Wednesday, May 26, 2010

LESTER MADDOX WAS RIGHT, MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS WRONG: According to Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Rand Paul


Asked by Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) if private businesses have the right to refuse service to Black people, Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Rand Paul stated, "Yes." (NY Times, "Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar on Civil Rights," May 21, 2010) 


Embraced by the Tea Party in Kentucky and nationally, Paul won the GOP senate primary in KY. 

During the campaign, Rand Paul also stated:

- the mandatory retirement age for Social Security ought to be raised to 70

- the Americans with Disabilities Act (signed into law by President George H.W. Bush) is probably illegal.

So, according to GOP / Tea Party Candidate Rand Paul:

1. Americans ought to be required to work to age 70

2. businesses do not have to accommodate employees or customers with disabilities

3. Lester Maddox was right and Martin Luther King, Jr was wrong.

That's three strikes - in Kentucky and everywhere. 



Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Tea Party Backed NC Candidate: Claims to be the Messiah, Yet Failed to Raise a Dead Person

Is it asking too much of the Messiah to pay child support? 


Maybe, but it ought to be part of that job description to be able to raise the dead.


Tim D'Annunzio is running for Congress in North Carolina and is ahead in the polls. 


Tim D'Annunzio:


- has claimed to be the Messiah


- once traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead


- stated his belief that God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland


- said he had found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona


- has been treated by a doctor for heroin dependence


- doesn't pay child support.


NOTE: Tim has been endorsed by the Tea Party Movement.     


NOTE 2: I got this from the Slatest May 25 2010, who got some of it from the Associated Press. 


And now you get it from me. 

Friday, May 21, 2010

Father John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix: "This is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."


Fr. John Ehrich is wrong in his endorsement of  the excommunication of a nun, by Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, for authorizing an abortion. (See NPR item, below.)
Bishop Olmsted was wrong in the act of excommunication and Fr. Ehrich is wrong in his interpretation of Canon Law. Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers allows procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. 
Fr. Ehrich compounds his error by tritely stating, "the end does not justify the means." If ends do not justify means, what does?  
It is, shamefully, so-o much easier for the hierarchy to condemn a woman - a nun - than ever to condemn a man - a priest pedophile - who gratifies his sexual appetite with prepubescent children, who have been placed in his care. 
_______________________________
NPR - May 19, 2010
Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had "right heart failure," and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."
The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.
"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception — called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.
The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.
"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."
Ehrich adds that under canon or church law, the nun should be expelled from her order, the Sisters of Mercy, unless the order can find an alternative penalty. Ehrich concedes that the circumstances of this case were "hard."
"But there are certain things that we don't really have a choice" about, he says. "You know, if it's been done and there's public scandal, the bishop has to take care of that, because he has to say, 'Look, this can't happen.' "
A Double Standard?
But according to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, the bishop "clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated." Doyle says Olmsted could have looked at the situation, realized that the nun faced an agonizing choice and shown her some mercy. He adds that this case highlights a "gross inequity" in how the church chooses to handle scandal.
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in 2003
EnlargeRoy Dabner/AP
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, shown here in 2003, declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated because she allowed a patient at a Catholic hospital to get an abortion. But some say her quick punishment stands in stark contrast to the protection many pedophile priests have received from their bishops.
"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.
Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.
"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.
Ehrich agrees that sexual abuse can't be tolerated. But he says neither can McBride's actions.
"She said, 'Yes, you can kill that unborn child.' That's a heinous act. And I'm not going to make a distinction between what's worse. They're both abhorrent," Ehrich says.
Ehrich says the nun can be admitted back into the Catholic community by going to confession and repenting. McBride still works at the hospital in another position. Whether she is allowed to remain in her religious order, Erich says that is up to the Sisters of Mercy.

Friday, May 14, 2010

MICHAEL STEELE: PLAYING THE ERASE CARD


Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, cannot bring himself to mention the name of Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993, Supreme Court Justice: 1967-91). 


Yet Steele wants to deflate the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan was a law clerk to Marshall.


What to do? Well, why not link Kagan to comments Marshall made and simply not mention Marshall? That might work. 



So, on May 10, 2010, Steele posted a criticism of Kagan on the Republican National Committee website [text posted below], which criticized her for supporting "statements" that the US Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’” 


Steele did not acknowledge that the "statements" endorsed by Kagan were those of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who spent a legal lifetime undermining the Constitutional provisions which enshrined human slavery in the United States.


