Posted in 9/11, Barack Obama, Birther Movement, C-Haze, Change, Congress, Conservative, Current Events, Democrats, Environment, Extremists, Fox News, George Bush, Glenn Beck, Liberal, News, Police Officers, Policy, Politics, President, Race, Republicans, Socialism, Terror, Terrorism, Truther Movement, Van Jones, War on Terror

Van Jones, Truthers, Birthers, and an Ugly Reality

We need to talk about Van Jones. We need to talk about his past, we need to talk about his resignation as the White House’s environmental advisor- and we really need to talk about whether or not he’s been victimized by the GOP.

Van Jones was made a household name by right-wing Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. I’m not a regular Glenn Beck watcher- he’s way too emotionally unstable for me to be able to take seriously. Listening to him induces extreme anxiety, and I’m always afraid he’s this close to having a colossal meltdown. The net result is something akin to a child, trying to bravely sneak a horror movie that she has no business watching. She’s sitting in front of the TV, hands covering her face, peaking through her fingers at the screen…

… Should she watch?

But oh!

What if something happens!

Blah!

That’s me when Beck is on the air. He’s a trainwreck, and I find myself waiting for the whole show with him in tow to derail in front of my very eyes.

Quite stressful.

It’s for this reason I wish I could say Glenn Beck has finally lost his marbles, and is oh-so-wrong about all things Van Jones. Unfortunately, in some ways, the guy (Beck, that is), nutty as he may be, actually made some good points about Mr. Jones.

Van Jones, as no one in their right (err… correct, that is) mind would argue, is a polarizing character. To say he’s controversial would be an understatement. His radical views have been well-documented in the past- he is a bona-fide Truther, among other things (I don’t care what he claims, people- evidence is evidence). He feels that the Bush Administration, along with other high-level government officials either knowingly instigated 9/11, or through purposeful gross negligence allowed it to happen, all to give Bush and cronies an excuse to start an oil war in Iraq.

Now please don’t misunderstand me. I think the current downturn this country is experiencing can be traced back to that cluster-fuck we like to call the Iraq War. Do I blame the Bush Administration? Yes I do. I also, however, blame Bush Sr.’s Administration for not toppling Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm, when he was all but handed to us on a silver platter… I blame the Clinton Administration as well, for not taking down Bin Laden when a similar opportunity presented itself… and above all, I blame each and every member of Congress- both Democrat and Republican- who voted to send our men and women into that country to begin with.

Need I remind any of you that we have lost more soldiers in the War on Terror than we lost on 9/11? For what? The answer, sadly, is that we lost them for nothing, other than the need of some politicians to settle a score that they, themselves, were responsible for creating at the start.

There is plenty of blame to go around. None of it, however, centers on a vast conspiracy, but instead was created by a bunch of short-sighted people who at the end of the day couldn’t tell their asses from a hole in the ground.

It is common knowledge today that Van Jones signed a petition in 2004 that asked for hearings to determine whether politicians had knowingly allowed the events on 9/11 to occur. Personally, I think politicians did allow the terror attacks to occur, but realize that they didn’t knowingly do so. They ignored a whole lot of signs that pointed to a colossal attack, instead preferring to believe that as the Good Ol’ U.S. of A, we were invincible.

Costly mistake, but an honest one nonetheless.

Van Jones has tried to back pedal on this petition he signed… claiming that while he allowed his name to be placed on the form, he does not subscribe to any conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 or our subsequent invasion of Iraq.

It was at this point that Jones became a liar.

You see, he didn’t just sign a Truther petition in 2004. A full two years prior to that,  in 2002 he organized a march for the Truther Movement.

Yet this college educated lawyer wants us to believe he had no idea what the hell he was signing when it came to this particular petition?

Doubtful.

With regards to the actual truth, here’s what we really know about Van Jones:

Jones was born in 1968. He is an environmental activist, a civil rights advocate, author and lawyer.

After graduating from Law School, rather than take an offered job in Washington, DC, Jones instead moved to San Fransisco. He joined a controversial organization called STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement). This organization was decidedly Marxist, sympathizing with Mao-ist peasants, and was in part created to combat the issue of police brutality.

He was famously arrested for his role in the Rodney King protests, though charges were later dropped. It was during this same time period, in 1995, that Jones began actively identifying himself as a Communist.

Jones is also responsible, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, for starting Color of Change, a non-profit organization dedicated to giving a larger political voice to Black America. That year he also began actively advocating for a Green America, becoming an environmentalist, and starting an organization called “Green for All”. Green for All promotes environmentally-friendly jobs in poor communities.

