Tuesday, January 31, 2006

R.I.P. Coretta Scott King

Coretta Scott King died yesterday at age 78. She spent her life determined to continue Dr. King's legacy by fighting for civil rights of all people, African-American, Asian-American, gays and lesbians. While there are some who try to distance the Civil Rights movement with the gay and lesbian movement today, also with the encouragement of the Religious Right who have usurped the language of Dr. King for their own, she realized that homophobia is no different than racism and had to be stamped out.

May the cats be with her and her husband and may they be with us in these dark times as the clock gets rolled back to the 18th century and beyond.

Prominent, friends comment on the life of Coretta Scott King

Published on: 01/31/06

President Bush issued a formal statement from the White House:

"Mrs. King was a remarkable and courageous woman, and a great civil rights leader. She carried on the legacy of her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., including through her extraordinary work at the King Center.

* Coretta Scott King dead at 78 | ajc.com
* Six Dead in Calif. Post Office Shooting
* Racist graffiti spraypainted at Douglas County home
* Man accused of threatening passengers on Air Tran flight
* Statement from the King family


"Mrs. King's lasting contributions to freedom and equality have made America a better and more compassionate nation."

Poet Maya Angelou said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"It's a bleak morning for me and for many people and yet it's a great morning because we have a chance to look at her and see what she did and who she was."

"It's bleak because I can't – many of us can't hear her sweet voice but it's great because she did live, and she was ours. I mean African-Americans and white Americans and Asians, Spanish-speaking — she belonged to us and that's a great thing."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

"Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King awakened the conscience of a nation that began the journey toward equality, knocking down the walls of discrimination based on race, on religion, and on ethnicity. We have all benefited so much from their inspiration and their leadership."

Former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, on the news on NBC's "Today" show
"I understand that she was asleep last night and her daughter (Bernice King) went in to wake her up and she was not able to and so she quietly slipped away. Her spirit will remain with us just as her husband's has."

Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks, to WSB-TV

"Mrs. King will be known around the world as her own great leader. I'm just so happy now that she can join her husband, Martin."

Congressman Charles Rangel of Harlem

"Her loss is shocking not just to the civil rights movement but to progressives throughout the country and the world. We will miss her. But she certainly picked up the baton when it was dropped by her husband's assassination and continued to move forward in the civil rights arena."

Al Sharpton – activist, former presidential candidate, in a written statement

"She was truly the first lady of the human rights movement." he said. "The only thing worse than losing her is if we never had her."

For those of us that were too young to get to know Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. very well, we got to know Coretta Scott King as a compassionate, caring, yet firm matriarch of the movement for justice. She was kind and gentle with impeccable grace and dignity, yet firm and strong and immovable under issues that she and her husband committed their lives to.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman

"When the voice of the movement was tragically silenced, the wife of the fallen leader took up his cause and marched forward. Coretta Scott King shared her husband's dream for an America where their children 'will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'"

White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, on "Fox and Friends"

"What a wonderful woman. President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush were always heartened by meetings they had with Miss King. What an inspiration she has been for so many millions of Americans. Our condolences are with the family. President Bush and Mrs. Bush are deeply saddened by today's news, but they will definitely be in our thoughts and prayers."

Dorothy Height, director National Council of Negro Women

"She surely is one who exemplifies strength and the courage and fortitude of African American women. The way she not only dealt with her loss, but the way that she reared her children. I used to hear her tell women what it meant to be a lone women rearing children, she identified not just with the people at the top, but everyone. She endeared everyone to her."

"I like the way in which she showed how to overcome what could be a great tragedy, for many, it might have been less fruitful. It shows that she in her own mind had accepted non-violence; she tried to carry out in everyone the sense of that achievement. She is one of the least aggressive. So unselfish in whatever she is doing."

John Conyers, Michigan Congressman – Democrat. Introduced King Holiday Bill

"I have known Coretta ever since I went South in the civil rights movement as a lawyer. She was a vibrant, consistent totally dedicated partner of her husband. She helped him stay strong. Especially in the beginning when there were so many threats and challenges to the revolutionary idea that we would start a civil rights movement in the South itself. A lot of people tried to dissuade Martin from that. And she helped agree with him that that is where it should and ought to begin."

Dick Gregory, civil rights activist, comedian

"What she has been able to do when she didn't have to. She could have said I paid my dues. I lost my husband, children lost a father. But she didn't and that is why she has been so blessed."

"The great thing I have is every year for Christmas and birthday I get a birthday card from her. I look forward to Christmas. I look forward to my birthday, because of that. I just love her. You cannot look at her face and tell what she has been through."


Monday, January 30, 2006

We lost 72-25. Alito is basically confirmed by now. Kiss goodbye to our democracy and our environment.

Kerry's post on Huffington Post

Many people seem curious or even skeptical why United States Senators believe it's so important to take a stand against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court -- why we're willing to take on a fight that conventional wisdom suggests we will lose.

The reality is simple. We care about the future of our country. We care about the millions of Americans who expect Congress to stand up and fight for their rights and their freedoms, and we also know that the Supreme Court, again and again, is the battlefield on which those rights and freedoms are decided.

So let's get this straight. The time to fight is now - before we make the irreversible decision of confirming a new Supreme Court Justice. When you're talking about the Supreme Court, you don't live to fight another day. It's a zero sum game. Once Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito, there's no turning back the Senate confirmation vote. We don't get to 'take a mulligan' when choosing a Supreme Court Justice. The direction our country takes for the next thirty years is being set now. Will it matter if we speak up after the Supreme Court has granted the executive the right to use torture, or to eavesdrop without warrants? Will it matter if we speak up only after a woman's right to privacy has been taken away? Will history record what we say after the courthouse door is slammed in the faces of women, minorities, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor? No. History will record what we say and what we do now.

I couldn't have said it any better. How come some Democrats and bloggers think that winning the 2006 election would be sufficient enough? This is a LIFETIME appointment and Alito is only in his mid 50s I believe, meaning that he could have at least 20 years on the bench. That's a shitload of votes he could cast to transform our glorious democratic experiment into a fascist state with a Dear Leader. Democrats seem to believe that we as the base will be satisfied with a no vote because at least they're not supporting the March to Fascism. Well they're wrong. If they fuck this up, we can make them pay in the upcoming elections. We SHALL hold them accountable unlike the brain-dead sheep freepers who vote GOP no matter what.

What on earth are we waiting for? We all know why President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He is packing the court with conservative ideologues who will extend the legacy of his presidency for years to come. After all, Judge Alito was nominated only after extreme members of the right-wing killed the nomination of Harriet Miers, an accomplished lawyer who ideologues fumed lacked a track record of proven, tested, activist conservatism. Those same individuals heralded Judge Alito's nomination. Ann Coulter, who last week suggested Justice Stevens should be poisoned, who denounced the nomination of John Roberts, celebrated Judge Alito's nomination, stating that Bush gave Democrats 'a right-hook' - high praise from an activist who said that Republicans need to nominate a person who 'wake[s] up every morning . . . chortling about how much his latest opinion will tick off the left.'

