (she was against them) have gotten results. Such pressure has prompted the feds to release the girl from Guinea, who has returned to her high school in New York City. But Bush Administration officials have decided to orphan her by deporting her father. The other girl, from Bangladesh, is also being released from prison but HomeSec plans to deport her along with her entire family. While the two girls' release obviously belies the government's claims that they are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States," your letters and phone calls to your Congressperson and/or Senator could help reverse these continuing acts of injustice.
And the liberals have the media??? Yeah, RRRIIIIIIIGGGHHHTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All this garbage is the wonderful right leaning as no one wants to go to jail for being mean to the government. The Shrub and his little buddies have so many folks running scared. But not this old pagan woman. So now will the main press pick up on the lies or will they let it slide still?
Ok folks I'm off and running to Minnesota for a few days.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
California, Bans and people who keep pushing when they have the upper hand
Eric Johnston, PlanetOut Network Wed May 11, 7:27 PM ET
SUMMARY: California opponents of equal marriage rights vowed to take their push for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage directly to the voters.
After a pair of failures in the California Legislature, opponents of equal marriage rights vowed Tuesday to take their push for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage directly to the people of California.
The conservative groups said they would try to gather enough signatures to put an initiative banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2006.
The proposed amendment would also strip legal protections and responsibilities for LGBT couples and their families, including those recognized under California's comprehensive domestic partner law.
"This disturbing display of arrogance against marriage and the voters means average Californians must take matters into their own hands," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, who supports the amendment.
On Tuesday the Senate
Judiciary Committee SEARCH News News Photos Images Web Judiciary Committee voted 5-2 against the measure, introduced by Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside. Later the same day, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 against a similar measure, introduced by Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Temecula. The measures were backed by the
Traditional Values Coalition SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web Traditional Values Coalition, another group that opposes civil rights for LGBT people.
Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said the proposed amendment amounted to "legalizing discrimination."
"There is a group of people who, for whatever reason, do not like gays and cannot tolerate the idea of two women sleeping together or two men sleeping together," he told the Associated Press. "To put that into the Constitution … is simply unconscionable."
"This is a major defeat to this hurtful, anti-family measure disguised as protecting families," said Executive Director Geoffrey Kors of Equality California. "Anti-gay extremists want to repeal California's domestic partnership law and prevent the Legislature, the courts and the voters from passing laws to provide any legal rights and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their families."
He was referring to a series of bills passed by the state Legislature in recent years that recognize domestic partnerships and grant them most of the rights given married couples, including the rights to sue for wrongful death of a partner and to adopt a partner's child.
"The truth is this measure would have done nothing to protect a single California family -- it would not have helped parents provide food, shelter or clothing for their children; it would not have put an extra teacher in a classroom or immunized any child against a life-threatening disease," said Kors. "What it would have done is make it harder for tens of thousands of parents to provide for their children's most basic needs, such as health insurance."
Anti-gay groups have been urged on by a recent court ruling that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. That decision is currently being appealed.
If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Rebuffed, Calif. anti-gay groups eye ballot.
These same people would deny the medical protections and such for children of unmarried or gay/lesbian households. These are the same people that say they are "protecting families" and yet destroying them in their wake.
SUMMARY: California opponents of equal marriage rights vowed to take their push for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage directly to the voters.
After a pair of failures in the California Legislature, opponents of equal marriage rights vowed Tuesday to take their push for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage directly to the people of California.
The conservative groups said they would try to gather enough signatures to put an initiative banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2006.
The proposed amendment would also strip legal protections and responsibilities for LGBT couples and their families, including those recognized under California's comprehensive domestic partner law.
"This disturbing display of arrogance against marriage and the voters means average Californians must take matters into their own hands," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, who supports the amendment.
On Tuesday the Senate
Judiciary Committee SEARCH News News Photos Images Web Judiciary Committee voted 5-2 against the measure, introduced by Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside. Later the same day, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 against a similar measure, introduced by Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Temecula. The measures were backed by the
Traditional Values Coalition SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web Traditional Values Coalition, another group that opposes civil rights for LGBT people.
Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said the proposed amendment amounted to "legalizing discrimination."
"There is a group of people who, for whatever reason, do not like gays and cannot tolerate the idea of two women sleeping together or two men sleeping together," he told the Associated Press. "To put that into the Constitution … is simply unconscionable."
"This is a major defeat to this hurtful, anti-family measure disguised as protecting families," said Executive Director Geoffrey Kors of Equality California. "Anti-gay extremists want to repeal California's domestic partnership law and prevent the Legislature, the courts and the voters from passing laws to provide any legal rights and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their families."
He was referring to a series of bills passed by the state Legislature in recent years that recognize domestic partnerships and grant them most of the rights given married couples, including the rights to sue for wrongful death of a partner and to adopt a partner's child.
"The truth is this measure would have done nothing to protect a single California family -- it would not have helped parents provide food, shelter or clothing for their children; it would not have put an extra teacher in a classroom or immunized any child against a life-threatening disease," said Kors. "What it would have done is make it harder for tens of thousands of parents to provide for their children's most basic needs, such as health insurance."
Anti-gay groups have been urged on by a recent court ruling that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. That decision is currently being appealed.
If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Rebuffed, Calif. anti-gay groups eye ballot.
These same people would deny the medical protections and such for children of unmarried or gay/lesbian households. These are the same people that say they are "protecting families" and yet destroying them in their wake.
NORTH CAROLINA PASTOR
WHO ENDORSED POLITICAL CANDIDATES RESIGNS PULPIT Incident Underscores Dangers Of Immersing Houses Of Worship In Political Activity, Says Church-State Watchdog Group
A North Carolina pastor who drew national attention for partisan politicking in the pulpit resigned last night. The incident, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State, illustrates the danger of mixing partisan political activity with churches. According to news accounts, Pastor Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, N.C., resigned during a meeting Tuesday evening. Reportedly, some of Chandler's supporters left the church with him. Chandler's resignation came on the day after Americans United reported the church to the Internal Revenue Service, asserting that his endorsements of candidates from the pulpit violate the Internal Revenue Code. AU filed the complaint May 9."The developments at this church clearly show the result of pulpit-based electioneering," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "It leads to ill will among congregants and divides congregations. This incident illustrates perfectly why our houses of worship should refrain from telling people whom to vote for."
Nine members of the Waynesville church say they were forced out of the congregation for defying Chandler's order to support the reelection of President George W. Bush and refrain from voting for Democrats. Chandler's actions had been controversial for some time. Some members complained that most of his sermons were political. Several newspapers and television stations reported that on Oct. 3, 2004, Chandler told his congregation, "If you vote for John Kerry, you need to repent or resign." Church members told the media that prior to the election, Chandler frequently endorsed Bush from the pulpit and attacked Kerry.AU's Lynn noted that a bill pending in Congress would lift the IRS ban on pulpit politicking and encourage actions like Chandler's. The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (H.R. 235) is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), "If we want more churches fractured along political lines, then the Jones bill is the way to go," Lynn said. "The sad controversy in North Carolina should spell the end of this misguided measure."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Oppose Politicizing Houses of WorshipKeep houses of worship from becoming partisan political rally halls!
H.R. 235, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), would turn the inner sanctuaries and pulpits of America’s houses of worship into partisan political rally halls. You may remember that Representative Jones offered a strikingly similar bill in the 107th Congress, entitled the “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act” which failed overwhelmingly by a vote of 178-239 under “suspension of the rules” on October 2, 2002. Though H.R. 235 represents a modified version of that legislation, there remain significant concerns about its implications for both our nation’s houses of worship and the integrity of our political process.
I sent this to T.
Please Oppose H.R. 235
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (H.R. 235). This bill would wreak havoc on religious integrity and the political process.
Current restrictions on houses of worship do not exist as an impediment to religious leaders speaking out on important moral issues of the day. In fact, pastors and other religious leaders already enjoy that unencumbered right.
Tax law stops churches and other tax-exempt entities from using their personnel and money to intervene in partisan political campaigns. In the process, the integrity of religious institutions is protected by keeping them focused on the principal goals of nearly every house of worship: sharing their moral and theological views and ministering to believers, not offering directions on which candidates deserve political support.
Federal tax law serves our nation’s religious community well, preventing houses of worship from being drawn into partisan politicking. It does not need “fixing.” I urge you to reject “The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act.”
