rightistwrongs.com — a secular liberal conservative view
sek’-yuh-ler lib’-ruhl kuhn-sur'-vuh-tiv — noun, a person favoring as much liberty as possible with as little government as necessary, social equality, a balanced budget, progressive political reform, freedom and TRUE separation of church & state
Syndicate
Created With Quick Blogcast
rightistwrongs.com, a secular liberal conservative view
“Open letter to Mr. Obama,” you are barred from holding the Office of President
It’s over. McCain lost. Obama won. But a tax-protesting group known for filing frivolous lawsuits has now turned its attention to President-Elect Barack Obama.
The group known as the “We the People Foundation” purchased a full-page in the Chicago Tribune for 2 days to publish their letter which brings up the old (and I thought, resolved) issue of Obama’s birth certificate.
This complete waste of money (“tens of thousands of dollars”) shows the true colors of the “Foundation.” The letter makes the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is fake, he was not born in the US, and therefore is not eligible to be president because it would be a violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the US Constitution. The letter uses inflammatory language and makes bold accusations which are accompanied by immediate demands with due dates! Don’t they think he has enough to do?
Click here to view letter.
The group demands Obama give their “team of forensic scientists” access to his original birth certificate this week! Prior to the election, a judge had already thrown out a similar challenge saying its arguments were frivolous. So it seems the media was the only route left to bring back the issue. Where is the money coming from? And oh by the way, they are also soliciting donations for approximately $20,000 for the forensic team. Someone needs to track Cindy McCain’s finances veeeeerryy closely.
The group known as the “We the People Foundation” purchased a full-page in the Chicago Tribune for 2 days to publish their letter which brings up the old (and I thought, resolved) issue of Obama’s birth certificate.
This complete waste of money (“tens of thousands of dollars”) shows the true colors of the “Foundation.” The letter makes the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is fake, he was not born in the US, and therefore is not eligible to be president because it would be a violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the US Constitution. The letter uses inflammatory language and makes bold accusations which are accompanied by immediate demands with due dates! Don’t they think he has enough to do?
Click here to view letter.
The group demands Obama give their “team of forensic scientists” access to his original birth certificate this week! Prior to the election, a judge had already thrown out a similar challenge saying its arguments were frivolous. So it seems the media was the only route left to bring back the issue. Where is the money coming from? And oh by the way, they are also soliciting donations for approximately $20,000 for the forensic team. Someone needs to track Cindy McCain’s finances veeeeerryy closely.
Florida Judge rules gay adoption ban, unconstitutional
On Tuesday November 25th, a Miami-Dade circuit court judge overturned Florida’s gay adoption ban, stating there is “no rational basis” to prohibit gays from adopting. This is the second case of its kind in two months to rule against the law and permanently place foster children with gay adoptive parents.
Florida is the only state in the US that prohibits any gay or lesbian, single or coupled, from adopting children. It’s an antiquated law left over from the 1977 anti-gay campaign led by Anita Bryant to repress gay rights. Some states effectively bar potential LGBT parents from adopting with laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas just voted to enact such a measure this month.
It’s obvious that these oppressive measures recognize that there is no basis to keep gays and lesbians from parenting. Gay foster parents are allowed to care for their foster children for years, but are prevented from forming stable families through adoption. “The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” the judge said in her 53-page decision. She also stated the law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.
The Florida Department of Children & Families and the state attorney general’s office argued for the ban to remain in place. They have the support of Gov. Charlie Crist who is yet another republican firmly against gay rights but widely rumored to be a deeply closeted gay man.
The two young brothers were placed with 47-year-old Martin Gill in 2004 by a state child abuse investigator involved in their case. Gill and his partner, who the boys refer to as “dad,” see no reason the situation shouldn’t be permanent and the judge agreed. “They’re a good family,” the judge said in her ruling. “They’re a family in every way except in the eyes of the law. These children have a right to permanency... in the home where they are thriving.”
Attorneys for the state said they would appeal the ruling and the case is expected to go to the Florida Supreme Court. But the odds do not appear to be on their side. In a separate case in September, another Florida judge ruled against the law. A 13-year-old boy was permanently placed with his gay foster father, who had raised him since 2001. Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr. said in his ruling that the gay adoption ban violates the Constitution’s separation of powers by preventing family court and child welfare judges from deciding case-by-case what is best for a child.
Florida is the only state in the US that prohibits any gay or lesbian, single or coupled, from adopting children. It’s an antiquated law left over from the 1977 anti-gay campaign led by Anita Bryant to repress gay rights. Some states effectively bar potential LGBT parents from adopting with laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas just voted to enact such a measure this month.
It’s obvious that these oppressive measures recognize that there is no basis to keep gays and lesbians from parenting. Gay foster parents are allowed to care for their foster children for years, but are prevented from forming stable families through adoption. “The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” the judge said in her 53-page decision. She also stated the law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.