In 2008 he found moderate success when his book, “The Green Collar Economy” hit the New York Times top 12 list.

In March of 2009, Van Jones joined the Obama Administration as the environmental czar.

I would argue that Mr. Jones has done some wonderful things in his life. He has advocated for a greener world, and has worked tirelessly to help minorities succeed in this country. The problem is that he does not have the gift of words. While doing great things for millions of people worldwide, he simultaneously suffers from a terminal case of foot in mouth disease, which has proven to be his downfall.

Honestly, I don’t even care that the man once identified himself as a communist. I wish my biggest college-era transgession was to pick the wrong political party to align myself with. People change, and with age, we mature. That’s the general idea, anyway. I don’t even have a huge problem with the fact that Jones once famously claimed that white people and white corporations were purposely dumping their waste and polluting communities that predominantly consisted of people of color. Personally, given some of our nation’s history, that isn’t difficult for me to believe.

I applaud the fact that at some point, realizing that his more extreme views were not affecting the change he desired within the U.S., he decided to work within the system as it’s designed… no longer calling for revolution, no longer trying to make waves on the outer fringes of society.

It doesn’t even bother me that he recently referred to Republicans as assholes.

I live in a country where it isn’t supposed to phase me that people are calling my President a terrorist, a communist, a Marxist, a socialist… and are bringing guns to townhall meetings in hopes of shooting our Commander in Cheif like he’s a wild animal, and it’s deer season. I live in a nation where outright calls for our leader’s death, and pastoral prayers hoping he’ll keel over from brain cancer are the norm. Someone calling the GOP a bunch of assholes honestly doesn’t get me too excited.

What I cannot reconcile are the similarities between The Truthers and The Birthers. Van Jones’ affiliation with the Truther movement is exactly why he needed to resign. And every jerk Birther needs to do the same.

These two groups- they are both extreme, they are both radical, they both promote dangerously false claims, and they have no place in our government.

The problem in Van Jones’ case is that he did not convincingly leave radicalism, nor did he wholeheartedly embrace a more follow-the-rules, mainstream approach to getting the job done.

If he was honestly appalled that his name was attached to a petition espousing nonsensical conspiracy theories about our nation’s largest tragedy, he should have made those views known before he got caught by the likes of Glenn Beck.

Unfortunately for us, Jones certainly isn’t the only whacko we have our hands full dealing with.

There are Republicans in Congress (Representative Bill Posey, Florida) today that subscribe to the dangerous vitriol being spewed by the Birthers… and there are (former) Democrats in Congress (Cynthia McKinney) who subscribe to the nastiness being put forth by the Truthers.

For every lame-brained Truther petition out there, an equally ridiculous Birther petition, claiming Barack Obama is really the son of Al Qaeda, in cahoots with every terrorist known to man is in existence as well.

Prominent people are buying into both brands of idiocy.

Every last one of them needs to go.

If they won’t go willingly, we need to boot them- all of them- out the door.

We are living in terrifying times… polarizing times… where political discord is no longer an opportunity for open, honest, intelligent conversation, but is instead giving rise to left-and-right-wing maniacal idiots. It is only a matter of time before real violence erupts, and the regular people of America… you and I… need to be getting pissed off about it.

Van Jones is nobody’s victim… the only regret I have is that we aren’t kicking more radicals just like him- on both sides of the political spectrum- to the curb.

Posted in C-Haze, Change, Current Events, Discrimination, Frank Ricci, Hope, New Haven, News, Policy, Politics, Race, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court

The Death of Affirmative Action?

We are getting news today that the Supreme Court has ruled on the infamous New Haven Firefighter reverse discrimination case.

Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in a strange coincidence, was one of the presiding judges during this case’s original appeal.

The High Court has ruled in favor of white firefighter Frank Ricci, reversing Judge Sotomayor’s ruling.

As most of us are aware, the New Haven firefighter case was about whether or not Mr. Ricci was unfairly discriminated against when he passed (with flying colors, I might add), the city of New Haven’s standard test, the results of which determined one’s eligibility for promotion within the department.

Ricci, unfortunately, did not get the promotion, because just after taking the test, the city threw out all test results because no eligible black firefighters (and only one Latino) had passed it.

The city’s defense was that they were following applicable federal law- Title VII, if you want the name for it- that prohibits an employer’s discriminating against any race in its hiring or promotion practices. Even if the discrimination is not purposeful, it is still illegal, according to the law.

When Ricci initially brought suit against New Haven, he lost, and the trial judge ruled in favor of the city.