Tax them all! It seems that all the churches these days are becoming more political and that shouldn't be. Having them take on the politicians to make them think is one thing, but to tell others that they have to vote and be like the rest of the sheeple that are seeming to make up so much of this country any more. Well read all the facts not just what the government or the preachers want you to read.
A North Carolina pastor who drew national attention for partisan politicking in the pulpit resigned last night. The incident, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State, illustrates the danger of mixing partisan political activity with churches. According to news accounts, Pastor Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, N.C., resigned during a meeting Tuesday evening. Reportedly, some of Chandler's supporters left the church with him. Chandler's resignation came on the day after Americans United reported the church to the Internal Revenue Service, asserting that his endorsements of candidates from the pulpit violate the Internal Revenue Code. AU filed the complaint May 9."The developments at this church clearly show the result of pulpit-based electioneering," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "It leads to ill will among congregants and divides congregations. This incident illustrates perfectly why our houses of worship should refrain from telling people whom to vote for."
Nine members of the Waynesville church say they were forced out of the congregation for defying Chandler's order to support the reelection of President George W. Bush and refrain from voting for Democrats. Chandler's actions had been controversial for some time. Some members complained that most of his sermons were political. Several newspapers and television stations reported that on Oct. 3, 2004, Chandler told his congregation, "If you vote for John Kerry, you need to repent or resign." Church members told the media that prior to the election, Chandler frequently endorsed Bush from the pulpit and attacked Kerry.AU's Lynn noted that a bill pending in Congress would lift the IRS ban on pulpit politicking and encourage actions like Chandler's. The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (H.R. 235) is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), "If we want more churches fractured along political lines, then the Jones bill is the way to go," Lynn said. "The sad controversy in North Carolina should spell the end of this misguided measure."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Oppose Politicizing Houses of WorshipKeep houses of worship from becoming partisan political rally halls!
H.R. 235, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), would turn the inner sanctuaries and pulpits of America’s houses of worship into partisan political rally halls. You may remember that Representative Jones offered a strikingly similar bill in the 107th Congress, entitled the “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act” which failed overwhelmingly by a vote of 178-239 under “suspension of the rules” on October 2, 2002. Though H.R. 235 represents a modified version of that legislation, there remain significant concerns about its implications for both our nation’s houses of worship and the integrity of our political process.
I sent this to T.
Please Oppose H.R. 235
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (H.R. 235). This bill would wreak havoc on religious integrity and the political process.
Current restrictions on houses of worship do not exist as an impediment to religious leaders speaking out on important moral issues of the day. In fact, pastors and other religious leaders already enjoy that unencumbered right.
Tax law stops churches and other tax-exempt entities from using their personnel and money to intervene in partisan political campaigns. In the process, the integrity of religious institutions is protected by keeping them focused on the principal goals of nearly every house of worship: sharing their moral and theological views and ministering to believers, not offering directions on which candidates deserve political support.
Federal tax law serves our nation’s religious community well, preventing houses of worship from being drawn into partisan politicking. It does not need “fixing.” I urge you to reject “The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act.”
Tax them all! It seems that all the churches these days are becoming more political and that shouldn't be. Having them take on the politicians to make them think is one thing, but to tell others that they have to vote and be like the rest of the sheeple that are seeming to make up so much of this country any more. Well read all the facts not just what the government or the preachers want you to read.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Petition site
Number 2,940
Date 7:15 pm PDT, May 10
Name S. J.
State KS
Please finish the sentence: I feel that whales are an important part of our eco-system and need to be protected. Don't let them down.
Date 7:15 pm PDT, May 10
Name S. J.
State KS
Please finish the sentence: I feel that whales are an important part of our eco-system and need to be protected. Don't let them down.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
From a PlanetOut News Board
***People take it as an assault that we have to hear gay propaganda on TV all the time.***
Other people take it as an assault that they have to hear the religious rhetoric all the time as well. Not everyone is Christian so why blast us with that propaganda? Why are some Christians and the Neocons so agressive that they think that I and others like me need their views forced on us?
***The aggressiveness of their demands in my opinion amounts to a first strike-I can understand why someone would return fire.***
I take people like you and the other neocons as a first strike on me and my liberties and so I strike back as well.
This was an exchange of words between me and a troll. I still stand or is that sit by what I wrote here.
Other people take it as an assault that they have to hear the religious rhetoric all the time as well. Not everyone is Christian so why blast us with that propaganda? Why are some Christians and the Neocons so agressive that they think that I and others like me need their views forced on us?
***The aggressiveness of their demands in my opinion amounts to a first strike-I can understand why someone would return fire.***
I take people like you and the other neocons as a first strike on me and my liberties and so I strike back as well.
This was an exchange of words between me and a troll. I still stand or is that sit by what I wrote here.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Your right to vote...
...and to have that vote counted is the foundation of our democracy. And today, we're asking you to take action to protect that right. We're bringing you a critical action through Working Assets and ActForChange.com, the online resource for social change - please take a moment to contact Congress and urge support for the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act".
Urgent Action: Pass 'Gold Standard' Voting Machine Paper Trail Legislation Some disturbing reports of problems with electronic voting machines surfaced during the 2004 election. For example, in Columbus, Ohio, an electronic voting system reported that Bush received 4,258 votes while Kerry received 260 votes in a precinct where records show only 638 voters cast ballots. In North Carolina, a machine lost more than 4,500 votes due to a mistaken assumption about the memory capacity of a computer. While these glitches may not have changed the outcome of the election, they are highly troubling and clearly illustrate the need for a paper trail for all electronic voting machines. During the last session of Congress, a variety of bills were introduced calling for a voter verified paper audit trail for all computerized voting equipment. However, members of Congress couldn't seem to rally behind one bill, and none of those bills even made it to a vote. In the new session of Congress, a "gold standard" piece of legislation has been introduced -- the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550). This bill requires that all electronic voting equipment has a paper audit trail as well as requiring that voting machine vendors make their code available for public inspection and random audits. Please act today: Tell your members of Congress to co-sponsor and support the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550)!
Your message was sent to the following recipients:Your U.S. RepresentativeAs your constituent, I am writing to urge youto co-sponsor and support the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550). Please make paper trail voting machine legislation a top priority during the current session of Congress.Some disturbing reports of problems with electronic voting machines surfaced during the 2004 election. While these glitches may not have changed the outcome of the election, they are highly troubling and clearly illustrate the need for a paper trail for all electronic voting machines.During the last session of Congress, a variety of bills were introduced calling for a voter verified paper audit trail for all computerized voting equipment. However, members of Congress couldn't seem to rally behind one bill, and none of those bills even made it to a vote.In the new session of Congress, a "gold standard" piece of legislation has been introduced -- the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550). This bill requires that all electronic voting equipment has a paper audit trail as well as requiring that voting machine vendors make their code available for public inspection and random audits. Please co-sponsor and support this legislation.Please let me know how you intend to proceed on this issue.
Urgent Action: Pass 'Gold Standard' Voting Machine Paper Trail Legislation Some disturbing reports of problems with electronic voting machines surfaced during the 2004 election. For example, in Columbus, Ohio, an electronic voting system reported that Bush received 4,258 votes while Kerry received 260 votes in a precinct where records show only 638 voters cast ballots. In North Carolina, a machine lost more than 4,500 votes due to a mistaken assumption about the memory capacity of a computer. While these glitches may not have changed the outcome of the election, they are highly troubling and clearly illustrate the need for a paper trail for all electronic voting machines. During the last session of Congress, a variety of bills were introduced calling for a voter verified paper audit trail for all computerized voting equipment. However, members of Congress couldn't seem to rally behind one bill, and none of those bills even made it to a vote. In the new session of Congress, a "gold standard" piece of legislation has been introduced -- the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550). This bill requires that all electronic voting equipment has a paper audit trail as well as requiring that voting machine vendors make their code available for public inspection and random audits. Please act today: Tell your members of Congress to co-sponsor and support the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550)!
