Liberty and Justice for All!

California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger wrote in a court brief:

A day may come when the people decide to legalize same-sex marriage. But such a social change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary so long as constitutional rights are protected

Hmmm, if we waited on important social change to come from the people instead of the judiciary, I wonder if we would still have separate schools. I guess this legal scholar forgets the necessity of that little ruling called “Brown v. Board of Education“. Does he feel that the Brown ruling was inappropriate? I wonder how long interracial marriages would have been outlawed had it been left to the people instead of being decided by “Loving v. Virginia“? I feel sorry for the people of California if this is the kind of legal representation they have in their DA office.

Anti-gay marriage activists also feel that:

 limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex is reasonable — not only to uphold tradition but because California voters approved a ballot initiative eight years ago bolstering the gay-marriage ban that was in place at the time. To overturn that law, they say, would abrogate the rights of all Californians.

So let me get this straight, allowing gay people to marry abrogates the rights of all Californians? That is absurd! If they don’t feel that gay people have the Constitutionally protected right to get marriage, how on Earth do they figure that Californians have a Constitutionally protected right to live in a state where gay people are discriminated against?

How about this. Maybe, just maybe, if people spent more time worrying about their own marriages instead of worrying about other people getting married, we wouldn’t have such an abysmal divorce rate! Just my humble opinion.

Now Jindal wants to give people tax breaks if they send their children to non-public schools. Isn’t that just a backdoor voucher?  

How about this. Instead of trying to help people leave public schools, let’s work to make public schools in Louisiana the best public schools in the nation.

If you want to give “tax breaks” to people, let’s give it to all people and not just to people whose children attend n0n-public schools.

When its ajar! Now… when is a voucher not a voucher? When it’s a scholarship!

Jindal’s top budget adviser, Commissioner of Administration Angele Davis, said the program would offer scholarships to students in New Orleans that they could use to “go to any school of their choice.”

This falls under the same idea as the Tangipahoa School Board’s trying to use government as an arm to promote religion.

“Is it vouchers, or is it not vouchers,” [Karen Carter] Peterson said.

“No, it’s a scholarship program,” Davis replied.

Suuuuure it is. A “scholarship program” *wink wink, nudge nudge* that allows public funds to be spent by students to go to a religious school. It will be interesting to see, when they come out, the details of this “scholarship program” and how exactly it differs from a “voucher program”.

The Jeff. Parish school board voted to finally follow federal law requiring for the redistricting of schools. This was something that was required of them and had they not taken action, it is likely that a court would have made its own redistricting plan sometime later.

A woman was shown on the news complaining that her 11th grade daughter, if moved, would have to make new friends in a new setting and it was unfair to her. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? First and foremost, in the age of the Internet, instant messaging, emailing, text messaging, and other forms of instant communication, there is no reason why she would have lost contact with her friends at her former school.

Secondly, I would hope that her daughter is going to college. When she goes to college she will likely be placed in a situation where she would have to make new friends. A 17 year old should be able to handle meeting new people and making friends. IF she had to move schools, she could just consider it practice for her college career.

Finally, what the board passed grandfathered 10th and 11th grade students in. So she really had nothing to complain about.

But let’s all be honest and realize what this is all about: Racism.

There are several parents who don’t want to change districts so their kids would then be going to school with “those people”. Just look at some of the comments made on nola.com.

“Don’t worrie now they are all going to fail the proof is in the pudding look at New Orleans it is just a matter of time before Jefferson will be all getto “

Then there is this gem, referencing the great white flight:

I see a Northshore realty boom coming.

I guess this person believes in the concept of “separate but equal”:

SEPERATE the good from the bad. That is the only way.

Actually, it seems like the poster proves why “separate but equal” doesn’t work, since he/she considers those who go to non-public schools to be better.

And of course there was this lovely post:

GOD NO, PLEASE DO NOT ENCOURAGE ANYONE ELSE TO COME TO THE NORTHSHORE- WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE TRASH OUT!!!!

THE NEXT THING THAT YOU KNOW- THE BLACKS WILL SCREW UP THE JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOLS LIKE THEY DID IN NEW ORLEANS AND DEMAND TO ATTEND ST TAMMANY SCHOOLS.

The whole thing just disgusts me. It is a shame that the education some of these parents are giving their kids is that it is OK to judge someone based on their skin color alone. They teach their kids that it is OK to be ignorant racists. These people are just idiots and what is ironic is that if they move because of  this, well, their leaving will make Jefferson Parish a better place.

Here is a news flash, if you are worried about your kid going to school with black people… the problem is not the black people, the problem is you.

Previously I discussed that Democrats need better wordsmiths. The debate tonight continues that concept. Hillary did have one good line where she stated that it took one Clinton to fix the mess one Bush made, maybe it will take another Clinton to fix the mess of this Bush.

However, she still needs some wordsmiths. Hillary was asked if she made a mistake or was naive when she voted to authorize force in Iraq.

She gave her answer which went all over the place. Her answer should have been:

“No. It was not a mistake. I made a decision based on what was presented to me as facts. The President lied. Had the President not misled us, I would have voted differently. But that was not my mistake, it was his lie. He should take all the blame. The question we should ask now is why are there still Republicans who still support his failed policies.”

It is really that simple. It is just like how John Kerry should have stopped saying “I voted for the war before I voted against it” and should have said “I voted to give the President power to take appropriate action. The action he took was not appropriate”.

I also had an issue with one of Obama’s answers. In the discussion of the decision to give the President power to take action. Hillary stated that we have used the threat of force to cause other people to take action before. Obama criticized the vote to authorize force because he said that she had to know that the President could take military action with the authority granted.