Not to be deterred, he appealed the ruling at the federal level, where it fell into the lap of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s federal appellate court. Sotomayor (in a unanimous decision, reached along with the two other judges on the panel), upheld the trial court’s decision, ruling in a depressingly brief statement, that the applicable law- love it or hate it- had been appropriately applied.

Ricci then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The High Court has spoken, and Frank Ricci is likely a very happy man.

I have had feelings that were difficult for me to reconcile about this case from the start.

I do not fault Judge Sotomayor in her decision, as she was merely charged with determining whether or not New Haven had been on the right side of the law when the city decided to throw out the test. Simply looking at legal precedent, New Haven’s officials acted the way the Title VII statute requires them to.

This case is a true eye-opener, and is a symptom of the challenges that can develop as a result of changing times.

In the not too distant past, reverse discrimination was a myth. It was an excuse used by lazy white people who did not have the education or the drive to get a real job and go to work. This country, at that time, was so terribly stacked against minorities that the notion that white people could possibly be victims of discrimination was absolutely ludicrous.

Now, however, things are different.

We have multiple laws- both state and federal- protecting workers from discrimination. These laws cover everything from gender to sexual orientation, from race to religious background. Not only are these laws on the books, they are actively in use. We have affirmative action- require some organizations to hire certain percentages of minority workers; we have colleges and universities that give preferential treatment to qualified minority applicants over equally qualified white candidates who apply for admission.

I have never been against affirmative action, as in my lifetime I have seen a real need for it. These laws, these practices, in my liberal mind, have always been my definition of reperations, the much-needed apology of a nation who has done dastardly deeds to minorities for centuries.

Today, however, I am conflicted.

Make no mistake- I am not so naive as to believe racism or (and perhaps especially) discrimination is dead. No, I still see evidence of it in my day-to-day life, and I am as appalled by it today as I ever was…

… But something has changed in this country.

The change is called progress.

No longer do we, as minorities, live in a nation where reverse discrimination is a ridiculous figment of certain people’s imaginations. On the contrary, we have made enough progress, moved far enough forward that reverse discrimination has become a real problem.

This case never could have happened had we not successfully begun to level the playing field.

For that fact alone, I am quite proud of my country today.

Make no mistake- we aren’t there yet.

There are still companies that will find silly and illegal reasons to keep from hiring a black man. 

Or a woman.

Or a Muslim.

Or a homosexual. 

… And apparently, in some cases, even a white person.

It is important to remember this fact, and to continue to fight against discrimination in all its forms. Companies still need to be held accountable for their hiring and promotion tactics, ensuring that they are not excluding anyone from realizing their true potential and achieving greatness.

The enemy here is, and always has been, discrimination.

We must be careful that we are not missing the forest for the trees. As Americans, we are the best- perhaps in the world- at doing just that.

It is discrimination we fight, and we fight it in all its forms.

Frank Ricci, while yes,  a white guy, is a man with dyslexia and other learning disabilities.

He dedicated himself most thoroughly to passing the test administered by the New Haven fire department; a man who worked harder than probably anyone else to earn this promotion… quitting his second job so that he would have more time to devote to studying, spending large amounts (approximately $1,800) of his own hard-earned money on study materials and even hiring a tutor to come and read the materials to him, as his learning disabilities were so great, he could not have gotten through all of it on his own.

Some say the fact that Ricci had the resources to take such extraordinary measures to pass the test constitutes a bias. Simply put, not everyone has the luxury of quitting their second job, buying extra study materials, and hiring tutors to help prepare them for an upcoming test.

I agree, to an extent.

However, what I have not seen mentioned, at least not as point of fact, is that most people do not suffer from the learning disabilities Ricci has either.

How many of the other candidates had the unique challenge of overcoming dyslexia in order to prepare for and take this test?

Ricci went the extra mile, and in doing so, I believe he merely leveled the playing field.

He did not have an unfair advantage- in fact, he had a significant disadvantage- but rather than fall victim to the fact that he came to the starting line handicapped, he found away to overcome his disabilities.

This man was dedicated, he refused to let his shortcomings deter him. He found a way around his own handicap, and he knocked it out of the ballpark.

Since when is hardwork, creativity and digging up helpful resources not worthy of reward in this country?

He deserves his promotion.

Discrimination, in all its forms, is ugly.

Whether the victim is black or white, gay or straight, man or woman, Christian or Buddhist, learning disabled or not.

The goal is to create a level playing field, not to give minorities a free pass over all else.

It is because we are charged with fighting discrimination in all its forms that we should not be in support of hiring or promoting practices that tip the scales in the opposite direction either, causing a new group of people- fellow humans- to miss out on hard earned- and deserved- opportunities.