Your message was sent to the following recipients:Your U.S. RepresentativeAs your constituent, I am writing to urge youto co-sponsor and support the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550). Please make paper trail voting machine legislation a top priority during the current session of Congress.Some disturbing reports of problems with electronic voting machines surfaced during the 2004 election. While these glitches may not have changed the outcome of the election, they are highly troubling and clearly illustrate the need for a paper trail for all electronic voting machines.During the last session of Congress, a variety of bills were introduced calling for a voter verified paper audit trail for all computerized voting equipment. However, members of Congress couldn't seem to rally behind one bill, and none of those bills even made it to a vote.In the new session of Congress, a "gold standard" piece of legislation has been introduced -- the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (H.R. 550). This bill requires that all electronic voting equipment has a paper audit trail as well as requiring that voting machine vendors make their code available for public inspection and random audits. Please co-sponsor and support this legislation.Please let me know how you intend to proceed on this issue.
Impeachment Time: "Facts Were Fixed."
by Greg Palast
"Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has 'IMPEACH HIM' written all over it. The top-level government memo marked 'SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL,' dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President [sic], reads, 'Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' ...For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, 'Isn't this grounds for impeachment?' -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a 'high crime or misdemeanor.' And if this ain't it, nothing is." [Well, it would be... but the problem is that we have a runaway bride, a possible juror removal in the Michael Jackson trial, and an alleged affair by 'hit-n-runner' Paula Abdul on American Idol, so the 'mainstream media' is too *busy* to cover the story. --Lori Price]
"Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has 'IMPEACH HIM' written all over it. The top-level government memo marked 'SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL,' dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President [sic], reads, 'Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' ...For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, 'Isn't this grounds for impeachment?' -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a 'high crime or misdemeanor.' And if this ain't it, nothing is." [Well, it would be... but the problem is that we have a runaway bride, a possible juror removal in the Michael Jackson trial, and an alleged affair by 'hit-n-runner' Paula Abdul on American Idol, so the 'mainstream media' is too *busy* to cover the story. --Lori Price]
Robertson: judges worse than 9/11 terrorists
Last Sunday, Pat Robertson went on national television to say liberal judges posed a greater threat to America than the Civil War, the Nazis or "a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." Bill Frist and Tom DeLay must publicly condemn these outrageous comments and stop intimidating judges. Can you sign our petition to Frist and DeLay today? Help put our new ad on the air, Reject Robertson Dear MoveOn member, On Sunday morning, Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson told TV viewers nation-wide that the threat posed by liberal judges is "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." When an incredulous George Stephanopoulos asked if Robertson really believed that these judges posed "the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?," he responded, "George, I really believe that." [1]These comments were not made in isolation. In fact, Robertson's statement is only the most outrageous example of a growing effort from the extreme right to whip up an intense fear and hatred of American judges — including comments from Republican congressmen and senators intimidating, threatening and even justifying outright violence against judges. [2] The strategy is designed to build support for the Republican "nuclear" scheme to break the rules and stack the courts — and it is poisonous to our democracy. It must stop here.That's why we are launching a national petition demanding that Bill Frist and Tom DeLay publicly reject Robertson's statement. If they do, it will send a clear signal that this type of dangerous incitement against officers of the law is not welcome in our democracy. And if they don't, it will send an equally clear signal about how far they are willing to go. Please sign today:http://www.moveonpac.org/robertson/?id=5494-4732469-OxM1KKjp15YZmiJbHLHquA&t=9We're simultaneously launching a new TV ad — if you contribute today we can put it on the air tomorrow in Washington D.C. and in Bill Frist and Tom DeLay's home districts — bringing our message directly to their doorstep.The TV spot — which we put together overnight — simply quotes Robertson attacking American judges while mocking the September 11 tragedy and asks if Bill Frist and Tom DeLay will do the right thing and reject these outrageous comments. The ad will get our message out on the airwaves, and give the news media another chance to give this scandal the coverage it deserves. If we combine the new ad with a successful petition drive, we can have a huge impact. We'll deliver the petition to Frist's office as soon as he's back in Washington next week, and he won't be able to miss the ad.You can view the new ad and help put it on the air here:http://www.moveonpac.org/donate/robertson.html?id=5494-4732469-OxM1KKjp15YZmiJbHLHquA&t=10Former Vice-President Al Gore summarized this disturbing strategy of judicial hate mongering in a recent address to MoveOn members. Here are some of the incidents he covered:The Republican leader of the House of Representatives responded to rulings in the Terri Schiavo case, by saying ominously: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to pay for their behavior." [3]In previous remarks on the subject, DeLay has said, "Judges need to be intimidated," adding that if they don't behave, "we're going to go after them in a big way." [4]A Republican Senator from Texas directly connected the "spate of courthouse violence lately" to his view that unpopular decisions might be the explanation. "I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions, yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds and builds to the point where some people engage in violence." [5]The Chief of Staff for another Republican senator called for "mass impeachment" by using the bizarre right-wing theory that the president can declare that any judge is no longer exhibiting "good behavior," adding that, "then the judge's term has simply come to an end. The President gives them a call and says: Clean out your desk. The Capitol police will be in to help you find your way home.'" [6]Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council, who hosted a speech by the Senate Majority Leader last Sunday has said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench." [7]James Dobson who heads Focus on the Family focused his anger on the 9th circuit court of appeals: "Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court. They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone." [8]Edwin Vieira (at the "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference) said his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Stalin: "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem.'" [9]This pattern of intimidation against America's judges is scary and deeply un-American. It will continue to worsen as long as leaders like Frist and DeLay think their side can score political points by pandering to the fringe and embracing hate speech. When Pat Robertson goes on national television to say that American judges are a worse threat than the Civil War, the Nazis and Al Qaeda, they must know their reckless game has crossed the line.It's time to put our democracy before any party's quest for power — and it begins by rejecting Pat Robertson.Please sign today.http://www.moveonpac.org/robertson/?id=5494-4732469-OxM1KKjp15YZmiJbHLHquA&t=11
Americans United - Seperation of Church and State
No doubt you’ve seen or heard in the news that the U.S. Air Force, citing a detailed report issued by Americans United, says it will organize a task force to study allegations of widespread discrimination and hostility toward non-evangelical Christians at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
Despite what Religous Right groups like Focus on the Family are telling their members (see an example below), AU’s goal is to ensure that all members of the Air Force Academy community—students and staff—are free from religious coercion or pressure, making choices about their own spirituality as conscience dictates. The Academy has a responsibility to protect these rights—and we’ll do all we can to see that they fulfill it.
The Air Force’s response to our report demonstrates the effectiveness of AU’s endeavors—but we can only undertake watchdog projects, court cases, grassroots organizing, and legislative and educational efforts with the financial support of others who cherish Thomas Jefferson’s church-state wall.
We truly appreciate your interest in, activism for, and commitment to church-state separation.
Despite what Religous Right groups like Focus on the Family are telling their members (see an example below), AU’s goal is to ensure that all members of the Air Force Academy community—students and staff—are free from religious coercion or pressure, making choices about their own spirituality as conscience dictates. The Academy has a responsibility to protect these rights—and we’ll do all we can to see that they fulfill it.
The Air Force’s response to our report demonstrates the effectiveness of AU’s endeavors—but we can only undertake watchdog projects, court cases, grassroots organizing, and legislative and educational efforts with the financial support of others who cherish Thomas Jefferson’s church-state wall.
We truly appreciate your interest in, activism for, and commitment to church-state separation.
Nuclear weapons, a mind boggling issue?
http://www.truemajorityaction.org/bensbbs
Doesn’t need to be. Check out this quick loading 90-second movie we made to explain what’s going on and what’s at stake.
The Gang at TrueMajorityACTION
Doesn’t need to be. Check out this quick loading 90-second movie we made to explain what’s going on and what’s at stake.
The Gang at TrueMajorityACTION
Strange Quotes on "America"
Americans are possibly the dumbest people on the planet. ...We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.- - - Michael MooreIn America,
only the successful writer is important, in France all writers are important, in England no writer is important, and in Australia you have to explain what a writer is.- - - Geoffrey Cottrell
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.- - - Charlie King
The sorry thing is I find all of these to be true.
only the successful writer is important, in France all writers are important, in England no writer is important, and in Australia you have to explain what a writer is.- - - Geoffrey Cottrell
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.- - - Charlie King
The sorry thing is I find all of these to be true.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
THE LYING GAME
Prominent Gay Microsoft Employee Quits, as More Evidence Emerges That Microsoft Caved to Anti-Gay Ministerby Sandeep Kaushik
New evidence is emerging that appears to indicate that Microsoft is not being completely forthcoming about the timing of its decision to withdraw support for the Washington State anti-gay-discrimination bill.