Now, hindsight is 20/20 and all reasonable people wish that we had not given the President the power to take action. However, how effective would legislation been that was geared to make Saddam take action if it lacked the teeth to back up the demands? It is like the mall security guard running after you saying “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!”.

Basically, Congress should be able to authorize the President to use the threat of force and trust that the President will use that power responsibly. Because Bush failed to use his power responsibly does not mean that we should be blaming those who he misled.

Before the SOTU, Tim Russert was discussing the approval rating of the President (less than 40%). He then mentioned that the Congress has an approval rating of less than 20%. Of course, he ignores the reason why Congress has an approval rating that is so low. This reason is because the Democrats won the 2006 elections with a mandate to end the war and turn this country around. Republicans are obstructing that mandate. This is why the approval rating is so low.

Bush wants us to make the tax cuts permanent. Of course he does! He has no more control after this year and he feels that his cuts are actually a good idea. He is wrong. Does that mean that all tax cuts are wrong? No. Do I think that just because someone is rich that they never should get a tax break? No. I do believe that tax cuts must be responsible and that we should not be increasing spending while cutting taxes. And for those who would bring up the laffer curve, well, you have to prove you are on the correct side of the curve before you know that decreasing taxes will increase revenue. The argument that many blind followers of the party bring up is that decreasing taxes ALWAYS decreases revenue. This is obviously flawed.

Bush stated that he will issue an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from spending money that was not issued to them by a vote of Congress. Does this mean that he will stop spending money on faith based initiatives that come from his executive budget that circumvent the budget process as well? I don’t think so.

Bush discussed the idea of free trade, and that we can help domestic workers by opening up to foreign markets. That sounds nice and good but in reality it doesn’t work. When you sign free trade agreements with countries whose labor laws are less restrictive than ours, it places our workers at a competitive disadvantage. If corporations in other countries can develop cheaper goods and sell them here, our workers suffer. If corporations in our country can find cheaper labor overseas, our workers suffer. The blind faith that conservatives have in free trade is flawed and dangerous. They do so at their own peril.

Bush wants to empower judges who say that the Constitution means what it says. He then states that the judges deserve an “up or down vote”. I challenge the President, or any other conservative who likes to use the phrase ”up or down vote” to show me where the Constitution requires an up or down vote on judicial nominees.

Towards the end, Bush continued to say all that terrorists are doing around the world. I would comment on that as well. However, why should we believe anything this President has to say on terrorism after 7 years of lies and deceit?

Yes I support the troops, that’s why I want them home. Yes I support going after terrorists, kill them before they kill us. But like the little boy who called wolf, Bush can no longer be trusted.

Update #1: As I watch this on my DVR (after much pausing) I heard Bush talking about honoring those who serve our country. How can he say this with a straight face after saying that a pay raise for them is unnecessary?

And for Bush to talk about Liberty? That is just laughable.

The Center for Public Integrity came out with its “War Card“, a report on how many times Bush and his administration gave false statements to the public. Their count is at least 935!

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

The center points out key false statements made by officials and point out why they are wrong. I am disappointed in our administration, the least they could have done is gotten an even 1000. But you know our President, always underachieving.

I may post more on this later. However, the site needs to be forwarded to as many people as possible so I thought it best to provide the link now.

Bush used a pocket veto on the Defense Authorization Bill …

that includes a provision by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., to make the primary mission of U.S. counter-terror operations the capture al Qaeda leaders, and to increase pay to military service members.

Seems like Mary Landrieu supports the troops and has a clear view on what the actual target of our anti-terrorism activities should be. Geaux Mary!

When Hillary Clinton was asked “Are you looking to end this war or win it?” she responded “I’m looking to bring our troops home”.

Progressives, liberals, Democrats and any of the other labels you want to place on those who want and end to this war will stand up and applaud those comments. However, we need to not just pander to our base. We need to have our candidates anticipate the Republican attacks on the statements that are made and cut them off at the pass.

By saying what she said, anybody can see the Republican attack on it now. “When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wants to win the war, she did not say yes”. The flag will be flying in the background, with a shot of our troops, and maybe some 9-11 imagery.

Assuming the view that we have not won the war yet is correct, Hillary Clinton should have said is this:

“The only way to win the war is with diplomacy and an expectation of Iraq to take its duty to defend itself seriously. By bringing our troops home and uplifting a Democratically elected Iraq, we win this war by winning the peace.”

Now, I am of the opinion that the war was won years ago when Saddam was toppled and the reason Bush is still in Iraq is to use it as a terrorist magnet (and thus perpetuating the terrorist problem with our own actions and justifying, in his mind, our continued presence). So if I was on the stage, I would have stated:

“This war was won when we toppled Saddam’s regime. Now we have to win the peace and we cannot do so without the Iraqi people embracing their duty to take care of themselves. The best way to do this is a structured withdrawal from Iraq that includes the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. Such provisions where included in HR 1591. However, the Republican obstructionists who are blindly following the failed “stay the course” policies of our President blocked that legislation from coming forward”.

By saying something like this, Hillary would have been able to both get the applause from the progressives while also presenting a preemptive attack against the Republican statements that we all know will come.

So called “pro-majority” protestors marched on Jena today to proudly show how Louisiana still has a long way to go when it comes to race relations. Not only did they re-open the old sore that was created with the Jena Six controversy, they showed that Louisiana still has people that embrace the days of old. I am sure that these people would want slavery reinstated in the name of so called “white civil rights”.

To make these racists look even more ignorant, they brought their own firearms with them (even though a Louisiana law prevents marching when armed).

To complete the show of ignorance, one of the marchers actually stated:

“It’s time for us white folks to start getting some of our rights back.”

News flash, white folks have not lost any rights (unless he feels that owning slaves is a right that a white person should have). I guess the good thing about this march was that they could only find 50 pathetic losers to march. At least that shows that they are unorganized.