Kerry makes an excellent point here. The Right always bitches and moans about giving ALL nominees a fair up-and-down vote. Well what happened to Harriet Miers? Perhaps the Religious Right was finally clued into the fact that they are second to eat at the trough. Perhaps they realized that Miers was not the hardcore conservative they were looking for. Well I hate to break it to you, but even if Alito is confirmed, the GOP will find a way to FUCK YOU OVER because they don't want to lose the suburb votes they would if Roe v. Wade is overturned. They'll play that same game they always play with you.

I've always said that the Republicans were playing their base for fools when it came to abortion. Take the "partial-birth" abortion ban for example. It's so draconian that it does not have an exception for the health of the mother. So what do the courts do? Strike it down for that very reason. Any half-wit knows that the courts would strike this down because the health of the mother must be taken into account. Now I admit there are those who demand that abortion be illegalized even in cases where the mother would die without one, but that is a digression. The GOP probably did this on purpose knowing that they could have it both ways. This allows the GOP to have its cake and eat it too as then it can claim that they tried to deliver on the abortion issue but the liberal "activist judges" again stood in their way. It paints them as the good guys while demonizing liberals as Satanic fetus-eaters, conning the Religious Right into supporting them in the next election.

After reviewing Judge Alito's writings as a Department of Justice lawyer and a federal judge, I have no doubt why he is so heralded by the most extreme Republicans. There is no doubt about the kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be. He will make it harder for the most disadvantaged members of our society to have their day in court. He will allow the President's power to grow far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution intended. He will roll back women's privacy rights. Empty promises made in the heat of a highly-charged and exceedingly political confirmation battle cannot erase a twenty year record.

This is exactly what Bush's true base wants. The corporations don't want to be held accountable for anything. If you get sick drinking water befouled by a factory, it's your own fault for drinking the water. Perhaps you should have taken the personal responsibility to live somewhere else. The corporations don't want you to sue for defective products that have harmed you. They don't want to have to pay for anti-pollution measures. They don't want to be regulated because it takes away from their profits.

No one will be able to say, in five to ten years, that they are surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. They know that in his fifteen years on the Third Circuit, Judge Alito has almost never voted in favor of African-American plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. They know that he routinely defers to government invasions into personal privacy, often going out of his way to excuse unlawful government actions. And they know that the only statement he has ever made regarding a woman's right to privacy is that she does not have one.

In Alito's world, corporations will have the freedom to do anything we want, while Big Brother clamps down on us. Corporations will be able to discriminate against anyone they want. Big Brother will be allowed to go through our emails, our letters, our garbage to determine if we pose a political threat at all. It'll be up to the individual to prove discrimination on the job and the individual will always lose no matter what because you have a judge who prejudges the merits of these cases.

People who believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the President and Congress have no choice but to stand up against Judge Alito.

I know better than anyone that elections have consequences and that the President has every right to nominate whomever he chooses to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But I also know that Senators have the right - in fact, they have a constitutional responsibility, to question whether that nominee is the right choice. That is why the Framers required the Senate to provide advice and consent. We are not meant to be a rubber stamp. We need not rush to judgment simply to satisfy the political deadline of a State of the Union address.

In fact, Bush does not deserve to have ANY judicial nominees confirmed since he did not legitimately win either elections. Considering Al Gore lost in one county run by the black box machines 16,022 votes and the final "margin of victory" was only 537 votes, he should have never been president at all.

I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong choice for America. In fact, I am convinced that he is a dangerous choice for America. This is a rare moment in Washington. We are facing the vote of a lifetime - a vote that will shape the law for generations to come. Despite the predictions of the pundits, the story is not over until the last vote is cast. We cannot win unless we try. The time to take a stand is now, to fight for the rights and freedoms of all Americans is when they're endangered not after they've been diminished. It is time to take a stand against Judge Alito, and take a stand for the kind of America we've been for over two hundred years.


My dear senator,

Even though we all know you won the Election of 2004, we all wish you would have spoken with a passion and fire burning in the breast during the election campaign. Nonetheless, thank you for outlining why we must oppose Samuel Alito.

Friday, January 27, 2006

It is the GOP that is beholden to special interests...

What are the Democrats so afraid of that they will not unanimously stand behind a filibuster? Are they afraid of looking obstructionist? Are they afraid that they will look like extreme dare I say it? Liberals?! Are they afraid that they'll lose their bids for reelection if they're in a red state?

Republicans are gleefully anticipating a Democratic filibuster because they claim that it makes Democrats look obstructionist and beholden to left-leaning special interest groups as if the only special interest groups are left-wing. Of course the characteristic that best describes the Pharisee and the hypocrite is throwing stones from glass houses. The Republicans are the ones truly beholden to special interest groups, which obviously they would like to hide because if the public were truly informed about the GOP's connections, they would not vote Republican or against their economic interests.

Take for example, West Virginia. 14 miners recently died there due to shoddy conditions in the coal mines with numerous safety violations. Guess who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Bush 2000 and 2004 campaign. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't those miners or their families. It was the coal mining industry. Now, that's a special interest group if you ever saw one. What was the industry's reward?

The Bush Administration claims that protection for workers is an unnecessary burden on Big Business and drives up the cost of operation and makes corporations non-competitive. They claim that "oppressive" environmental and safety regulations have been placed on business while ignoring the financial cost that comes with them. Regulation by the government is nothing more than the promotion of a nanny state which bloats government to the point of no return. The private sector should be able to do what it wants and it is the fault of regulations and rules that corporations have to cut jobs. Now, most of their new laws like the Clear Skies Initiative seem like they have been written by the very industries that the laws are supposed to regulate. Coincidence? You tell me.

John Graham, the “regulatory tsar” who runs the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget claims that it's not pro-regulation or even anti-regulation, but rather "smarter regulation." Regulations will be judged on their cost-effectiveness and put into practice according to that standard. Smarter regulation is another one of those Orwellian terms that does not mean anything at all. It appeals to the average American citizen in that he/she still gets the sense that the administration is looking after their best interest, after all, who wants to eat rotten sausages and breathe polluted air? It works for the corporations who know that Bush is fooling the sheep and that they're free to do anything they want as long as they pay pittances for fines such as the $878 the Sago Mine paid.

If you want to see the numbers, I'll link you to a site where you can then access a pdf file showing all those dirty numbers the Litterbox Administration doesn't want you to see. To put things in perspective, there were 416 Rangers and Pioneers who helped finance Bush's re- election campaign in 2004. 374 or over 90% represented you guessed it, corporations and of these, 73 from the Financial Sector (Wall Street, etc.) Now if those aren't special interests, I don't know what is. How did Bush reward them? For the financial sector, he reduced the "double-taxation" dividend tax from 38% to 15%, he tried to ram Social Security Privatization down our throats, and is working on permanently repealing the ESTATE tax (not the Death tax). For the coal mining industry, he relaxed regulation and fired any whistleblower. For the real estate industry, it weakened regulations on building homes on wetlands. For Big Pharma, it rammed the Medicare abomination of a bill which prohibits the government from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. If the Drug industry didn't write that bill, I don't know who did. Do you see the pattern here? Special interests > the average American citizen in the eyes of the Bush Adminstration.