Regardless of race.

Past injustice does not constitute an excuse to inflict future injustice.

So…

… Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white guy in a discrimination case, and strangely…

I’m ok with that.

Posted in Barack Obama, C-Haze, Conservative, Current Events, Democrats, Liberal, News, Policy, Politics, President, Race, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Judge Sotomayor, New Haven and Reverse Discrimination

Along with bogus charges of racism, we are now hearing rumblings of discontent regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in the infamous New Haven firefighters’ reverse discrimination case.

First, a little background.

New Haven, CT adopted a written exam in 2003 for the purpose of determining which of the city’s fire fighters are eligible for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain within the department. The city ended up throwing the test out a year later, after determining that no eligible black workers had passed the exam.

A white fire fighter by the name of Frank Ricci scored exceptionally high on the test, and would have received the promotion, had the test not been deemed inadmissable by the city. Ricci in turn sued the city of New Haven for reverse discrimination, claiming that he was in effect losing his rightful promotion as a result of a policy that catered to blacks and minorities.

The trial court disagreed, and Frank Ricci lost the case.

Ricci appealed the lower court’s decision to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, where it fell into the lap of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (and 3 other judges, as part of a panel. For the sake of this post, we’ll just talk about Sonia Sotomayor). Sotomayor rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court’s ruling. The case is currently being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a ruling expected by late June of this year.

Judge Sotomayor’s decision was a controversial  one, especially among conservatives, who tend to believe she should have sided with the fire fighters.

If one truly understands how the oft-squeaky wheels of justice turn, and the responsibilities of an appeals court judge, the case isn’t quite as controversial after all… and one begins to see it has less to do with Judge Sotomayor and more to do with the legal precedent she had no choice but to utilize in making her decision.

The city of New Haven did not simply throw the written test out because it felt like it, nor was the test deemed inadmissable by a single party, hell-bent on building a blacks-only department.

Hardly.

The test was found to be in violation of Title VII, which is the federal civil rights law that requires employers to consider the racial consequences of any hiring or promotion practice. Whether on purpose or inadvertent, if the practice excludes minorities, it is illegal. The New Haven test, according to the law, was an illegal promotion tool, as eligible black fire fighters were not able to pass it. As a result, the city had no choice but to throw the test out.

If one is to take issue with this situation, the issue must be taken with the law itself- Title VII- not with the city’s actions, nor the judges’ rulings on the case.

The city, as well as the trial court, and most especially the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, were simply following the applicable law.

Most would agree, whenever possible, it is important that a judge apply the already-written law(s) when making a ruling, and follow the constitution to its letter. Generally speaking, it is inappropriate for a judge to disregard current laws in making a decision on a case. The law is the law, no one is above it, and if a law exists when a case is heard, that law must be followed.

This is exactly what Judge Sotomayor did when ruling against Frank Ricci of the New Haven Fire Department. Her ruling was a direct result of her following an already existing law.

Period.

 The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals was not the appropriate venue to fight the merits of Title VII, and whether or not the law lends itself to the creation of reverse discrimination. Judge Sotomayor was charged with making a decision based on the laws that are already in place- and determining whether the original trial court had correctly utilized the applicable law in making its ruling.

So that’s exactly what she did, and did so using the strong legal precedent that had already been set by her court, her jurisdiction- the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals.

As the GOP knows all-too-well, for Judge Sotomayor to have ruled any other way, her decision would have amounted to Judicial Activism.

Ironically enough, many key Republicans have voiced concerns over Sotomayor, claiming that they are worried she may be a Judicial Activist.

Funny, considering how up-in-arms these same people are today as a result of her refusing to do just that in the New Haven case. 

Judicial Activism occurs when a judge legislates from the bench. Typically, it is a judge’s responsibility to apply applicable law- using legal precedent- in making his/her rulings. Creating new laws is the responsibility of Congress- the Legislative Branch of government. When a judge attempts to circumvent written law, he/she is called a Judicial Activist.

Some famous cases involving judicial activism include Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. The Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson. While landmark cases for sure, their rulings were the response to scenarios in which no previous legal precedent existed, and so judges had no applicable law to fall back on. Therefore, they had to interpret the Constitution, resulting in a ruling that in effect created its own legal precedent for future cases to utilize.

Generally speaking, I am no fan of Judicial Activism. I think the law is in place for a reason, and if I disagree with a law, the proper venue for me to express my dissatisfaction is with my congressional representatives. They are the people charged with making the laws, while judges are responsible for upholding them, as written.

I don’t know how I feel about the New Haven case. 