The Florida Department of Children & Families and the state attorney general’s office argued for the ban to remain in place. They have the support of Gov. Charlie Crist who is yet another republican firmly against gay rights but widely rumored to be a deeply closeted gay man.
The two young brothers were placed with 47-year-old Martin Gill in 2004 by a state child abuse investigator involved in their case. Gill and his partner, who the boys refer to as “dad,” see no reason the situation shouldn’t be permanent and the judge agreed. “They’re a good family,” the judge said in her ruling. “They’re a family in every way except in the eyes of the law. These children have a right to permanency... in the home where they are thriving.”
Attorneys for the state said they would appeal the ruling and the case is expected to go to the Florida Supreme Court. But the odds do not appear to be on their side. In a separate case in September, another Florida judge ruled against the law. A 13-year-old boy was permanently placed with his gay foster father, who had raised him since 2001. Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr. said in his ruling that the gay adoption ban violates the Constitution’s separation of powers by preventing family court and child welfare judges from deciding case-by-case what is best for a child.
1.2 million fake New York Times issues distributed
The 14-page paper was dated July 4, 2009 but surprised many commuters who assumed the free copies were legit. Other headlines read “Maximum Wage Law Succeeds, Ex-Secretary Apologizes for W.M.D. Scare, National Health Insurance Act Passes,” and my personal favorite, “Courts Indict Bush on High Treason Charges.”
A group called the Yes Men claimed responsibility for the hoax saying “We’ve got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do.”
It doesn’t appear that the expensive and elaborate prank was effective in getting attention. Outside of New York, most folks have not heard of the Yes Men or their handy-work. I would have thought this type of spoof would have gotten much more press or blog coverage or at least would have made the rounds at the water-coolers.
Join the Impact: Protest Proposition 8's passing November 15
The night of Election-Tuesday was a bitter-sweet celebration. We came together to witness the first black man who will become our president, yet watched in bewilderment as Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California all voted down equal rights for all citizens.
This is not a four-state issue. This is an issue of equality across America. Stand up and make your voice heard! Visit www.jointheimpact.com to learn more.
No communion for Obama supporters
A catholic priest in Columbia, South Carolina has told his parishioners to skip holy communion if they voted for President-Elect Obama. Rev. Jay Scott Newman’s reasoning is that Obama supports a woman’s right to choose, which could possibly result in abortion so supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”
Newman sent a letter to St. Mary’s catholic church parishioners telling them they would be putting their “souls at risk” if they take communion before doing penance for their vote.
During the 2008 campaign, many bishops were much more aggressive than ever before in telling catholic politicians and voters that the issue of abortion should be their most important consideration in setting policy and voting and that their “immortal soul” was on the line.
But is this just a symptom of a bigger problem? While it is almost impossible to imagine in 2008 that educated adults could be told how to vote by threats to their “immortal souls,” this tactic appears to be effective. There is a recent escalating surge of religious institutions using their influence in politics. We just saw the mormon church raise over $20 million to support Proposition 8 in California which removed the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
The law is very clear on this issue. IRS rules provide tax exempt status to non-profit organizations as long as they adhere to restrictions such as not endorsing specific politicians. But many are starting to push back against this rule citing freedom of speech. Sunday September 28th, was the Politics from the Pulpit exercise where churches in 22 states attempted to provoke an IRS investigation that they intended to contest in court.
These religious institutions have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech. They are certainly “free” to preach what they like, they are just not “tax-free”, if they violate these IRS rules. I personally believe that this tax-exempt status for churches is a significant mistake. This is a serious loss of revenue. The idea that non-profits are established for charity and to help those in need, is simply out-dated. This can easily be seen by the mormons spending over $20 million on advertising to remove civil rights from specific minorities.
Newman sent a letter to St. Mary’s catholic church parishioners telling them they would be putting their “souls at risk” if they take communion before doing penance for their vote.
During the 2008 campaign, many bishops were much more aggressive than ever before in telling catholic politicians and voters that the issue of abortion should be their most important consideration in setting policy and voting and that their “immortal soul” was on the line.
But is this just a symptom of a bigger problem? While it is almost impossible to imagine in 2008 that educated adults could be told how to vote by threats to their “immortal souls,” this tactic appears to be effective. There is a recent escalating surge of religious institutions using their influence in politics. We just saw the mormon church raise over $20 million to support Proposition 8 in California which removed the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
The law is very clear on this issue. IRS rules provide tax exempt status to non-profit organizations as long as they adhere to restrictions such as not endorsing specific politicians. But many are starting to push back against this rule citing freedom of speech. Sunday September 28th, was the Politics from the Pulpit exercise where churches in 22 states attempted to provoke an IRS investigation that they intended to contest in court.