I would rather have our Democratic Party be beholden to groups like MoveOn and the Center for American Progress than to be beholden to corporations and the Rapture Right with nutcases who desire a conflict in the Middle East to escalate into a religious war so that the bodies may pile up which would then mean that Jesus would come. The GOP does not want the American voter to know that they are beholden to those who would want to pontificate their piety upon everyone else and their standards of morality on everyone else. The GOP is beholden to those fundamentalists who believe that every American child no matter what his/her religion should be taught Intelligent Design Creationism and pray in school, who believe that homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals should be "cured" of it, aka Dr. Mengele style (see reparative therapy), that it is alright to discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny them civil rights while piously proclaiming that they love the sinner but hate the sin, and believe that a Second Holocaust would be justified as long as it is done in the name of the establishment of Jesus' Kingdom on Earth.

Someday, the house of cards will come falling down when the evangelicals realize that they are only second at the trough of goodies the Bush Administration is setting aside. The corporations will get the lobster and the spicy fish which you can find at some Chinese restaurants while the Religious Right gets the ummm lobster sauce with some rice to eat it with. What will the American people get? maybe some lobster shells with bits and scraps or maybe the fish sauce mixed in with tiny fish bones which we'll choke on. The Bush Administration will tell us that it's nourishing and that we should eat the lobster shells, but we'll choke to death.

To the Democrats: If you want our support in the 2006 Elections or the 2008 Presidential Election, show some damn backbone and filibuster. Otherwise you have just told us to go Cheney ourselves and when it comes to Election Day, we'll say, "Screw you, I'm staying home!""You only earned our vote because you are not a minion of the National Litterbox."

Now I'm not saying the Democrats are not beholden to special interests, but I'm saying that it's hypocrisy to attack them for being beholden to left-wing special interest groups (which they aren't compared to the same corporations *cough Joe Biden *cough) while being beholden to special interest groups like corporations and the Religious Right.

the most crucial filibuster in history needs your support.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Post for the Democratic Party in this troubled confirmation period

2005 has sped by

Now, we need to face 2006 (Alito and the Elections)

There may be risks involved (so don't be afraid to take them. One never gets far being cautious especially in war, which the Republicans have declared on you)

We may need to face roadblocks (the GOP of course)

So stay alert (lest the Republicans steal your agenda and spin it around)

Share time with friends (not the corporations, but your true base)

Jump over obstacles (the GOP)

With care (of course)

and caution (not too much caution)

Face challenges (without losing heart for your base is with you)

Remember to laugh (At the GOP and the media whores)

Cooperate (I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH, Get those 8 senators who stand in the way of a filibuster to cooperate)

Discover (that you have spine)

Make new friends (in your base, not corporations)

Above all...be ready for adventure (and challenges)

STICK TOGETHER (and filibuster Alito)

AND you will be able to go far (and win!)

Very far (yup)

As far as you want! (Remember we can take back the country)

Always take time to smell the flowers

Don't forget to relax and enjoy (the fact that you are serving the PEOPLE, not pseudopeople like the corporations)

And never forget to love those dearest to you

May God, the Goddess, Buddha, Allah, Zeus, Ganesh, the Great Philosopher Cat in the Sky, or whomever you worship bless you in 2006

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

edit: I did not mean to imply that homosexuality is a sin but rather since the Religious Right condemns the show as promoting sin, I wanted to make a point that Jesus would have understood that humans are naturally going to sin once in a while and that if you truly believe in him, you would believe he forgives ALL sins. The Religious Right would want you to believe that there are more unforgivable sins than forgivable, especially homosexuality and not accepting their brand of Christianity. and how do we know what's a sin or not besides the obvious ones like murder, rape, etc.? Just because the Bible says so?

Well didn't the Bible also say that certain races are unwelcome in the congregation of God? Didn't the Bible say that you should stone your kids if they talk back?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Any company that caves into the American Family Association's demands needs to be exposed for the promotion of bigotry. NBC sided with the hate-mongerers of the Religious Right instead of promoting tolerance. So what if the main character's son is gay? It's a facet of American life. DEAL WITH IT. Yeah, the family is dysfunctional with a drug dealer etc.

The message is that Jesus would not have ACCEPTED sin but that he would have understood that human beings have a weakness. We are sinful creatures according to Christian teachings, but the Religious Right have forgotten that they too are sinners in seeking to be the arbiters of our morality. They believe that it is only those who follow their own teachings that are moral while everyone else is immoral. It's just too bad they're stuck in the Middle Ages because everyone has progressed forward, well everyone except conservatives. and what makes Homosexuality a sin?

With every victory corporations hand to the Religious Right, they become emboldened in their quest to have a theocracy in all but name.

So, a bigoted pastor wants to buy Microsoft stock and then dump it, theoretically destroying the company? Well perhaps he should re-read his Bible over and over and over again. He preaches a gospel of Hate instead of tolerance. Opposing civil rights for gays and lesbians is not hating the sin while loving the sinner. Quite the contrary. It is something the Pharisees would have done, those who sold out the Jewish people to the Romans so they could stay in power. So-called religious figures like Hutcherson and Dobson sell out the Gospel in order to gain power over the private lives of our citizens and hereby disgrace their profession.

If they think homosexuality and gay marriage is such a sin, how come they aren't as vehemently opposed to such mortal sins as lust and pride? How come they don't speak out against the pastor who thought he was pastoring to police but was caught whoring himself? How come they don't speak about the religious right wingnut who was caught raping his two sons? How come they don't speak about adultery except when a Democrat does it as Bill Clinton did? How come they didn't condemn Henry Hyde and Connie Mack? Why not deny those who are caught cheating on their spouses voting rights? Why not deny those who destroyed their own marriages voting rights? Why don't we let corporations fire those who had a divorce just like how they can fire someone for being gay in 34 states?

Monday, January 23, 2006

Goddess of the cosmos, guardian of all felinedom and humanity, you whose name tears the rocks asunder, you whose name evil fears and loathes, you whose name must not be spoken, please accept this humble offering from your humble servant and save our country from the fascists and Dominionists.


The Democrats are FINALLY going to do something about mine safety but it took the deaths of 14 miners in highly publicized cases to get them going.

Snow asked why, in Australia, miners have three days worth of oxygen in reserve, but in America do the miners only get one hour.

"The direct answer to your question [is] cost, financial reasons, expensive," Rahall said.

Rahall hit it RIGHT ON THE MARK. The reason these miners died is that the industry believed that it would be cheaper to pay fines issued by Mine Safety Health Association, especially under the Bush administration which gives out laughable fines comparable of just telling a college student caught plagarizing to "not do it again." I believe the largest fine Bush's MSHA levied on the Sago mine where 12 miners died was $878. Most of the fines were in the $250 range. I know $250 sounds like a lot when we're paying traffic tickets but to a mine or a corporation, this is chump change. This is nothing. That's like asking Walmart to pay a fine of millions.