Jeff Koertzen, an operations program manager and the secretary-treasurer of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian group at Microsoft that met on April 4 with Bradford L. Smith, the Microsoft senior vice-president and general counsel at the center of a furor over the company's decision, spoke to The Stranger after giving notice on Monday, May 2. The six-year Microsoft employee said he could no longer work at the company, given his belief that Smith and other company spokespeople are not being honest about what happened.
"I believe [Smith] is lying based on statements he made to us," Koertzen said. "My principles do not allow me to work for a company that does that."
Koertzen is the second employee that attended the meeting with Smith, where the executive discussed the company's decision to take a neutral stance on the bill, to speak out, and the first to do so on the record. He said that Smith's comments at the meeting made it evident to him that the company shifted its position on the bill after meeting with Ken Hutcherson, the lead pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond and a national figure in the Evangelical Christian battle against gay rights.
Koertzen, who took notes at the GLEAM meeting, said that Smith conceded to the group that they had a point in complaining that he had made his decision to take a neutral stance on the legislation after only speaking with "one side" on the issue. "The only logical conclusion you can get from that is that a decision was made after speaking with Hutch," Koertzen said. He added that he believes that company employees had been working unofficially, but with the full knowledge of Smith, to support the bill. That changed after Smith met with Hutcherson: "What ended up happening is that Hutch goes in and complains, and at that point there was no 'official' stance. Two weeks later, the official policy became that we are neutral."
Koertzen added that he had spoken to a company lobbyist sometime prior to the GLEAM meeting. "My perception is that she honestly believed that the company was going to be issuing the letter [of support]," he said.
Koertzen's belief that Microsoft pulled back from the legislation after receiving complaints from Hutcherson is supported by other previously unreported information. According to an account confirmed by several sources involved in preparing Washington State's gay marriage lawsuit, Smith told another company employee last December that the company might back the bill in the upcoming session, a statement that was then passed on to the same-sex marriage advocates.
Smith made the comment as a corollary--or perhaps a compromise--to his decision to deny a request that the company sign onto an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief being shopped around last fall by gay marriage proponents to a number of major local corporations, including Microsoft, the sources confirmed.
The information about Microsoft's abortive role in the same-sex marriage case was provided by a source prominent in the gay community. It was independently confirmed by three other same-sex marriage proponents with knowledge of the preparations for the case in the months before the gay marriage supreme court hearing.
Beginning in September, same-sex marriage advocates approached Microsoft and other local corporations to see if they would be willing to sign a brief arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would foster a tolerant image for Washington State that would in turn improve the business community's ability to recruit top-level national talent to local companies, the sources confirmed.
Microsoft put the request through extensive internal deliberation. Of 11 company departments that weighed in on the matter, 10 were initially receptive, with only the company's federal-government-affairs shop in D.C. objecting (according to recent news reports, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed is a paid Microsoft lobbyist on international trade and competition issues). That objection was resolved, the sources confirmed, but in mid-December Smith vetoed the internal recommendations and decided not to sign off on the brief.
The brief, which was eventually filed under the names of two gay-oriented business groups, is a supporting document in the gay-marriage appeal that went before the state supreme court on March 8. A ruling by the court is likely later this year; two lower state courts last year ruled that the state's Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
The sources stressed that Microsoft was not alone in deciding not to get involved in the same-sex marriage case. While several other major companies expressed interest, none eventually signed the brief. But word was passed on to the sources by a company employee who was acting as a liaison between Smith and the same-sex marriage proponents that Microsoft didn't seem to be backing off the anti-discrimination bill in this year's legislative session.
In addition, Dan Kully of Equal Rights Washington (ERW), a gay rights group that lobbied extensively on the bill, said that on February 1 two company employees who testified in a legislative hearing in favor of the bill clearly believed they were doing so with the company's backing. Kully said they told an ERW representative that day that the company would be issuing a letter in support of the bill, but that the letter never arrived.
The new claims about Smith's comments appear to undercut the company's contention that it made its decision to adopt a neutral stance on the legislation, which would have barred discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing, and other matters, in December. Smith and other company representatives have repeatedly stated that the decision was made as part of a general review of policy matters related to the company's involvement in "social issues," and not as a result of pressure from Hutcherson, who threatened to organize a national Christian boycott of Microsoft if the company did not switch its stance.
Microsoft spokeswoman Tami Begasse acknowledged that Microsoft decided not to join as an amicus in the gay marriage case, adding, "we do not comment on internal deliberations and certainly not on legal issues." She did dispute that Smith made any commitment to to the bill in December. "Clearly, something is being lost in translation. We disagree with this account," she said, reiterating the company's previous public statements that the company set its legislative priorities in December, and that House Bill 1515 was not on the list. "Admittedly we've done a poor job of communicating on this," she said. "Multiple discussions were taking place at some times which may have added to the confusion," she said. "Microsoft's decision on this matter was ours alone and not influenced by any external factors."
However, the new information dovetails with that provided by other company critics who have claimed in recent weeks that Microsoft is not telling the truth about the timing of its decision to withdraw support for the bill. Hutcherson has accused the company of lying, saying that in a February 23 meeting Smith told him the company rejected a request to support gay marriage, but supported the legislation. Rep. Ed Murray, a Democrat representing Capitol Hill, has also said that a March 29 conversation with Smith left him with the impression that the company shifted its stance in March under pressure from Hutcherson. In addition, another gay Microsoft employee who attended the April 4 GLEAM meeting previously told The Stranger, under cloak of anonymity, that Smith had strongly implied at the meeting that the company's position shifted only after Smith met with Hutcherson.
sandeep@thestranger.com
So now we have another slam by a company that used to stand for their workers. It's a sorry state of affiars that Microsoft will crumble to a small time want to be big name preacher. This wanna be preacher to me is backing the wrong horse as more and more people are getting fed up with the Religious Right and the incompetent leaders in this country. There are even other countries who want nothing to do with outdated standards. Such as the abstinance only rules instead of being pro-active with good steady sex education. As I keep saying the religious right is neither really religious or right.
New evidence is emerging that appears to indicate that Microsoft is not being completely forthcoming about the timing of its decision to withdraw support for the Washington State anti-gay-discrimination bill.
Jeff Koertzen, an operations program manager and the secretary-treasurer of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian group at Microsoft that met on April 4 with Bradford L. Smith, the Microsoft senior vice-president and general counsel at the center of a furor over the company's decision, spoke to The Stranger after giving notice on Monday, May 2. The six-year Microsoft employee said he could no longer work at the company, given his belief that Smith and other company spokespeople are not being honest about what happened.
"I believe [Smith] is lying based on statements he made to us," Koertzen said. "My principles do not allow me to work for a company that does that."
Koertzen is the second employee that attended the meeting with Smith, where the executive discussed the company's decision to take a neutral stance on the bill, to speak out, and the first to do so on the record. He said that Smith's comments at the meeting made it evident to him that the company shifted its position on the bill after meeting with Ken Hutcherson, the lead pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond and a national figure in the Evangelical Christian battle against gay rights.
Koertzen, who took notes at the GLEAM meeting, said that Smith conceded to the group that they had a point in complaining that he had made his decision to take a neutral stance on the legislation after only speaking with "one side" on the issue. "The only logical conclusion you can get from that is that a decision was made after speaking with Hutch," Koertzen said. He added that he believes that company employees had been working unofficially, but with the full knowledge of Smith, to support the bill. That changed after Smith met with Hutcherson: "What ended up happening is that Hutch goes in and complains, and at that point there was no 'official' stance. Two weeks later, the official policy became that we are neutral."
Koertzen added that he had spoken to a company lobbyist sometime prior to the GLEAM meeting. "My perception is that she honestly believed that the company was going to be issuing the letter [of support]," he said.
Koertzen's belief that Microsoft pulled back from the legislation after receiving complaints from Hutcherson is supported by other previously unreported information. According to an account confirmed by several sources involved in preparing Washington State's gay marriage lawsuit, Smith told another company employee last December that the company might back the bill in the upcoming session, a statement that was then passed on to the same-sex marriage advocates.