These religious institutions have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech. They are certainly “free” to preach what they like, they are just not “tax-free”, if they violate these IRS rules. I personally believe that this tax-exempt status for churches is a significant mistake. This is a serious loss of revenue. The idea that non-profits are established for charity and to help those in need, is simply out-dated. This can easily be seen by the mormons spending over $20 million on advertising to remove civil rights from specific minorities.
Keith Olbermann video: Gay marriage is a question of love
Nov. 10: In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann disagrees with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and urges people to accept love between people of the same sex.
The Woman Who Raised the First African American President, Dies a Day Before the Election
Barack Obama’s white grandmother, Madelyn Dunham was born in a small town in Kansas and lived during the Great Depression and World War II. After his mother died, the widow raised her grandson. Last week, Obama left the campaign trail to visit with her where she lived, in Hawaii. At 86 years of age, her health was failing.She was very involved in following his campaign and took great pride in his achievements. At a rally in North Carolina on Monday November 3rd, a tearful Obama announced that his grandmother had lost her battle with Cancer and died peacefully in her sleep.
I find it terribly sad that she didn’t live to see her grandson beat all odds to become the first African American President-Elect. Her sacrifice and struggle will appreciated by the American people.
1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back, Prop 8 Passes, Taking Away Marriage from Same-Sex Couples
Just when it seems America is making giant strides for equality in electing an African American President, California votes to take marriage away from same-sex couples. In an unbelievable and unprecedented move, Californians voted to amend their state Constitution to add IN discrimination, based on sexual orientation. With about three-quarters of the precincts reporting, it appears that Proposition 8 is going to narrowly pass when all the votes are tallied. The measure appears to have 52% support; in California a simple majority is required to amend the Constitution.
California has gone back and forth on the issue of same-sex marriage with many couples marrying and re-marrying. In 1977, the civil code was amended to read marriage was a “contract between a man and a woman.” In 1999, Bill 26 passed to create a “domestic partnership” with limited rights. In 2000, voters passed Prop 22 with 61% support to change the Family Code to formally define marriage as “between a man and a woman.” In 2003, Act AB205 passed giving “domestic partners” almost all the same rights as married spouses but the legislature intervened to delay its enactment until January 2005. In 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the direction of major Gavin Newsom with almost 8000 people marrying. Later the California Supreme Court annulled all 4000 marriages. San Francisco then began a legal challenge. In 2005, an Act was passed by the legislature which would have recognized same-sex marriage in California but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. He vetoed it again in 2007 saying it was unconstitutional to make the change by legislative action instead of by court decision or vote.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Prop 22 was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution and that same-sex couples had the right to marry. In June, Prop 8 qualified for the November 2008 ballot and the Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry and same-sex couples continued to marry in California.
Prop 8 used the same language as Prop 22 but changed the Constitution instead of incorporating by statute (a statute can be overturned by the state Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment, cannot).
So now we wait for the next move in this ridiculous quest to ensure gay Californians cannot protect their families via marriage. Opponents of Prop 8 said it would “protect children” but what about the children of the same-sex couples who no longer will have two married parents. It is clearly not in the best interest of those children.
The mormon church and other religious institutions spent millions of dollars to pass Prop 8. Clearly, this is in violation of the law and their tax-exempt status should be removed, but that is a whole different blog. They believe that those dollars were best spent on advertising rather than, say, maybe feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. They say it “protects marriage”. I say they should have spent their millions on marriage counselors. That actually might “protect marriage.”
As someone who grew up in California and went to a University of California, I’m gravely disappointed in Californians. Blacks and whites were not allowed to marry legally everywhere in the US until 1967. Just as we look back and see that law as flagrantly racist, history will show this vote to be bigoted, intolerant and hateful.
California has gone back and forth on the issue of same-sex marriage with many couples marrying and re-marrying. In 1977, the civil code was amended to read marriage was a “contract between a man and a woman.” In 1999, Bill 26 passed to create a “domestic partnership” with limited rights. In 2000, voters passed Prop 22 with 61% support to change the Family Code to formally define marriage as “between a man and a woman.” In 2003, Act AB205 passed giving “domestic partners” almost all the same rights as married spouses but the legislature intervened to delay its enactment until January 2005. In 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the direction of major Gavin Newsom with almost 8000 people marrying. Later the California Supreme Court annulled all 4000 marriages. San Francisco then began a legal challenge. In 2005, an Act was passed by the legislature which would have recognized same-sex marriage in California but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. He vetoed it again in 2007 saying it was unconstitutional to make the change by legislative action instead of by court decision or vote.In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Prop 22 was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution and that same-sex couples had the right to marry. In June, Prop 8 qualified for the November 2008 ballot and the Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry and same-sex couples continued to marry in California.