Would anyone argue today that the US Constitution is not defective for its endorsement of human slavery?


Would anyone suggest that Justice Marshall was wrong in pointing this out?


Michael Steele's rhetorical slight of hand is both sad and provocative. 


Michael Steele's gambit provokes sadness. As a prominent citizen, an African American, he simply cannot publicly align his political party with the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. But nor can he dare to refute this legacy. 


Steele's sad solution is to allude to Kagan's second-hand critique of the slavery provisions in the US Constitution but without identifying her authority: Thurgood Marshall. To criticize Kagan as hostile to the US Constitution, Steele had to at least try to erase from public discourse the person who had asserted before Kagan, that the original Constitution was defective: Thurgood Marshall. 


Michael Steele's rhetorical slight of hand is provocative because he knows that the nomination of Elena Kagan represents the ethnic, racial and cultural diversity, which is reflected in the America of today. Michael Steele knows America is not the America of the GOP.


To his dubious credit, Michael Steele sees the GOP for what it can be for members of racial minorities, such as himself - a source of income for the individual, who is willing to be trotted out in public, as a Republican party representative. 


Because the broad concerns of non-white citizens receive no hearing in GOP circles, there is a rewarding personal a role for such as Michael Steele, and he has played it well, first in Maryland and now as titular head of the national GOP. 


In Maryland, Steele ran successfully for Lt. Governor, but only on the condition that he be paid $5,000 per month during the campaign. His condition was met. 


Now, as GOP Chairman, Steele draws a handsome salary and also charges for speaking around the country. If the concerns of minorities do not do well in GOP circles, Steel has at least found a way to do well for himself. But only by such ploys as erasing the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. 


Photo credit: tpmlivewire, May 10, 2010

_________________________


Here is the text of Michael Steele's statement:




Over the past year, the American people have been witness to President Obama's massive expansion of the federal government into our daily lives. To assure the American people, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, will need to demonstrate that she is committed to upholding the vision of our Founding Fathers, who wrote a Constitution meant to limit the power of government, not expand it.
The President has stated repeatedly that he wants a justice who will understand the effects of decisions on the lives of everyday Americans. But what Americans want is a justice who will stay true to the Constitution and defend the rights of all Americans, adhering to the rule of law instead of legislating from the bench. Given Kagan's opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school's campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution "as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective,'" you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan's qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.


Wednesday, May 12, 2010

“If a burglar breaks into your home, do you serve him dinner? That is pretty much what they do there with illegals.”

In a not very neighborly criticism of NEW MEXICO, Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh (Republican) said: "If a burglar breaks into your home, do you serve him dinner? That is pretty much what they do there with illegals.” 


Fair is fair, so New Mexico's Governor, Democrat Bill Richardson said this about Arizona's new law, which makes it a state crime to be in Arizona without proof of citizenship: “There is a decided positive in encouraging biculturalism and people working and living together instead of inciting tension. The worry I have about Arizona is it is going to spread. It arouses the nativist instinct in people.”


It is not difficult to tell who is more representative of diverse America.


(All quotes from "Side by Side, but Divided Over Immigration" NY Times May 12 2010)







Government Exempted BP from Environmental Review


Government Exempted BP from Environmental Review

Salazar-ken

Federal government regulators exempted British Petroleum from a comprehensive environmental review of the project that resulted in the recent catastrophic and ongoing oil gush into the Gulf of Mexico. According to recently released documents, the Minerals Management Service granted BP a “categorical exclusion” from a full review before approving the project just over a year ago.

NOTE TO SELF AND EVERY ONE: Let's stop calling this event "a spill."

Above item & photo of Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar: credit democarcynow.org

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Fox News' Eric Bolling: American citizens "pay taxes," as opposed to "illegals not paying taxes."

QUICK FACT: Fox's Bolling falsely claims "illegals" are "not paying taxes"
On the May 1 edition of Bulls and Bears, Fox News host Eric Bolling claimed claimed that American citizens "pay taxes," as opposed to "illegals not paying taxes." In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes, including individual income, sales, property, and social security taxes. 



For more details , see Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org/research/201005020006?lid=1112202&rid=45811457