Smith made the comment as a corollary--or perhaps a compromise--to his decision to deny a request that the company sign onto an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief being shopped around last fall by gay marriage proponents to a number of major local corporations, including Microsoft, the sources confirmed.
The information about Microsoft's abortive role in the same-sex marriage case was provided by a source prominent in the gay community. It was independently confirmed by three other same-sex marriage proponents with knowledge of the preparations for the case in the months before the gay marriage supreme court hearing.
Beginning in September, same-sex marriage advocates approached Microsoft and other local corporations to see if they would be willing to sign a brief arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would foster a tolerant image for Washington State that would in turn improve the business community's ability to recruit top-level national talent to local companies, the sources confirmed.
Microsoft put the request through extensive internal deliberation. Of 11 company departments that weighed in on the matter, 10 were initially receptive, with only the company's federal-government-affairs shop in D.C. objecting (according to recent news reports, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed is a paid Microsoft lobbyist on international trade and competition issues). That objection was resolved, the sources confirmed, but in mid-December Smith vetoed the internal recommendations and decided not to sign off on the brief.
The brief, which was eventually filed under the names of two gay-oriented business groups, is a supporting document in the gay-marriage appeal that went before the state supreme court on March 8. A ruling by the court is likely later this year; two lower state courts last year ruled that the state's Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
The sources stressed that Microsoft was not alone in deciding not to get involved in the same-sex marriage case. While several other major companies expressed interest, none eventually signed the brief. But word was passed on to the sources by a company employee who was acting as a liaison between Smith and the same-sex marriage proponents that Microsoft didn't seem to be backing off the anti-discrimination bill in this year's legislative session.
In addition, Dan Kully of Equal Rights Washington (ERW), a gay rights group that lobbied extensively on the bill, said that on February 1 two company employees who testified in a legislative hearing in favor of the bill clearly believed they were doing so with the company's backing. Kully said they told an ERW representative that day that the company would be issuing a letter in support of the bill, but that the letter never arrived.
The new claims about Smith's comments appear to undercut the company's contention that it made its decision to adopt a neutral stance on the legislation, which would have barred discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing, and other matters, in December. Smith and other company representatives have repeatedly stated that the decision was made as part of a general review of policy matters related to the company's involvement in "social issues," and not as a result of pressure from Hutcherson, who threatened to organize a national Christian boycott of Microsoft if the company did not switch its stance.
Microsoft spokeswoman Tami Begasse acknowledged that Microsoft decided not to join as an amicus in the gay marriage case, adding, "we do not comment on internal deliberations and certainly not on legal issues." She did dispute that Smith made any commitment to to the bill in December. "Clearly, something is being lost in translation. We disagree with this account," she said, reiterating the company's previous public statements that the company set its legislative priorities in December, and that House Bill 1515 was not on the list. "Admittedly we've done a poor job of communicating on this," she said. "Multiple discussions were taking place at some times which may have added to the confusion," she said. "Microsoft's decision on this matter was ours alone and not influenced by any external factors."
However, the new information dovetails with that provided by other company critics who have claimed in recent weeks that Microsoft is not telling the truth about the timing of its decision to withdraw support for the bill. Hutcherson has accused the company of lying, saying that in a February 23 meeting Smith told him the company rejected a request to support gay marriage, but supported the legislation. Rep. Ed Murray, a Democrat representing Capitol Hill, has also said that a March 29 conversation with Smith left him with the impression that the company shifted its stance in March under pressure from Hutcherson. In addition, another gay Microsoft employee who attended the April 4 GLEAM meeting previously told The Stranger, under cloak of anonymity, that Smith had strongly implied at the meeting that the company's position shifted only after Smith met with Hutcherson.
sandeep@thestranger.com
So now we have another slam by a company that used to stand for their workers. It's a sorry state of affiars that Microsoft will crumble to a small time want to be big name preacher. This wanna be preacher to me is backing the wrong horse as more and more people are getting fed up with the Religious Right and the incompetent leaders in this country. There are even other countries who want nothing to do with outdated standards. Such as the abstinance only rules instead of being pro-active with good steady sex education. As I keep saying the religious right is neither really religious or right.
News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
04 May 2005
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
U.S. can't account for spending of nearly $100 million in Iraq --U.S. civilian authorities in Iraq cannot properly account for nearly $100 million that was supposed to have been spent on reconstruction projects in south-central Iraq, government investigators said Wednesday. There are indications of fraud in the use of the $96.6 million, according to a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
Ok, just what are our "illustrious" leaders doing with this money? Our government sent them to do a job that they are not doing properly. We here in this country are loosing jobs through outsourcing and they are wasting this money in a country we really should not be in to begin with. Can we say just plain stupid!
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
U.S. can't account for spending of nearly $100 million in Iraq --U.S. civilian authorities in Iraq cannot properly account for nearly $100 million that was supposed to have been spent on reconstruction projects in south-central Iraq, government investigators said Wednesday. There are indications of fraud in the use of the $96.6 million, according to a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
Ok, just what are our "illustrious" leaders doing with this money? Our government sent them to do a job that they are not doing properly. We here in this country are loosing jobs through outsourcing and they are wasting this money in a country we really should not be in to begin with. Can we say just plain stupid!
AMERICANS UNITED PLANS OKLAHOMA CITY EVENT TO 'LET FREEDOM RING' ON NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER
Inclusive Event Celebrates Freedom Of Conscience, Welcomes All Faiths And Philosophical Traditions
For too long, the National Day of Prayer has been held captive by the Religious Right. This year, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is planning a rescue."Let Freedom Ring: A Celebration of Freedom of Conscience," an event sponsored by the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United, will be open to Americans of all faiths - as well as those who don't pray."America is a nation with rich diversity, and we want to celebrate that fact," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, who will be in Oklahoma City to speak at the event. "The National Day of Prayer has become an excuse for the Religious Right to practice exclusion and peddle bad history. We want to offer an alternative."The Oklahoma event, which is being cosponsored by Mainstream Baptists of Oklahoma and the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, will take place on the South Steps of the State Capitol in Oklahoma City on May 5 at 11 a.m. AU's Lynn is a United Church of Christ minister. Speakers from the Jewish, Islamic, Pagan and non-theistic communities will also participate. By act of Congress, the National Day of Prayer takes place the first Thursday in May. Many events are coordinated by the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a private group run by Shirley Dobson, wife of radio broadcaster and Religious Right kingpin James C. Dobson. The Task Force excludes certain religious groups from its events and has turned many of them into highly politicized fundamentalist rallies. In years past, it has advised that non-Christians not be allowed to speak at local events, and this year the Task Force mandates that participation be limited to "Judeo-Christian" groups. But Americans United charges that Task Force events are by default saturated with fundamentalist Christianity. It notes that the Task Force insists that groups taking part agree with the Lausanne Covenant, a 1974 plan for world Christian evangelism spearheaded by Billy Graham. The Covenant insists that the Bible is inerrant and states that Jesus Christ is "the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. "The Task Force's website makes it clear that its events are for certain Christians only, saying, "If peoples of other faiths wish to celebrate in their own tradition, they are welcome to do so, but we must be true to those who have supported this effort and volunteered their time to promote it. "Said AU's Lynn, "The Dobsons are essentially telling people of other faith traditions that they are not welcome and to take a hike. I want all of them to know they should hike on over to our event, where they will be welcomed and encouraged to take part. "Continued Lynn, "Americans United's event is about inclusion, not exclusion. It's a different celebration that honors the Constitution and celebrates our diversity. " Lynn said Americans United hopes to export the Oklahoma City model to other communities.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
I have always wondered just what makes the Religious Right think they are more deserving of their Christian Jesus then any other group of Chrisitans. Why do they think they need to push everyone else into their little box and make them behave just like their own sheeple. While I am not fond of the Religious Right and their temper tantrums and fighting to make this country more divided then it has ever been before. I am also upset with the moderates for allowing Dobson and his ilk to subvert our politicians, other religions and to just put anyone who isn't "one of them" down as a heritic, an unbeliever and just not right. To stand for your beliefs isn't wrong. Pushing your beliefs on others and trying to make everyone else just like you is wrong. Without the diversity of faith, color, gender, love this world will be a much sadder, sorrier, place to live.