Prop 8 used the same language as Prop 22 but changed the Constitution instead of incorporating by statute (a statute can be overturned by the state Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment, cannot).
So now we wait for the next move in this ridiculous quest to ensure gay Californians cannot protect their families via marriage. Opponents of Prop 8 said it would “protect children” but what about the children of the same-sex couples who no longer will have two married parents. It is clearly not in the best interest of those children.
The mormon church and other religious institutions spent millions of dollars to pass Prop 8. Clearly, this is in violation of the law and their tax-exempt status should be removed, but that is a whole different blog. They believe that those dollars were best spent on advertising rather than, say, maybe feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. They say it “protects marriage”. I say they should have spent their millions on marriage counselors. That actually might “protect marriage.”
As someone who grew up in California and went to a University of California, I’m gravely disappointed in Californians. Blacks and whites were not allowed to marry legally everywhere in the US until 1967. Just as we look back and see that law as flagrantly racist, history will show this vote to be bigoted, intolerant and hateful.
On “Election-Eve” the Presidential Election Looks Grim for McCain
Tomorrow is the big election and it doesn’t appear there is any way Republican candidate John McCain can pull off a win. If we take the CNN electoral map and give all of the undecided states (FL, OH, NC, IN, MO, ND & MT) to McCain, Obama still wins by 44 electoral votes, 291 to 247.
John has proclaimed “the Mac is back” but it doesn’t appear to be mathematically possible, unless the Bradley Effect takes hold. The Bradley Effect is a theory of racism that addresses a significant difference between predictive polls and actual votes cast when whites and blacks run against each other. In 1982 Tom Bradley, an African American, lost the governor’s race in California although polls predicted him to be the favorite. The theory addresses people wanting to hide their racism when asked, but when voting in private, do not vote for a black candidate.
The Republican strategy in these last days before the election is very telling. The McCain campaign has been visiting states that should be firmly in the red, such as: Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. They have also ramped up their spending on advertising, to match that of Obama in key states. A comparison of the current electoral map to that of 2004 is interesting.
Was it a strategic Republican move to deliberately use McCain for this election? Before the Republicans picked a candidate, I had a theory that because of the state of the nation and the current administration’s approval ratings, this years candidate could never win. The Republicans needed to choose someone respectable who would not embarrass the party and who could essentially hold the line, but who had no real future aspirations. McCain was the perfect candidate. Because of his age (now 72), he would not make a viable future candidate, but would show well for the party and give the base a reason to vote so as not to loose too many congressional seats.
Obama has run a shrewd campaign. A relatively unknown candidate, he swiftly put together an organization that beat the Clintons at their own game. His campaign runs as a finely tuned machine and if his presidency is anything like it, this man will unite the nation. At this point, the republicans should be focused on the battle they may still be able to win: not allowing democrats to take a filibuster-proof 60 senate seats.
John has proclaimed “the Mac is back” but it doesn’t appear to be mathematically possible, unless the Bradley Effect takes hold. The Bradley Effect is a theory of racism that addresses a significant difference between predictive polls and actual votes cast when whites and blacks run against each other. In 1982 Tom Bradley, an African American, lost the governor’s race in California although polls predicted him to be the favorite. The theory addresses people wanting to hide their racism when asked, but when voting in private, do not vote for a black candidate.
The Republican strategy in these last days before the election is very telling. The McCain campaign has been visiting states that should be firmly in the red, such as: Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. They have also ramped up their spending on advertising, to match that of Obama in key states. A comparison of the current electoral map to that of 2004 is interesting.
Was it a strategic Republican move to deliberately use McCain for this election? Before the Republicans picked a candidate, I had a theory that because of the state of the nation and the current administration’s approval ratings, this years candidate could never win. The Republicans needed to choose someone respectable who would not embarrass the party and who could essentially hold the line, but who had no real future aspirations. McCain was the perfect candidate. Because of his age (now 72), he would not make a viable future candidate, but would show well for the party and give the base a reason to vote so as not to loose too many congressional seats.Obama has run a shrewd campaign. A relatively unknown candidate, he swiftly put together an organization that beat the Clintons at their own game. His campaign runs as a finely tuned machine and if his presidency is anything like it, this man will unite the nation. At this point, the republicans should be focused on the battle they may still be able to win: not allowing democrats to take a filibuster-proof 60 senate seats.
Palin may not understand the role of a VP but she has great rhythm
Sarah Palin was a great sport this week in her appearance on Saturday Night Live. She dances along as a very pregnant Amy Pohler spews forth a rap song of jabs and slams. Highlights include Amy shooting a moose, back-up dancing eskimos and a special guest appearance of a dancing Mr. Palin in his snowmobiling suit. Watch the video and prepare to laugh!