Bush and his GOP minions in Congress always cry out loud that regulation of industry is counterproductive, not cost-effective, and drains profits away from industry so it can't be competitive. That is pure bullshit from a party that prides itself in claiming to be "pro-life." For a party that touts its stance on abortion and stem-cell research, it always seems to put a price on life which determines how far they'll go pay when it comes to a life. Then again, they don't care about their workers whom they view as someone to be replaced when his/her health breaks down.

So if the Democrats continue to push for mine safety regulations, will the GOP turn around and attack the Dems for being political opportunists? "Heaven, help us all! The Democrats are using the dead bodies of the miners to win political points. How low can they go?"

Maybe the GOP will blame the miners for their deaths. They obviously chose to be miners so it's their own damn fault that they died. Why blame the mine companies when the miners put themselves in that situation? The miners should have taken the personal responsibility in looking after their own safety instead of trying to push all responsibility to the mine operators. I know this sounds repugnant but this is a part of the extreme right-wing mentality.

Bush and his cronies will now undergo a study in what went wrong and a review of emergency equipment. They'll try to deflect blame from themselves and show that they're actually doing something about the horrendous conditions miners face everyday in those coal mines. They'll seek to show the American people that it really does care for the miners' welfare. The Democrats should NOT buy into this bullshit and con game and instead point out that the Bush Administration rolled back many of the rules and regulations the Clinton Adminstration placed on the industry. What was the Bush administration's excuse for rolling these regulations back? Resources. It ALWAYS comes down to money with these bastards. The Democrats can't let the GOP steal ANOTHER issue from them, especially where the Litterboxites are also to blame, but knowing them, they probably will and it'll be the Republicans who will be the heroes of the mine disasters, even though they should rightfully be the villains.

This is the tragedy with no ending for unlike Oedipus, the Democrats will never learn the truth and will never learn from their mistakes. Teiresias will be found among many in the liberal blogosphere like AmericaBLOG, Daily Kos, Liberal Oasis, the Rude Pundit, etc. but like Oedipus, the Dems will brush them all off for being too "liberal" as Oedipus mocked Teiresias for being blind. We are the blind ones wandering about aimlessly in the far left of the political wilderness, out of the mainstream, or so the Dems claim. Yet isn't it ironic that Oedipus was the blind one and not Teiresias? Isn't it ironic that the Democrats in Congress are the blind ones while we see the light and harsh truth?

I'm sure liberal bloggers all feel like Cassandra for we prophesize what will happen when the Dems roll over and play dead. Yet, they never listen and it is our fate to have our prophecies fulfilled but not believed. It is our fate to look at every example where the GOP cows the Democrats into silence and say "We told you so."

If you don't see that the GOP worships at the unholy altar of the Almighty Dollar, then you're either easily gullible (I have kitty litter to sell to you disguised as gold) or willfully ignorant.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Last Thursday, Cheney called the CIFA (the Pentagon's Domestic Spying program) program "vital" to the country's defense against Al Qaeda. "Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not," he said in a speech to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Right, because we all know that Quakers, Catholic Workers, Greenpeace, peace activists, and those protesting Halliburton are all tied to Al Qaeda. We all know that these groups viciously bombed churches and trains in America and Britain. We all know that they've secretly set up an AIM connection with Osama Bin Laden plotting on taking over the United States.

Face it, everyone. This is Big Brother, 1984 style. George Orwell could not have dreamed that the United States of all places, you know that beacon of hope and liberty with its democratic experiment that has gone on for 200+ years would be his Oceania. We in America are taught that we must love Bush and stand by him no matter what. If we don't, we are asked such questions as "What's more important? Your path to Jesus Christ or your hatred of the president?" We are then persecuted if we are Christian by those who would like to equate Christian duty and faithfulness to an overwhelming, unquestioning support of the Man of God or God's Chosen One. We are told that God specifically chose Bush to lead our nation and to establish a Christian state by freeing America from the "godless" liberals who stand in the way of allowing America to finally achieve its so-called "Christian heritage" because the founding fathers would have wanted it this way.

Anyone who is deemed to oppose Bush is declared an enemy of the state. Sure, Karl Rove may in his speeches to right-wing think tanks say that Democrats may not be necessarily unpatriotic but they are wrong. Nonetheless, the Litterboxites aren't interested in bipartisanship in general and would like nothing more to destroy all opposition. Why else would they spy on peaceful groups that have a left-wing agenda? Anyone who supports domestic spying without a warrant for no better purpose than to spy on your political opponents in the name of fighting terrorism is un-American and does not deserve America. America was founded upon principles of liberty and freedom, we fought against the concept of Divine Right of Kings, we fought against the very concept of a monarchy to the point where we forbid any American citizen from taking on a title of nobility. We fought against oppressive regimes that sanctioned one form of religion while persecuting the others.

Anyone who goes hiding under their beds afraid that terrorists are hiding everywhere unless Bush can spy on us does not deserve America. While their fear is understandable after the horrible tragedy and trauma of the 9/11 attacks, it does not mean we should sacrifice our principles as a nation. Did not Bush say that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms? Well he's done a good job in allowing the terrorists to win by curbing our constitutional rights, mainly the right to free speech. Bush has already surrendered to the terrorists if his logic is correct and he is the defeatist, not the Democrats.

The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 states

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

Yet the Religious Right would like you to believe that godless liberals later altered the treaty and inserted the words, thus lying to the American people. Treaties are defined as being the Supreme Law of the land. The First Amendment thus states, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Yet, this is held by the Religious Right to be the first attempts of being "politically correct." In fact, I bet there are some that think that that phrase in the Constitution is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to oppress Christians and persecute them. I bet there are some that believe that liberals altered the Constitution and added those words.

Bush is nothing more than a false idol to whom the Religious Right has pinned its high hopes on. They believe that he will usher in the era where America returns to its Christian roots, where their standards of morality become law to which everyone no matter what their beliefs are, are subject to. Understanding that the American people are either intellectually lazy or busy with work and their lives to pay attention and to think for themselves, the Religious Right appeals to our basest emotions: hatred and fear to further their agenda, which is ironic considering Jesus preached a gospel of peace and love. Bush understands this and that's why he keeps his rhetoric simple whether it's protecting marriage or "Bring 'em on" while Democrats like Al Gore insist on writing dissertations in their speeches, hereby turning the American public off as they distrust intellectuals for being "elitist."

There is a reason that Bush hasn't delivered any significant victory to the Religious Right. Their issues and goals are just not his top priority. It has been over a year since the 2004 elections and there has been no progress on the amendment banning gay marriage, which religious conservatives believe is the most important thing at hand. Sure, Bush may have nominated judges that are sympathetic to the Religious Right's platform but they are corporate whores above all. The reason he chose Alito was not primarily that he'll work to overturn Roe v. Wade but that Alito believes in the Unitary Executive in which the president can function like a dictator who is accountable to no one.