I  sympathize with Frank Ricci. I learned, while researching this case, that he is dyslexic, and had to work exceptionally hard to pass the test- let alone score as highly as he did.

However, I also sympathize with any hard-working minority, who as the result of a racially-skewed test, is effectively shut out of a promotion process that he or she deserves to be a part of as much as anyone else.

Overall, I am happy that a law such as Title VII is on the books, and I’m happier that it’s a federal law. To me, any law that makes discrimination illegal in all 50 states certainly has its merits.

If anyone, I fault the city of New Haven in this case. Had they come up with a non-biased test to begin with, both Frank Ricci and any other qualified employee would have been promoted… and everyone would be happy. I applaud the city for taking the steps necessary to correct its error by throwing out the test, but I mourn the casualties such an action created. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easy thing to do… and sometimes when we make mistakes- even honest ones- it’s the innocent bystanders that are hurt the most.

Frank Ricci, it seems, has suffered quite a bit, as have other hard-working minority fire fighters. Every last one of them deserved a chance at bettering themselves… and yet all of them have suffered greatly.

Posted in Barack Obama, C-Haze, Capital Punishment, Catholic, Conservative, Current Events, Death Penalty, Democrats, Gay Rights, News, Newt Gingrich, Politics, President, Religion, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, Barack Obama and the GOP

Obama has made his decision, nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the new Supreme Court Justice.

From a purely political standpoint, I think this is a genius move on the president’s part.

The GOP, already somewhat hampered due to the stink they made over filibusters during Justices Roberts and Alito’s confirmation hearings, can only complain so much- regardless of whom Obama names- because they don’t want to look like complete hypocrites.

During the Bush Administration, they wanted a simple up-or-down vote for judges… and… well, now they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

Normally, especially in politics, hypocrisy would be par for the course- something the Republicans need not think twice about. Currently, however, they stand to lose even more than they can afford to, considering that the GOP’s already critically injured.

Their party is on life-support.

The GOP needs the support of the Latino community… which is exactly Judge Sotomayor’s background. How can they justify fighting to exclude a woman who is Catholic, Latina, and more experienced than either justices Roberts or Alito were at the time of their confirmations?

I don’t think they can.

Gingrich can scream that Judge Sotomayor is racist all he wants to… that seems to be his current plan of attack… but really, no one’s listening to that nonsense.

Personally, the thought of another Catholic on the bench- we currently have 5, not including Sotomayor- makes me a little nervous.

Catholics typically don’t support a woman’s right to choose, gay rights or stem cell research… all things that are very important to me. Sotomayor has not had the opportunity to rule much on those issues, so we don’t really know for sure where she stands.

Hopefully, if confirmed, she will keep her religious beliefs off the bench, ruling instead to preserve the rights of all people- recognizing that the freedom to make individual decisions for ourselves is a bigger priority than exulting her own beliefs from on high.

The greater good and all that.

On the flip side, Catholics tend to be adversaries of the death penalty, and that’s something I would love to see abolished… so who knows…

It would have been nice to see a good lesbian, protestant judge nominated, but I do realize we don’t yet live in a country where such an individual’s confirmation would have been possible.

Still… a person can dream, right?

Posted in C-Haze, Conservative, Current Events, Democrats, George Bush, House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, News, Policy, Politics, President, Republicans, Torture, War on Terror

Two Cents, Nancy Pelosi and Torture

I was going to hold off a li’l while before posting my opinion on Nancy Pelosi, and whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the Bush Administration’s use of torture.

Most people seem to have already made up their minds on the matter- even as the majority of the facts remain unknown- and the story is beginning to die out in the news.

Rather than run the risk of posting on an irrelevant topic later (God forbid!), I guess I’ll put my two cents in now.

First of all, I am saddened at how fast so many people- politicians and regular folk alike- jumped to conclusions on this subject, labeling Rep. Pelosi a hypocritical liar before any actual facts could even be substantianted.

I’m not saying she’s not a hypocrite, nor am I saying she isn’t a liar. I’m not even saying she handled herself appropriately with regards to the CIA’s use of waterboarding.

What I’m saying is that we just don’t know.

Not yet, anyway.

I’ve heard Pelosi discussing the CIA briefings she received as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

These so-called briefings have been a pet peeve of hers for a long time, certainly before this waterboarding controversy ever hit our radar screens.

When Congressional members of the Committee are briefed by Intelligence officials, they are not necessarily given complete or truly accurate information. The CIA (especially, one assumes, during this country’s most dangerous and dishonest administration) simply is not held accountable for briefing Intelligence Committee members with complete information.