Now before you trolls in the world think my comment on gender includes only straight marriages, you are wrong. Diversity in love and marriage includes same sex marriage, it includes the fact that like with interracial marriages the diversity of love has no lines, boundries and jumps to where it is most wanted and needed. We as beings were not made to be all the same, we were made to be different, to learn from each other, to see things in different ways while holding gently onto our own ways.
For too long, the National Day of Prayer has been held captive by the Religious Right. This year, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is planning a rescue."Let Freedom Ring: A Celebration of Freedom of Conscience," an event sponsored by the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United, will be open to Americans of all faiths - as well as those who don't pray."America is a nation with rich diversity, and we want to celebrate that fact," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, who will be in Oklahoma City to speak at the event. "The National Day of Prayer has become an excuse for the Religious Right to practice exclusion and peddle bad history. We want to offer an alternative."The Oklahoma event, which is being cosponsored by Mainstream Baptists of Oklahoma and the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, will take place on the South Steps of the State Capitol in Oklahoma City on May 5 at 11 a.m. AU's Lynn is a United Church of Christ minister. Speakers from the Jewish, Islamic, Pagan and non-theistic communities will also participate. By act of Congress, the National Day of Prayer takes place the first Thursday in May. Many events are coordinated by the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a private group run by Shirley Dobson, wife of radio broadcaster and Religious Right kingpin James C. Dobson. The Task Force excludes certain religious groups from its events and has turned many of them into highly politicized fundamentalist rallies. In years past, it has advised that non-Christians not be allowed to speak at local events, and this year the Task Force mandates that participation be limited to "Judeo-Christian" groups. But Americans United charges that Task Force events are by default saturated with fundamentalist Christianity. It notes that the Task Force insists that groups taking part agree with the Lausanne Covenant, a 1974 plan for world Christian evangelism spearheaded by Billy Graham. The Covenant insists that the Bible is inerrant and states that Jesus Christ is "the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. "The Task Force's website makes it clear that its events are for certain Christians only, saying, "If peoples of other faiths wish to celebrate in their own tradition, they are welcome to do so, but we must be true to those who have supported this effort and volunteered their time to promote it. "Said AU's Lynn, "The Dobsons are essentially telling people of other faith traditions that they are not welcome and to take a hike. I want all of them to know they should hike on over to our event, where they will be welcomed and encouraged to take part. "Continued Lynn, "Americans United's event is about inclusion, not exclusion. It's a different celebration that honors the Constitution and celebrates our diversity. " Lynn said Americans United hopes to export the Oklahoma City model to other communities.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
I have always wondered just what makes the Religious Right think they are more deserving of their Christian Jesus then any other group of Chrisitans. Why do they think they need to push everyone else into their little box and make them behave just like their own sheeple. While I am not fond of the Religious Right and their temper tantrums and fighting to make this country more divided then it has ever been before. I am also upset with the moderates for allowing Dobson and his ilk to subvert our politicians, other religions and to just put anyone who isn't "one of them" down as a heritic, an unbeliever and just not right. To stand for your beliefs isn't wrong. Pushing your beliefs on others and trying to make everyone else just like you is wrong. Without the diversity of faith, color, gender, love this world will be a much sadder, sorrier, place to live.
Now before you trolls in the world think my comment on gender includes only straight marriages, you are wrong. Diversity in love and marriage includes same sex marriage, it includes the fact that like with interracial marriages the diversity of love has no lines, boundries and jumps to where it is most wanted and needed. We as beings were not made to be all the same, we were made to be different, to learn from each other, to see things in different ways while holding gently onto our own ways.
IS THIS THE NBA???
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500
employees or having them work for you and has the following
statistics:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.
And they want us to belive that they have our best interests at heart?
I really don't think so. Personally I think that we need to have a time
limit on the people serving. No more lifetime politicians and they need to
loose some of the pay they get. No more getting rich off of us the people they
are supposed to be "serving" and doing a lousy job of it right now too.
More posts to come tonight.
employees or having them work for you and has the following
statistics:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.
And they want us to belive that they have our best interests at heart?
I really don't think so. Personally I think that we need to have a time
limit on the people serving. No more lifetime politicians and they need to
loose some of the pay they get. No more getting rich off of us the people they
are supposed to be "serving" and doing a lousy job of it right now too.
More posts to come tonight.
SCHIAVO TRAGEDY REVEALED TRUE AGENDA,
FRIGHTENING POWER OF RELIGIOUS RIGHT, SAYS AMERICANS UNITEDBattle Over Judges Is Next Round In 'Culture War,' AU's Lynn Says
The legal and political battle over Terri Schiavo exposed the Religious Right's radical agenda and its extraordinary power in Washington, D.C., and now Americans should expect that influence to be aimed at the nation's judiciary, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.Mrs. Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, was the subject of a lengthy legal dispute between her husband and other family members over whether her feeding tube should be removed. Until her death today, Religious Right forces used Mrs. Schiavo as a symbol in their drive to make government apply their fundamentalist beliefs to everyone. "At the behest of the Religious Right, Congress and President George W. Bush intervened in a place where they didn't belong - a personal family matter," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "They failed, and now furious Religious Right leaders will step up their assault on our nation's courts." Lynn said James Dobson, Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist activists are going to demand that the Senate confirm judges who will advance their agenda, which includes repealing church-state separation, overturning reproductive rights, blocking stem-cell research and rolling back civil rights protections for gay people. "The Schiavo tragedy was seized upon by fundamentalists and their political allies in a bid to force their narrow moral code on everyone," said AU's Lynn. "Religious Right leaders want to stack the judiciary with right-wing ideologues. Then, there will be no one to stand in their way when they intrude into the most personal decisions of our lives.""During these past weeks," Lynn continued, "they aimed their venom at the state and federal courts involved in the Schiavo matter. They harbor great contempt for the nation's judiciary and the constitutional concept of separation of powers. They will demand radical changes."Congressional leaders Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are ready to work hard to push the kind of judges these religious extremists desire," Lynn concluded. "Frist and DeLay have said so in closed-door speeches to a Religious Right group. Defenders of American constitutional values must make their voices heard and stand against this Religious Right power grab." Days before Congress passed a law forcing federal courts to get involved in the Schiavo situation, Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-Tenn.) told a Family Research Council gathering at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. that he was beholden to the Religious Right's agenda and promised to confirm right-wing judges. He also pledged to re-write Senate rules to ensure that a minority filibuster could not be mounted to block far-right judicial nominees. (To listen to the Frist and DeLay addresses to the Family Research Council, go to <http://www.au.org/site/R?i=BeczXbhnEHHdVM0SF8w0fg..>)"Polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans did not want lawmakers to meddle in the Schiavo case," Lynn said. "But Religious Right leaders don't care what other people think. They believe they have a divine mandate to force everyone to follow their dictates. "This time, the Religious Right has gone too far," Lynn concluded. "The fundamentalist threat to our liberties has been laid bare for all to see. Americans must see to it that the Religious Right does not succeed."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
The legal and political battle over Terri Schiavo exposed the Religious Right's radical agenda and its extraordinary power in Washington, D.C., and now Americans should expect that influence to be aimed at the nation's judiciary, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.Mrs. Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, was the subject of a lengthy legal dispute between her husband and other family members over whether her feeding tube should be removed. Until her death today, Religious Right forces used Mrs. Schiavo as a symbol in their drive to make government apply their fundamentalist beliefs to everyone. "At the behest of the Religious Right, Congress and President George W. Bush intervened in a place where they didn't belong - a personal family matter," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "They failed, and now furious Religious Right leaders will step up their assault on our nation's courts." Lynn said James Dobson, Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist activists are going to demand that the Senate confirm judges who will advance their agenda, which includes repealing church-state separation, overturning reproductive rights, blocking stem-cell research and rolling back civil rights protections for gay people. "The Schiavo tragedy was seized upon by fundamentalists and their political allies in a bid to force their narrow moral code on everyone," said AU's Lynn. "Religious Right leaders want to stack the judiciary with right-wing ideologues. Then, there will be no one to stand in their way when they intrude into the most personal decisions of our lives.""During these past weeks," Lynn continued, "they aimed their venom at the state and federal courts involved in the Schiavo matter. They harbor great contempt for the nation's judiciary and the constitutional concept of separation of powers. They will demand radical changes."Congressional leaders Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are ready to work hard to push the kind of judges these religious extremists desire," Lynn concluded. "Frist and DeLay have said so in closed-door speeches to a Religious Right group. Defenders of American constitutional values must make their voices heard and stand against this Religious Right power grab." Days before Congress passed a law forcing federal courts to get involved in the Schiavo situation, Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-Tenn.) told a Family Research Council gathering at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. that he was beholden to the Religious Right's agenda and promised to confirm right-wing judges. He also pledged to re-write Senate rules to ensure that a minority filibuster could not be mounted to block far-right judicial nominees. (To listen to the Frist and DeLay addresses to the Family Research Council, go to <http://www.au.org/site/R?i=BeczXbhnEHHdVM0SF8w0fg..>)"Polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans did not want lawmakers to meddle in the Schiavo case," Lynn said. "But Religious Right leaders don't care what other people think. They believe they have a divine mandate to force everyone to follow their dictates. "This time, the Religious Right has gone too far," Lynn concluded. "The fundamentalist threat to our liberties has been laid bare for all to see. Americans must see to it that the Religious Right does not succeed."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Dear ActForChange member,
There are many lessons to learn from the unprecedented intervention by Congress (as led by Rep. Tom DeLay) into the tragic situation of Terri Schiavo.