Those in the Religious Right are useful idiots to the corporations as they can be counted upon to support the Republican Party no questions asked. Corporations don't care about whether gays can get married or not, they don't care about abortion or stem-cell research. They only care about ending government regulation and avoiding taxes by finding tax loopholes and shelters. However, they realize that not everyone supports their deregulation agenda so they have to work with a Trojan Horse and that is the Religious Right.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

The Forces of Love Triumph over the Forces of Bigotry and Evil


It's a joyous day in Ocean County where Lt. Laurel Hester can go to her grave in peace knowing that her partner will enjoy her pension benefits as the Ocean County freeholders will extend pension benefits to include domestic partners in a vote Wednesday. This goes a long way in ensuring that the dream of the Civil Rights movement lives on where everyone no matter what race, gender, or sexual orientation can enjoy freedom and liberty which are manifest in the American Dream.

How long will it take for the AFA, the Religious Right, and homophobic Republicans in Congress to act against what they will call the advancing of the homo agenda? They always claim that gays and lesbians are demanding special rights because Title VII the Civil Rights Act of 1964 obviously covers them, right? Wrong, there is nothing in that act pertaining to sexual orientation. You can be fired in 36 states for being gay.

In fact, Title VII only states

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
     (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency
to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate
against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on
the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Now, call me crazy, but I don't see anything about sexual orientation. This surely debunks the Religious Right's rhetoric that gays are already protected and they are only agitating for special privileges. Of course the Religious Right takes the word religion in Title VII to mean that they can discriminate against gays themselves or force their beliefs in America's pharmacies when it concerns emergency contraception, but that's another story.

The so-called leader of our country, National Litterbox George W. Bush has disgraced the Constitution by forgetting the lessons of history when he called earlier during the 2004 election campaign for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. All throughout our history, we have oppressed the downtrodden and the marginalized and have only begun correcting these grievious wrongs. Conservatives did not support stripping the rebels of their plantations and giving them to the freedmen because they declared that the freed slaves should not be given a free handout, but rather should work for it, forgetting that the slaves had worked these lands all their lives. This allowed slaveholders to make slaves free only in name but not in practice. Conservatives during the period known as Reconstruction watered down the Fifteenth Amendment to only forbid states to deny voting rights based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Abolitionists warned that this would allow the Southern States to find loopholes and design new ways to "legally" bar blacks from the voting booths such as poll taxes. In fact this is exactly what happened with the poll taxes, literacy tests, understanding and grandfather clauses that exempted poor, illiterate whites from these restrictions as long as they were white or had an ancestor who voted prior to 1867. This wasn't abolished until the 24th Amendment which made poll taxes illegal. The judgment of history is clear: conservatives have been the impediments to progress and equality while liberals were the ones fighting for the American dream.

Conservatives always bitched and moaned that extending equal rights and voting privileges would either a) destroy the country's moral fabric, b) destroy the family or c) destroy marriage. Allowing freed slaves to vote would "corrupt" the voting process, allowing women to vote would be the death of the "sacred institution" of the family, and allowing gay marriage and extending benefit rights to gay couples would destroy marriage. Yet, Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage and there hasn't been hellfire and brimstone raining down from the skies over Boston. They ignore the true threat to marriage: adultery and divorce. Perhaps they do so because a lot of those who call themselves conservatives (Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich are the examples that come to mind) were having affairs themselves while castigating Bill Clinton for having one.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

The Declaration of Independence from the Religious Right (a work in progress)

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women regardless of the color of their skin, gender, and sexual orientation are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure salvation and meaning for mankind, Religions are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Religion becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new religion, laying its foundation on such principles of love, acceptance, tolerance and the true teachings of Jesus in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that religions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such religion, and to provide new Guards for their future religious liberty. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these gay men and women, long demonized by the Religious Right; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to speak out against these denominations that seek to do away with them and silence them. The history of the present Religious Right is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the attempted establishment of an absolute Tyranny over America. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Using the politics of fear and divine retribution, the Religious Right has attempted to silence all dissent from other denominations who if they do not approve of gay behavior, just as equally disapprove of the pilloring and hatred of gays and lesbians the leaders of the Religious Right spew out.

Using the politics of fear and divine retribution, the Religious Right has intimidated ordinary voters to reject civil rights for Americans based on sexual orientation rather than to bring voters together to work together on issues of faith including protection from being fired on the job for being gay.

Using the politics of hell, the Religious Right has ignored the teachings of Jesus in favor of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who displayed their so-called piety in the streets and sought to oppress the Jews into following their interpretations of the Laws of the Old Testament while ignoring their standards of morality.

The Religious Right has refuted their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The Religious Right has mocked other denominations like the United Church of Christ who by understanding the teachings of Jesus, have tried to welcome gays and lesbians as fellow human beings even to the excess of vandalizing a church with the message that its members were sinners.

The Religious Right has forbidden legislatives to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance to the gay community; and when they are passed, has threatened boycotts and called down the divine wrath of God as if it speaks for God like the Old Testament prophets.

It has attempted to make Judges dependent on its Will alone for the tenure of their offices.

It has declared an installed puppet the "Man of God" and God's chosen one even though he did not come to power as a result of a fair election.

It has supported an unjust war for the purposes of evangelization of an unwilling people that desire to be left alone.

It has supported an unjust war for the purpose of initiating the Rapture and Armeggedon to harken the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

It has affected to render the Will of God superior to the Civil Power.

It has conspired to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to the tearing down of the wall between Church and state:

For imposing their standards of morality on us without our Consent:

For condemning us to hell for pretended offences such as voting for John Kerry and not supporting their false idol, George W. Bush:

The Religious Right has abdicated the responsibilities of a Christian religion here, by declaring gays and lesbians out of God's Protection and waging War against them.

It has plundered our state constitutions and destroyed the lives of innocent people who happen to love the "wrong" gender.

It has constrained our fellow Citizens to bear Arms against the gay and lesbian community, to become the oppressors of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by its Hands.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Religious figures, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, are unfit to be the arbiters of morality of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to ordinary Christians. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by the Religious Right to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the establishment of separation of church and state here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred as human beings to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We have reminded them of the dangerous precedent of denying rights and discriminating in our sacred document, the Constitution. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the cats and their servants, in America, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of the United States of America, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to any religion, especially that which desires to become the official religion of America, and that all connection between them and them, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to guarantee civil rights and liberty for all and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

As a Classics major, I absolutely LOVE the allusion to ancient Rome. Tom Tomorrow is such a genius!

The Differences between Feline Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism Part II

Everyone should see this video.

Feline Dominionism is completely different from Christian Reconstructionism. As I have listed a few posts below of the differences between the two, you can see how much more benign Feline Dominionism is. Cats don't care what we do as long as we meet their needs and give them TLC and the attention they deserve. As long as we put them on a pedestal in order to gaze upon them in awe and reverence, everything is fine.

Feline Dominionism and Democracy are not enemies much as Christian Reconstructionism and Democracy. The cats do not have any laws except for one: love your cat and cherish him/her. Rushdoony advocates the death penalty for anyone who violates the Ten Commandments even for children who talk back to their parents. How extreme is that?! I bet he considered himself pro-life too. Cats don't care for the death penalty as that means one less human to serve them and they certainly don't want kids being stoned to death. Of course homosexuals, those who don't practice the right religion, (to be fair, it is debatable that the Christian Reconstructionists would execute "nonbelievers" but would probably deny them citizenship), and your family under the right circumstances would also be marked for death most likely by stoning. Now perhaps, Rushdoony is the extremist among extremists but still this is what he believed in.