Once the oft-incomplete briefing is held, the members of the committee are not allowed to ask questions for clarification purposes or to be given more information. In addition, they are not allowed to discuss the briefing with anyone else- including their own attorneys or staff members.

Pelosi isn’t saying the CIA didn’t “brief” her. She’s simply saying they didn’t give her the details that are now public knowledge, and even if they had, she wasn’t allow to do or say anything at all about any of it.

Pelosi is not the only Representative to level this charge. Bob Graham is another vocal critic of the briefings, and in fact backs Rep. Pelosi’s version of events as well.

Considering the CIA’s use of torture is illegal, are we really to believe that the organization, under the command of the likes of Bush and Cheney, really gave Pelosi all the information she would have needed to be able to determine that they were breaking the law?

Of course not.

They wanted to continue torturing people… they’re not going to give one of their adversaries the rope she needs to hang them.

Beyond all the did-she-know-or-didn’t-she-know nonsense, are we not missing the point entirely?

The point, people, is torture.

The illegal, immoral use of torture, and the lies we were all told by the Bush Administration for years, to justify violating the Geneva Conventions, thus making us less safe.

The GOP, it seems, is using Nancy Pelosi to defend such horrors as waterboarding, in effect saying “Pelosi should have stopped us and because she didn’t, we tortured people over and over again”.

As if George Bush, prior to signing all those executive orders was really looking to Pelosi, screaming, “For the love of God!! PLEASE STOP ME!!!”

Give me a break.

All I can say is, any one of you who believe Nancy Pelosi deserves to go down as a result of these briefings, and her alleged inaction as a result, better be supporters of Bush/Cheney and friends being charged with war crimes.

If you aren’t in support of the Bush Administration being taken to task for its lying, torturous, war-time transgressions, then you really need to shut your mouth where Nancy Pelosi is concerned.

For even if she is guilty of every single one of these allegations against her, they still pale in comparison to what our previous Commander-in-Chief was up to.

Posted in Barack Obama, C-Haze, Conservative, Economy, Liberal, News, Policy, Politics, President, Recession, Socialism, Wall Street

Pete Sessions, Socialism and Barack Obama

As big a political junkie as I am, one would think I’d be past the point of being shocked when a politician says something stupid.

I’m not.

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) believes Obama is both driving the stock market down and unemployment up on purpose.

He’s quoted in today’s NY Times as saying that Obama “intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it.”

Lord have mercy.

Have we been taken over by a power-crazed maniac whose sole purpose is to wipe out all that America holds dear, so that he can take over the entire world, reigning from Capitol Hill as…

… Gasp…

A socialist dictator?!?!

I suppose the fact that Sessions believes Obama to be some sort of socialist terrorist, hell-bent on thoroughly demolishing Capitalism and the free market as we know it is nothing to be surprised at.

Sessions is, after all, someone who likes to use terrorism- specifically the Taliban– as an example when speaking.

What’s surprising is his deviation from the norm

Typically, he’s the one advocating terrorist behavior…

… At least where his own party is concerned.

It was a mere 3 months ago- in February- that he suggested, during an interview with the National Journal, that perhaps the GOP needed a “Taliban-like” insurgency.

His remarks, he claimed, were the result of what he had determined to be a lack of bi-partisan politics in the House of Representatives.

So clearly, strange terror-esque statements are nothing new.

Not from this guy, anyway.

So let me get this straight.

He wants the Republican Party to act in a non-American fashion… actually going as far as to suggest the party adapt the strategy of one of the worst terrorist, anti-American groups in the entire world to survive… and then condemns Obama for non-American behavior… behavior that he not only condoned within his own party, but completely imagined and fabricated where our President is concerned.

Ok, got it.

Truly, this nonsense would be absolutely hilarious if there weren’t several actual, bona-fide yahoos out there taking him seriously.

People do believe President Obama is a closet Socialist.

People do believe that our President hates our country, its governmental structure, its free market economy, our constitution- and all the rights and freedoms we all hold both near and dear.

Never mind that he has yet to take a single fundamental right away from any of us, and in fact has spent his adult life advocating for equal rights- for minorities, women and homosexuals, to name a few.

Never mind that he inherited a real live nightmare of a mess to clean up- and has done more for the average Joe in this country in his first 100 days in office than his predecessor ever did in 8 years.

What is it about him that draws such ire?

Is it jealousy?

Is it the color of his skin?

Is it the fact that he actually cares about people other than the top wealthiest individuals and organizations, and we just don’t know how to accept that kind of compassion?

It’s funny to me how a man who has lived his life trying to protect the dignity of the impoverished and preserve the little things the middle class holds dear, can be painted as the evil villain.