The first is that the current Congress will intervene in the most private of family matters if it sees political advantage in doing so.
As a result, the only way to ensure that your own views are respected in similar settings is to have an advanced healthcare directive or living will. Working Assets does not provide legal advice. However, many have found helpful the information on these subjects provided byThe American Bar Association and the Living Will Registry.
The second lesson is that there is no limit to the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of Rep. DeLay and his followers in this unprecedented intervention, only days after voting to slash billions of dollars from the health program which provides for millions of Americans and which itself saves thousands of lives.
We urge you to demand that your representative save lives by restoring cuts to the critical Medicaid program.
The first is that the current Congress will intervene in the most private of family matters if it sees political advantage in doing so.
As a result, the only way to ensure that your own views are respected in similar settings is to have an advanced healthcare directive or living will. Working Assets does not provide legal advice. However, many have found helpful the information on these subjects provided byThe American Bar Association and the Living Will Registry.
The second lesson is that there is no limit to the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of Rep. DeLay and his followers in this unprecedented intervention, only days after voting to slash billions of dollars from the health program which provides for millions of Americans and which itself saves thousands of lives.
We urge you to demand that your representative save lives by restoring cuts to the critical Medicaid program.
The anti-choice plan to overturn Roe by 2008
Changing Senate Rules + Far-Right Judges = The end of choice?
There may not be a retirement yet on the Supreme Court, but make no mistake, the battle is here. Anticipating several vacancies on the Supreme Court during the president's second term, anti-choice U.S. senators are working on an anti-democratic power grab that will grease the skids for Bush's out-of-touch judicial nominees. How is it happening now?
Changing Senate rules Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is hard at work trying to change Senate rules to take away the Senate's constitutional right to review and oppose judicial nominees -- a tactic called the "nuclear option" for good reasons. This abuse of power gives pro-choice senators virtually no chance to block President Bush's ideologically out-of-touch nominees.
Support from anti-choice alliesFrist's "nuclear option" is key to putting a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Even the far-right organization The Center for Individual Freedom admits, "Our future hopes for a conservative Supreme Court depend upon Frist and the Republicans in the Senate having the political will to exercise the Constitutional Option."
Bush's extremist judicial nominationsPresident Bush is doing his part packing the courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges. Just last month, Bush re-sent 20 judicial nominees to the Senate for confirmation -- seven of whom had already been rejected by the Senate for their opposition to personal privacy and civil rights. Among these were anti-choice conservatives Priscilla Owen, William H. Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown.
There may not be a retirement yet on the Supreme Court, but make no mistake, the battle is here. Anticipating several vacancies on the Supreme Court during the president's second term, anti-choice U.S. senators are working on an anti-democratic power grab that will grease the skids for Bush's out-of-touch judicial nominees. How is it happening now?
Changing Senate rules Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is hard at work trying to change Senate rules to take away the Senate's constitutional right to review and oppose judicial nominees -- a tactic called the "nuclear option" for good reasons. This abuse of power gives pro-choice senators virtually no chance to block President Bush's ideologically out-of-touch nominees.
Support from anti-choice alliesFrist's "nuclear option" is key to putting a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Even the far-right organization The Center for Individual Freedom admits, "Our future hopes for a conservative Supreme Court depend upon Frist and the Republicans in the Senate having the political will to exercise the Constitutional Option."
Bush's extremist judicial nominationsPresident Bush is doing his part packing the courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges. Just last month, Bush re-sent 20 judicial nominees to the Senate for confirmation -- seven of whom had already been rejected by the Senate for their opposition to personal privacy and civil rights. Among these were anti-choice conservatives Priscilla Owen, William H. Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown.
oppose the "nuclear option"
Thanks for showing the Senate that pro-choice Americans oppose the nuclear option by signing our petition. Because of activists like you, several senators in Frist's own party are still undecided. They know that longstanding Senate rules ensure that lifetime appointments to the federal bench are carefully reviewed - and that breaking these rules is nothing more than a power grab.
This is my space to fuss about the idiot...
government and the stupidity of their push to make this country a theocrasy. I will be posting all kinds of news stories, my take on the meet the presses, face the nations and the fox news. These are my sunday morning shows and how I make sure I get a balance of the "facts" that each side loves to expound.
Sometimes I find the Democrats to be as stupid as the Republicans, but not often as the Democrats haven't been "pushing" religion as the Republicans have been and will be doing.
I am Eclectic Pagan/Shamanistic/First Nations in my walk in this life. Now some I know are wondering how I can "be" all of these, but you see this is the joy and the curse of the multi-racial person.
Sit back, I won't tell you to enjoy the ride; but just maybe you will see somethng from a different view.
Sometimes I find the Democrats to be as stupid as the Republicans, but not often as the Democrats haven't been "pushing" religion as the Republicans have been and will be doing.
I am Eclectic Pagan/Shamanistic/First Nations in my walk in this life. Now some I know are wondering how I can "be" all of these, but you see this is the joy and the curse of the multi-racial person.
Sit back, I won't tell you to enjoy the ride; but just maybe you will see somethng from a different view.