That video illustrates a crucial point: the Christian Reconstructionist movement has tainted so-called mainstream Christian organizations such as the Christian Coalition even though the leaders of the coalition would much rather have that not be known, whether they like it or not. Cats don't care for such petty human conflicts such as the battle between religions. Why should we bother when our mission here on earth is to serve cats?

If you want to see the vision of a Christian Reconstructionist Kingdom of America, please go to the Brick Testament and go to the section labeled Laws.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

O, how my bleeding liberal heart weeps for those poor persecuted fundies

Saw this over at AmericaBLOG, Now, the Religious Right is protesting over what they claim is an infringement upon their rights as Christians in the universities. You mean that universities are clamping down on Christian Clubs, Campus Ministries, Outreach programs? You mean that universities are now attacking the churches fining them for just having services for concerned students?

Of course not, that is not the issue here. This is just exhibit #3800 in the self-martyrdom syndrome the Religious Right loves to play. It's those dastardly Satanic liberals in the universities who are trying to silence good, upright Christians from exercising their right to free speech. From Agape Press...
Now, it's alright to have beliefs in private disapproving of homosexual behavior, but it's when you openly try to demonize homosexuals and pillory them as being hell-bound in public that we should all have a problem with. No one is trying to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is good, Christian behavior. No one is trying to cram homosexuality down the throats of anyone. No one is trying to advance the non-existant homo agenda on us all. All what the GLBT community wants is tolerance and acceptance.

The universities don't want a repeat of hate crimes like these, including one at UNC where a gay student was chased and beaten by unknown assailants yelling expletives and slurs. Such rhetoric can lead to hate crimes, but the fundamentalists would rather have you see them as the victims here, victims of liberal censorship.

Now, I'm for freedom of speech and all, but hate speech is something that should be restricted out in public. There's nothing to restrict anti-homosexual behavior sermons in the churches and all. If a preacher wants to preach against homosexual behavior, fine, so be it. We may not like it, but as long as it's done in church and in a way that does not demonize homosexuals unlike what the Religious Right leaders like Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson do, it should not be restricted. Maybe they can disagree on homosexual behavior, but no one should have their civil rights denied because they are gay. Perhaps, if the Religious Right or religious groups on campus can focus on policing the behavior of their own members instead of imposing their morality on everyone, the world would be a better place.

Maybe speech codes are a bad thing, I don't know. But I don't see anything wrong with restricting speech that could incite violence and hate crimes. I don't see anything wrong with banning the crying of wolf by shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. The opponents of these speech codes claim that of course you must ban the shouting of "Fire" when there isn't any in a crowded theater because it could hurt someone. That's a legitimate argument, but one could turn that argument around and say that hate speech could also hurt someone too.

It's just me personally, but I would rather be politically correct rather than have unrestricted speech lead to someone getting hurt or even worse killed like Matthew Shepard. However, what strikes me is the utter hypocrisy. These are the same people who tried to ban books by gay authors in Alabama and these are the same people who tried to force corporations to stop advertising in gay publications. For them to cry out loud about freedom of speech is Phariseeism at its worst. They want to look like good martyrs to everyone and cry out loud about religious liberty, but they would just turn around and deny "religious liberty" if they were lucky enough to impose their religion on everyone.

I can't see what's so wrong about the universities promoting dignity and respect for everyone.

Monday, January 16, 2006

We can't let the Dream die out

The Dream is not dead yet, but it's not complete either. The Republicans would like you to believe that racism is not a problem anymore. Racism is only a feature of the fringe (of course they don't say the fringe RIGHT) and since there are fewer racists going around in white hoods and burning crosses, racism must be dying out by now. That's why affirmative action is not needed, that's why you could still have all-white juries sentencing black defendants to death, that's why you can have poll taxes disguised as benign attempts to prevent voter fraud which only minorities seem to do these days.

The Republicans always accuse minorities of playing the race card when they cry out for social justice. It appeals well to the angry white male who can now claim that he is being victimized by reverse discrimination, especially in the case of affirmative action. Republicans use Dr. King's rhetoric about living in an America where you aren't judged by the color of your skin to further their agenda of removing affirmative action and in the case of some extremists like Alito, giving employers the right to discriminate based on the color of the skin by claiming dubious rationales of "merit." With Alito's confirmation, 40 years of progress in civil rights will be turned back, and America will go back to the so-called "Golden Age" before the Civil Rights movement, where the federal government did not bother to protect minorities, where Southerners were free to institute segregation in the name of states' rights (another code word).

They always accuse us of playing the race card when you have a black conservative, more likely a black extremist like Janice Rogers Brown who is hostile to affirmative action and thinks corporations have the absolute right to rape the environment, discriminate against anyone they please, and believes regulation is unconstitutional. We're not concerned that she's black, that's fine, but the fact that the GOP loved her record and nominated her so that if the Democrats filibustered, they could claim the Dems were racist is nothing more than playing the race card. The fact that she's an extremist is what concerns us.

If the Republicans were truly concerned about minorities and if they wanted to gather more of the minority vote, especially the African-American vote, perhaps they should stop nominating judges who would turn back the clock on civil rights. Perhaps they should stop using the Southern Strategy by appealing to racist, hick redneck morons in the South. Perhaps they should come to realize that being in the racist, homophobic, sexist CAP is allowing your bigoted side to come out.

Alito's confirmation, unless the Dems can muster up the courage to filibuster, will harken the day when corporations have more rights than people. People will have their rights trampled by corporations who will be allowed to discriminate as much as they please, lower wages, and violate safety regulations, which could be struck down. Regulation will be replaced by no regulation at all because this would violate the constitutional rights of corporations deemed people.

Alito would uphold laws designed to undermine voting rights such as the Georgia Photo ID law. He would also uphold convictions given to black defendants by an all-white jury where blacks have been purged from the jury pool. Alito does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court, especially considering that it's basically a life appointment. Bush may be gone by 2008 but the damage he'll have done to the country will last generations.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Our useless Democratic Party or Why I'm not registered as a Dem

From what the confirmation hearings have told us about Alito and what we know about Alito is that he is an extremist who is cloaking himself in a state of amnesia when it comes to his membership in CAP and purposely being evasive. This is exactly what Republicans do. They hide their extremist side in favor of looking moderate to the eyes of the viewer. What did the Republicans do for their 2004 Republican National Convention in New York? Who were their speakers besides that turncoat Zell Miller (R-GA)? Arnold Schwarzenegger (a fine paragon of family values) and Rudy Giuliani. They should have been Jerry Falwell, Grover Norquist, and Pat Robertson. Then we would have seen the truth about them and their platform.