It’s ok, haters.

He hears you…

… And despite your ugliness, he still wants to serve you.

You certainly don’t deserve it.

Posted in C-Haze, Conservative, Current Events, Family, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Liberal, Marriage, News, Policy, Politics, Relationships, Same-sex Marriage

Carrie Prejean, Crowns and Closed Minds

Let’s talk about Ms. Carrie Prejean, shall we?

For those who’ve been living under a rock, she was this year’s Miss USA pageant’s runner up- the current Miss California USA- who has recently found herself embroiled in a whole lot o’ controversy.

During the pageant, celebrity (and openly gay) judge Perez Hilton asked Prejean to explain her views on same-sex marriage.

The contestant was very forthright, explaining that she believes in marriage in the “traditional” sense- as in, between a man and a woman.

Thus, the controversy.

Since that fateful night, Carrie Prejean has seen her name and her character mecilessly dragged through the mud.

Well-known people- especially celebrities- have been quite outspoken in their outrage. Michael Musto (a columnist for the Village Voice) even went as far as to compare Prejean to Klaus Barbie… a notorious Nazi war-criminal who was responsible for the deaths of about 4,000 Jews.

Ouch… Harsh, much?

All this anger is completely misguided, and misdirected- and certainly doesn’t win many points for left-wingers (such as myself) who claim to be all about the preservation of personal freedoms.

Anyone who has read anything I’ve written on the subject of homosexuality knows that I am a supporter of Gay Rights. I believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized in all 50 states.

I am completely unapologetic about my views on the topic.

Obviously, I do not have the same opinion as Ms. Prejean when it comes to this particular subject.

She is, however, being attacked for the wrong reasons.

Just as I have the right to express my opinion in support of gay marriage, Carrie Prejean has the right to express her opinion as well- even when, or maybe especially when- her views are not the same as mine.

This is the U.S., for cryin’ out loud.

She was not wrong for answering Perez’s question honestly.

Perez Hilton, on the other hand, came across as a complete idiot.

I realize he wasn’t going to be happy with Prejean’s response.

But to act shocked?

Give me a break.

His entire home state of California- Carrie Prejean’s home as well- just passed Proposition 8 less than a year ago- banning same-sex marriage- and yet Hilton acted as if he was surprised that this is a controversial issue.

He knew better.

Rather than take issue with someone for expressing their honest opinion- something the Constitution affords all of us the right to do- how about taking issue with the fact that she is now a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage?

This is a group that actively lobbies to “protect” marriage, fighting to keep homosexuals from being allowed to wed.

It is an organization that’s sole purpose is to make sure that an entire group of fellow human beings- gay people- never enjoy the same rights that the rest of us take for granted.

Personally, I will never have a problem with someone who has a different opinion than me.

I will always, however, have a problem with a person who works to take fundamental rights away from others.

Ironically, it is Ms. Prejean herself who best described my own views on this issue. When Carrie appeared on the “Today Show” on April 30th, Matt Lauer interviewed her, asking if she thought she should have held “her fire” when asked about gay marriage. Her response:

No. I think this is a huge issue right now. People are very passionate about this issue and I think that regardless of our opinions, Matt, I think that we just need to respect each other, even when we disagree. It’s all about respect. (Emphasis added)

She is absolutely correct.

Where’s the respect for another’s opposing views?

A reader once commented to me-

It seems there is such a hard push from one side over what they see as inequality that they are in effect pushing so hard that they may become and in some cases already are oppressive.

The fact that he’s correct- and that he’s referring to people whose views and visions I always believed I shared is shameful.

Posted in C-Haze, Change, Conservative, Current Events, Dick Cheney, Elections, George Bush, Homosexuality, Hope, News, Policy, Politics, President, Race, Religion, War on Terror

Dick Cheney, Irony and The Mortally Wounded GOP

Dick Cheney thinks it would be a mistake for the Republican Party to ‘moderate’ itself in an attempt to save itself from slowly dying.

This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas … what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles,” Cheney said in an interview with North Dakota radio host Scott Hennen Thursday, according to a transcript.

“You know, when you add all those things up, the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy,” Cheney also said. “I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most of us aren’t. Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren’t eager to have someone come along and say, ‘Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.'” –CNN Political Ticker, May 7, 2009

How ironic that Cheney today finds himself arguing for, claiming to support people’s constitutional rights when he fought so desperately during eight years of the Bush Administration to  single handedly destroy them.

This isn’t the Party that protects rights… it has made a name for itself by destroying them.