And yet another round from the Religious Not Right
The CrusadersChristian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own imageBy BOB MOSERIt's February, and 900 of America's staunchest Christian fundamentalists have gathered in Fort Lauderdale to look back on what they accomplished in last year's election -- and to plan what's next. As they assemble in the vast sanctuary of Coral Ridge Presbyterian, with all fifty state flags dangling from the rafters, three stadium-size video screens flash the name of the conference: RECLAIMING AMERICA FOR CHRIST. These are the evangelical activists behind the nation's most effective political machine -- one that brought more than 4 million new Christian voters to the polls last November, sending George W. Bush back to the White House and thirty-two new pro-lifers to Congress. But despite their unprecedented power, fundamentalists still see themselves as a persecuted minority, waging a holy war against the godless forces of secularism. To rouse themselves, they kick off the festivities with "Soldiers of the Cross, Arise," the bloodthirstiest tune in all of Christendom: "Seize your armor, gird it on/Now the battle will be won/Soon, your enemies all slain/Crowns of glory you shall gain."Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back."Most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know -- what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know -- is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy."Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."At Reclaiming America, most of the conference is taken up by grassroots training sessions that supply ministers, retirees and devout churchgoers with "The Facts of Stem-Cell Research" or "Practical Steps to Impact Your Community with America's Historical Judeo-Christian Heritage." "We're going to turn you into an army of one," Gary Cass, executive director of Reclaiming America, promises activists at one workshop held in Evangalism Explosion Hall. The Dominionists also attend speeches by supporters like Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, who urges them to "win back America for God." In their spare time, conference-goers buy books about a God-devised health program called the Maker's Diet or meet with a financial adviser who offers a "biblically sound investment plan."To implement their sweeping agenda, the Dominionists are working to remake the federal courts in God's image. In their view, the Founding Fathers never intended to erect a barrier between politics and religion. "The First Amendment does not say there should be a separation of church and state," declares Alan Sears, president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a team of 750 attorneys trained by the Dominionists to fight abortion and gay marriage. Sears argues that the constitutional guarantee against state-sponsored religion is actually designed to "shield" the church from federal interference -- allowing Christians to take their rightful place at the head of the government. "We have a right, indeed an obligation, to govern," says David Limbaugh, brother of Rush and author of Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Nothing gets the Dominionists to their feet faster than ringing condemnations of judicial tyranny. "Activist judges have systematically deconstructed the Constitution," roars Rick Scarborough, author of Mixing Church and State. "A God-free society is their goal!"Activist judges, of course, are precisely what the Dominionists want. Their model is Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice who installed a 5,300-pound granite memorial to the Ten Commandments, complete with an open Bible carved in its top, in the state judicial building. At Reclaiming America, Roy's Rock sits out front, fresh off a tour of twenty-one states, perched on the flag-festooned flatbed of a diesel truck, a potent symbol of the "faith-based" justice the Dominionists are bent on imposing. Activists at the conference pose for photographs beside the rock and have circulated a petition urging President Bush to appoint Moore -- who once penned an opinion calling for the state to execute "practicing homosexuals" -- to the U.S. Supreme Court."The other side knows we've got strongholds in the executive and legislative branches," Cass tells the troops. "If we start winning the judiciary, their power base is going to be eroded."To pack the courts with fundamentalists like Moore, Dominionist leaders are planning a massive media blitz. They're also pressuring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- an ally who's courting support for his presidential bid -- to halt the long-standing use of filibusters to hold up judicial nominations. An anti-filibuster petition circulating at the conference blasts Democrats for their "outrageous stonewalling of appointments" -- even though Congress has approved more nominees of Bush than of any president since Jimmy Carter.It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisers including Karl Rove. "We've got the Holy Spirit's wind at our backs!" Land declares in an arm-waving, red-faced speech. He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."The Dominionists are also stepping up efforts to turn public schools into forums for evangelism. In a landmark case, the Alliance Defense Fund is suing a California school district that threatened to dismiss a born-again teacher who was evangelizing fifth-graders. In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."Cass urges conference-goers to stack school boards with Dominionists. "The most humble Christian is more qualified for office than the best-educated pagan," says Cass, an anti-abortion activist who led a takeover of his school district's board in San Diego. "We built quite a little grass-roots machine out there. Now it's my burden to multiply that success all across America."Cass points to the Rev. Gary Beeler, a Baptist minister from Tennessee who got permission for thousands of students to skip class and attend weeklong events that he calls "old-time revivals, with preaching and singing and soul-saving and the whole nine yards." Now, with support from Kennedy, Beeler is selling his house and buying a mobile home to spread his crusade nationwide. "It's not exactly what I planned to do with my retirement," he says. "But it's what God told me to do."Cass also presents another small-town activist, Kevin McCoy, with a Salt and Light Award for leading a successful campaign to shut down an anti-bullying program in West Virginia schools. McCoy, a soft-spoken, prematurely gray postal worker, fought to end the program because it taught tolerance for gay people -- and thus, in his view, constituted a "thinly disguised effort to promote the homosexual agenda." "What America needs," Cass tells the faithful, "is more Kevin McCoys."While the dominionists rely on grass-roots activists to fight their battles, they are backed by some of America's richest entrepreneurs. Amway founder Rich DeVos, a Kennedy ally who's the leading Republican contender for governor of Michigan, has tossed more than $5 million into the collection plate. Jean Case, wife of former AOL chief Steve Case -- whose fortune was made largely on sex-chat rooms -- has donated $8 million. And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools.The one-two punch of militant activists and big money has helped make the Dominionists a force in Washington, where a growing number of congressmen owe their elections to the machine. Kennedy has also created the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which trains elected officials to "more effectively share their faith in the public arena." Speaking to the group, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay -- a winner of Kennedy's Distinguished Christian Statesman Award -- called Bush's faith-based initiatives "a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of our country."The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today's climate, however, he's got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters."America is under assault!" Jones thunders as his aides dash around the sanctuary snapping PR photos. "Everyone in America has the right to speak freely, except for those standing in the pulpits of our churches!" The amen chorus reaches a fever pitch. Hands fly heavenward. It's one thing to hear such words from Dominionist leaders -- but to this crowd, there's nothing more thrilling than getting the gospel from a U.S. congressman. "You cannot have a strong nation that does not follow God," Jones preaches, working up to a climactic, passionate plea for a biblical republic. "God, please -- God, please -- God, please -- save America!"
Where's Dudley Do-Right when you need him?
Before you start into this last piece, keep in mind that at no point are you reading from a copy of the book, 1984. Orwellian though it may be, this nonsense is all too real. What happened is this: earlier this week a bill making it harder for young women to receive reproductive health services (while of course addressing prevention measures not at all) passed the House of Representatives. This bill, which is now being sent over to the Senate, establishes criminal penalties for family members or other third parties who transport young women over state lines in order to access abortion, if the young woman's home state's parental notice or consent law has not been complied with. Doctors are also subject to criminal penalties and forced to learn the laws of all 50 states. Understand that in a number of states the closest reproductive health clinic is in the next state. There are also many instances where the most trusted adult to whom a young woman can turn to for help is not her parents but an older sibling, a grandparent, aunt, etc. While the bill was heard in the House Rules Committee, Democratic members offered amendments to the bill. All were voted down. As it stands, even a cab or bus driver who transports a young woman across state lines could be vulnerable to criminal penalties. Let's just say the bill overreaches just a touch and leave it at that. As is standard, when the bill emerged from the House Rules Committee, a committee report was issued. Nothing unusual so far... until people started to read the report. House Rules Committee leadership rewrote the descriptions of the amendments to make it look like... well, you should read this for yourself:As offered by the Democrats: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state's parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)Republican rewrite: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.As offered by the Democrats: a Nadler amendment to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)Republican rewrite: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.As offered by the Democrats: a Scott amendment to exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill (no 13-17)Republican rewrite: Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.As offered by the Democrats: a Scott amendment that would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)Republican rewrite: Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeatedAs offered by the Democrats: a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)Republican rewrite: Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting Office. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment was defeated. This story's making waves in the blogosphere - Raw Story, Political Animal, and Obsidian Wings all have great commentary on it.Sometimes it's all we can do not to start rolling around on the floor. What sophomoric nonsense. It would be funny were it not part of the right-wing's power-mad mindset.They want total domination over everything from Supreme Court decisions to the most mundane legislative recordkeeping. Honestly, they're about one step away from carving out a secret lair in an old volcano somewhere, a la Dr. Evil. Although, if it were a secret lair...
There is nothing I can really add to this one.
There is nothing I can really add to this one.
Brauer Watch
A new favorite part of the Choice News Weekly is when we take a moment to check in with our good friend Karen Brauer, pharmacist and president of Pharmacists for Life International. She's emerging as the Anne Coulter of the pharmacist refusal issue, and she's always got something to say. This week, we find Ms. Brauer in the New Jersey Ledger talking about her willingness to withhold emergency contraception, a safe and legal medication that can prevent unintended pregnancies and thus the need for abortion when taken with 72 hours of unprotected sex. These instances include, of course, those in which women have become pregnant as a result of incest, rape, or other sexual assault. An overwhelming majority of compassionate, law-abiding pharmacists will fill prescriptions issued to women by their physicians. But Ms. Brauer sees it a little differently. "Our job is to prevent possible harm. You can't pretend it's okay to go out and have sex with multiple partners." Mind you, it's been a few years since most of us have been in school, but it still only takes one, right? All joking aside, Ms. Brauer and the organization she runs are all too comfortable making these sorts of moral judgments about women holding prescriptions for birth control, with precious little actual knowledge of their lives and circumstances. Whether a woman's life or health could be endangered by a pregnancy, whether she's simply unprepared to have children, or she's become pregnant against her will - none of these things seem to matter to Ms. Brauer as she stands behind the counter, and truly, none of them are any of her business.
More joys of not taking care of business with the proper care. HHmmppphhh people do you have to be so stupid and inconsiderent.
More joys of not taking care of business with the proper care. HHmmppphhh people do you have to be so stupid and inconsiderent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)