The Good Witch of the South, Glinda had a pearl that would reveal itself to be white if the person was telling the truth, but would expose any liars by turning black. The witch Mombi was forced to reveal the true identity of the young boy Tip, who was actually Princess Ozma, heir to the throne hidden away after the Wizard of Oz usurped the throne from her father. If we had that pearl or in this case, a cat for they know all, the Democrats would be filibustering.

Nonetheless, the Democrats do not care about our concerns, but rather they are concerned in how the Republicans think of them. Let me give y'all a hint. It doesn't matter how much you go down on them much like Monica did to Bill. The Republicans will turn on you no matter what. They'll attack you no matter what you do with the help of their media whores. It doesn't matter. Show some DAMN courage for a change instead of being the Roman Senators who were cowed when the Praetorians pushed them around. They were scared stiff even to the point of giving their assent to the Praetorians' guy Julianus who won the throne in an auction as emperor. Except in this case, Bush isn't as blatant but uses 9/11 as his Praetorian Guard to push the legislative branch into doing his bidding.

In honor of the Republicans and their Masquerade, I present to you the immortal lyrics to the famous song in the greatest musicial of the 20th century (imho)

Seething shadows
breathing lies ...
You can fool
any friend who
ever knew you!

Friday, January 13, 2006

Cats in power >>>>>>>>>> Democrats > Republicans

Do you know WHY I say we'd be better off with cats in the Senate than our Democrats? Because cats have spine and don't give in. Just look when you have a cat on your lap. Can you get him or her off? Of course not, If you want to get up, TOUGH, DEAL WITH IT! If you want to sleep in at 4:30 am, but your cat is nudging you to get up to get him/her some food, you better damn well get up or expect nice presents showing the cat's appreciation. If your cat is sleeping on your keyboard or your book, you can't do your work until the cat wakes up lest you invite the divine goddess' wrath. Do you truly want to experience a solar flare sent by the goddess?

Our Democrats? They'll let Alito go in because well they don't want to stir up trouble and have the Republicans initiate the NUCLEAR OPTION. Of course in the Gang of 14, we have the senator that won the 2005 Weasel of the Year Award for an infuriating 41 GOP votes. Considering Ben Nelson more than doubled the number of weasel votes by the runner-up (Landrieu who had 19), why does he not join the GOP and get it over with? The other Democrats just express concern and think that they have satisfied their base's desires, forgetting that we can be just as vindicative as any freeper. I sent a letter ordering my senators to filibuster, but the only one I have hope in is Boxer, but she can't do it alone of course. Feinstein is nothing more than a DINO who believes in women's rights.

We are not the freepers who vote blindly for any Republican because he/she has a R next to the name. We have no qualms punishing the people who are supposed to represent us instead of corporations and lobbyists.

and in other news, we have discovered Jose Padilla's written application to Al Qaeda. Right, and I think dogs are superior to cats.

The danger of Alito and the Religious Right

"What we've worked on for 30 years, to mobilize people of faith and value in this country, what we've done through these years is coming to culmination right now," Falwell said at a rally on the eve of Alito's confirmation hearing.

"Now we're looking at what we really started on 30 years ago, reconstruction of a court system gone awry," Falwell said at a rally at a Baptist church in Philadelphia and broadcast on Christian radio and television.

"There could be a reconstruction of the U.S. Supreme Court in our immediate lifetime," said Falwell.

We have a cabal of religious theocrats who want to ensure that America becomes another religious-dominated state that sanctions THEIR form of religion only. For you Christians who support the Religious Right, but are not fundamentalist, you can see your religion demoted as the thing called freedom of religion is scattered like leaves into the wind. The fundies are not concerned with freedom of religion and what they call religious liberty. No, it is only a code word meant to gather sympathy for themselves only as it gives them the false impression of being martyrs oppressed for believing in their faith. Everyone loves a martyr who is willing to die for their faith, but they are not true martyrs, only wannabes who trivialize those who have actually suffered religious persecution.

They are not interested in religious freedom but like the Puritans, they only believe in the freedom to impose THEIR brand of Christianity on the whole population whether we like it or not. They seek to have their brand of Christianity recognized by the government as the official religion of the United States. The First Commandment is not compatible with the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment and the extreme fundamentalists who have become tainted with Christian Reconstructionism (like Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson) have taken it to mean that "You shall not have any other religion other than fundamentalism."

Any Christian who supports this group of fanatics is incredibly naive as if they think they will be allowed to worship freely. Who knows what can happen if the Reconstructionists take over the government? Will people be thrown in jail for being Catholic or Presbyterian? Will people be forced to pay taxes if they are not fundamentalist? Will people have their churches shut down and be forced to go underground? Will they even be executed for being the enemies of God? Will people be stoned for accidently taking the Lord's name in vain? Think I am exaggerating? The Religious Right already mocks those who speak out against them as if they are heretics attempting to speak for God. Just look at how they react to the Reverend Lynn or Father Andrew Greeley.

CHRISTIAN Reconstructionism holds that you must be a male that belongs to the right religion to even be considered able to vote. All other Christians and non-Christians will be deemed second-class citizens, if citizens at all without the right to vote. They advocate the death penalty for things such as talking back to your parent, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Many fundamentalists don't realize that they hold Reconstructionist ideas but this is what makes them dangerous. The media portrays them as mainstream Christians but in reality they are tainted with religious extremism.

The fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are our enemy. They are an intolerant bunch of self-righteous hypocritical Pharisees who want to impose their laws and standards of morality upon all Americans. THEY have forgotten the true teachings of Jesus while piously proclaiming themselves to be the mouthpieces of Jesus in the streets and corners, when Jesus condemned the Pharisees who prayed in the corners and fasted with glum faces so they could show off their "holiness." Pat Robertson fools his millions of viewers when he says that God struck down Ariel Sharon and brought upon the hurricanes in New Orleans. They believe that since he says that God did it, God must talk to him much as he did to the prophets of the Old Testament. This naiveity is extremely dangerous as it gives Robertson a false legitimacy and encourages him to speak out and advocate more assassinations.

No matter what you feel about abortion, the fact that the Religious Right came out in full support of Samuel Alito on Justice Sunday III, a blatant affront to the separation of church and state (but the IRS is more interested in going after left-leaning churches who oppose Bush's war), is sufficient enough that we must oppose his nomination. For if we don't, the takeover of our country by the corporates allied with the dominionists will be furthered until it will be too late. With an opposition party like the Democrats, it will be too late, and Bush will have completed his quest for absolute power in the hands of a dictatorship where he can write and interpret the laws anyway he wants or he could just bypass them and later rub it in our faces and ask what we're going to do about it. Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for a dictator-wannabe and we cannot trust them to hold Bush accountable for anything, even if he were to receive a blowjob from an intern.