To list a few…

  • Human rights- by torturing people who do not share “American” beliefs
  • Women’s rights- by attempting to do away with a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive path, and giving a cluster of cells inside her body more consideration than the living, breathing woman whose body they reside in
  • Religious rights- by attempting to silence non-right leaning Christians, by perpetuating hatred for Muslims and others, by shoving a narrow doctrine down the throats of people the world over
  • Gay rights- by actively shaming homosexuals and seeing to it that they do not enjoy the same treatment or benefits of their heterosexual counterparts
  • Minority rights- by fighting against progress, and actively seeking to do away with the very protections (such as affirmative action) that can help our nation achieve racial parity…

The list is endless, really.

I wonder if Dick even realizes that it is his party’s philosophies, ideals and “fundamental beliefs” that are causing the problems- causing their recent and overwhelming defeat-  to begin with.

People, with little exception, do not inherently subscribe to the GOP belief system- a system that systematically destroys the freedoms of so millions… and yet, this is exactly what the Republican Party is fighting to maintain.

Protection for the few, persecution of the many.

If Dick Cheney has his way, that is.

This party, for so long, has been the one to set the narrow standard of what it means to be an American.

You’re either with them or you’re against them.

Not too long ago, to be against them was a dangerous thing.

It was not ok to simply have philosophical differences… to do so was un-American, it was traiterous, it was downright dangerous.

Our country, at long last, is changing.

I’m happy for it.

I hope Dick Cheney eventually grasps the fact that in large part due to his actions, his philosophies- his ideals- and his very Party are an endangered species.

It begs the question…

… Is he with us, or against us?

He has drawn his line in the sand.

Posted in C-Haze, Children, Comments, Conservative, Current Events, Homosexuality, Joe the Plumber, News, Policy, Politics

Joe The Plumber, Queers and Honkies

Joe the Plumber, while not my most favorite person in the world, certainly provides me endless entertainment.

For that reason, he can’t be all bad.

Well, that’s not completely true.

He certainly is fun though!

Most recently, Joe was hatin’ on gay people… enjoying his favorite past-time of judging others in the name of God.

My, my, my.

What a Christian thing to do.

He’s had friends, you know, in the past, who are gay… and he’s cool with them and all…

… but he’d never let those “queers” around his kids.

He even took the time to defend his use of the word “queer”, claiming it is not a slur, nothing derogatory.

It simply means “strange” or “unusual”… it’s not really really ignorant, like calling a white person a honky, for example.

Cuz that’s what gay people are, after all.

Queer.

Funny, considering good ol’ Joe is much more queer- as in strange and usual- than any gay person I’ve ever known.

I wouldn’t think twice about allowing someone who’s homosexual around my children.

No way in hell, however, is Joe the Plumber ever gettin’ anywhere near ’em.

Posted in Arlen Specter, Barack Obama, C-Haze, Change, Conservative, Current Events, News, Policy, Politics, President, Race, Supreme Court

Sessions, Specter and the Supreme Court

Things are getting really exciting on Capitol Hill.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter has recently announced his retirement, paving the way for Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination.

In a coincidental turn of events- a side plot, perhaps- Representative Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) will be taking Arlen Specter’s place as the top Republican in the Senate Judiciary committee.

All of this becomes interesting when we take a look at some of the stuff Representative Sessions is best known for.

Most political junkies recognize Sessions from way back in the day, when the Democrats were dukin’ it out with President George W. Bush over his Supreme Court pick, Justice Samuel Alito.

The Dems, hating this choice of nominee, fought tooth and nail to keep him from being appointed… ultimately prolonging the process of confirming the Justice’s nomination.

Jeff Sessions was the ultra-vocal senator that felt judges needed to be appointed by a simple up-or-down vote.

Simple majority, people.

No arguing, no filibuster…

… In short, no muss, no fuss.

Just Yea or Nay.

Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful. -Senate Floor Speech, Rep. Jeff Sessions, 2005

I wonder, now that President Obama is holding the reigns, if Representative Sessions still feels the same way.

Obviously, it won’t be difficult for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee to win a simple majority vote, considering the Dems control both houses.

Will Sessions put his money where his mouth is and support a straight vote…

… Or not?

Just when things begin to get interesting, the plot thickens.

You see, Representative Sessions was nominated 20 years ago to be a U.S. District Judge.

The Senate rejected his nomination.

The reason?

Sessions’ was alleged to have made racially insensitive remarks. A U.S. attorney, in fact, testified that he’d heard Sessions claim that he used to respect and admire the Ku Klux Klan-

Until he learned many of its members were pot smokers.

The deciding vote that doomed his confirmation in the Senate?

Arlen Spector.

This is gettin’ good.