Christian Reconstructionism is nothing more than a bunch of theocrat elites who will make the decisions and laws that govern this country based on their interpretation of the Bible. So if you eat shrimp, prepare to be executed. They are cunning in that they seek to gently acquaint us Americans to the idea of God's dominion in America by sugarcoating their language in the benign language of God and the Bible. They are trying to get the public riled up by using faux conflicts such as the War on Christmas to give Christians the feeling that they are being persecuted by the godless, Satanic liberals who want to crush the churches and drive them out of business.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Alito's confirmation means a theocracy as the corporatists could find a way to betray their unwitting allies in the Religious Right in the end. However, the dominionists and theocrats believe that it is their time and that if he is confirmed this will just give them a mandate to start taking over our society. Alito will tear down the wall between church and state and by the time the Democrats do something, it will be too late. They'll only express concern and the hearings will go through with Alito being confirmed. Two stolen elections => fascist state and/or theocracy allied with the corporations.

The Difference b/w Feline Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism

Feline Dominionism

Christian Reconstructionism

Who reigns over the world

Cats do, humans are only here to serve cats.

God gave humans dominion over the earth but that is to prepare for the coming. That is to be achieved by remaking America and later the world in the image of God's kingdoms.


None, the only law is for humans to serve cats as faithful
servants. Humans can do anything they want as long as they meet
the needs of cats. True freedom indeed.

The Bible, mainly Old Testament law. This means that talking back to your parents, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, etc. are all punishable by execution by either stoning, hanging, or by the "sword." Stoning preferred because it is cheap and stones are widely available.


No, cats reward us mere humans with love and companionship, cheering us up in our darkest hours.

Some like Rushdoony say yes, the Bible sanctions slavery.
Others like Gary North say no.



The Bible

Why humans exist?
To serve cats
dominion over the earth

Females in power

Absolutely, it is to be encouraged.

No, females in civic positions just mean that the society has
strayed far from God's path

Other religions

Accepted. Just love cats. Total freedom of religion.

No, only males who believe in the “right” form of
Christianity are allowed to vote. All others are not granted
citizenship and denied civil rights. Women are second-class citizens who exist only to serve the man.

Alito: definitely not the choice of cats

Just who were the ones choosing Alito? Just who were the ones who claim him as their chosen one for the Supreme Court? Not the people, that's for sure.

If abortion is your main reason for opposing him, it should be much more than that. Alito represents a threat to our democracy like none you've ever seen before well except for the Litterbox Shit Patrol. Nonetheless, he was picked by the Litterbox Administration exactly because of his views on Unitary Executive Theory which states that the executive, here the president, can do whatever the hell he wants without any fear of being held accountable. For those who say that when the Democrats come to power, this theory would apply to them are sadly mistaken. Bush and his cronies know that they have the voting machines on their side which would never allow a Democrat to become president no matter if he won. This is the finishing touches of the creeping fascism which the Litterbox Administration has sought to poison America with. Putting Alito on the court would give its fascist intentions the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.

This is perfect for the litterbox who infamously proclaimed that the 2004 election which he stole of course was his moment of accountability and that since he won, he did not have to be held accountable. Alito shares this view and will work towards an all-powerful Executive Branch that will gobble up the others much as Augustus and later Roman emperors reduced the Roman Senate to nothing more than a rubber-stamp committee. I would not be surprised if Bush called in the army to go into the Senate chamber to intimidate those pesky Senators much like some of the Roman emperors did back in the day. Congress is bowing to Bush much as the Roman Senate did to Augustus. Of course Augustus allowed them to compete for the prestige of winning those coveted seats but he held the real power.

Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (should be Concerned Assholes of Princeton), a group notorious for its extreme hostility to the university finally admitting women and minorities should be touted and exposed. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sought to lecture all of us in the meaning of bigotry, which is ironic because his party panders to racist hick rednecks in the South by attempting to proclaim that guilt by association is not to be condoned. Of course, if the Republicans hadn't done the same to Abe Fortas, we would take them seriously, but they are the party of "Do as I say, not as I do." The Republicans would want you to believe that he joined CAP because they were worried about the university kicking ROTC off the campus, but as Attytood points out, he joined ROTC to get out of going to Vietnam.

He was damn proud of his membership back in 1985 when he was applying for the position of deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese in 1985. His sudden amnesia is not credible as CAP as been exposed as a right-wing extremist group much like the John Birch Society. Republicans would like you to believe them when they distance themselves from their dark pasts. Bush wanted you to believe him when he said he did not know Kenny Boy Lay (even though he always called him Kenny Boy in a remarkable show of familiarity) and Republicans in the South wanted to distance themselves from the Uptown Klan, otherwise known as the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center many of them addressed.

In Alito's world, it is not the responsibility of the corporation to prove that they did not discriminate against any worker. Rather, it is the victim's responsibility to show proof. Judge Alito is so extreme that the really conservative 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-1 against him in a suit where the woman claimed she was fired for complaining about sexual harassment on the job. Alito sought to shift the burden of proof to the victim who in his view should have given proof that she was harassed, rather than management show proof that she was fired for valid reasons. The corporations and management always win in Alito's world, while the worker gets screwed over. It's not like Alito has any concern for the little guy. He'll listen to them in court, but he won't hear.

The Religious Right loves him. They see him as a savior who has come to redeem America and return it to the "Christian nation" it once was. Tony Perkins proclaimed, "The threat to our religious liberties has not diminished," meaning court rulings on restricting the display of the Ten Commandments in public places, the judge striking down ID in Dover, PA, and forbidding the Indiana House of Representatives from beginning their sessions with prayers that specifically address Jesus. I cannot stress enough that the Religious Right's rhetoric on religious liberty sounds benign but is nothing more than a Trojan Horse meant to lure us into a false sense of security. I've said it over and over again that everyone feels sorry for a martyr and those persecuted for their religious beliefs. The Religious Right have realized this and have used this sympathy to gather support for their extremist agenda. Religious liberty only means for their right to impose their standards of morality and their religion on the rest of us, unwilling or not. Perkins claims that he has no interest in a theocracy, but only for the right of a church to speak out the "truth." Yet, his attempts to ban gay marriage and to deem homosexuals second-class citizens belies this claim. The very fact that he has to defend himself against the notion of being a theocrat should be a red flag.

Alito doesn't give a damn about the little guy, but is nothing more than a corporate whore who is acceptable to the Religious Right who seek to reconstruct the courts in the image of God or something like that. Alito will work for the breaking down of the barrier between church and state. He will work for a fascist America where what's good for GM is good for America and the worker gets screwed while the corporations get some. In addition, he has his trouble with ethics as he refused to recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard mutual fund company even though he had financial ties to it, much like Scalia refused to recuse himself in a case involving his duck-hunting buddy Dick Cheney who took him on a paid-trip hunting. Predictably, he ruled in favor of Cheney.

Alito believes in a Big Brother government alright, but what's the catch? When it comes to corporate America, he holds the belief that the government if it tried to regulate corporations and big business would only be interfering with commerce. Big Business should be left alone to discriminate as it pleases, to abuse its workers, to pay sub-standard wages. Nonetheless, Big Brother needs to be in our bedrooms and our living rooms because we're the little guys in the whole picture.

The only thing we can do besides offering grade A+ catnip to the goddess is to call or email our senators to filibuster. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to our democracy as we knew it, only to be replaced with Augustus' imperial throne cloaked by the toga candida, which candidates for public office wore when they presented themselves at the Forum, truly a symbol of the citizenship.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?