Liberty and Justice for All!

Family members of the victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing are protesting the building of a Catholic Church 2 blocks away from what used to be the Alfred P. Murrah building. They claim that since Tim McVeigh was raised a Catholic that erecting a church so close would be a reminder to the victims of that tragedy of what happened. One police officer who worked the scene after the attack was quoted as saying:

It breaks my heart for the families who have to put up with this. I understand they’re [building] it in a respectful way, but it just shouldn’t be down there.

Another person was quoted as saying:

It’s a sacred ground where these people died, where my brother was murdered, and to be in the shadows of that religion, it’s just hypocritical and sacrilegious.

Sound absurd to you? Does it sound ridiculous that anybody would think that the building of a church should be prevented because other people raised in that religion committed horrible atrocities?

Well it should. And there is no controversy about a church being built near the site of the Oklahoma City Bombing. However, those quotes are in response to the building of a mosque close to the remains of the World Trade Center. The Cordoba House is a complex being built two blocks away from the former WTC. It is being constructed in part by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Part of the complex will contain a mosque.

If those quotes sounded ridiculous when made about a church, they should sound just as absurd when made about a mosque. Yes, the terrorists who attacked us on 9.11 did so in the name of Islam. That does not mean that all followers of Islam are terrorists. The person responsible for reporting the smoking vehicle to the police was also a member of Islam. He is a hero.

We also have this thing in our country called the freedom of religion that is protected by the Constitution. People who do not think that Muslims should not be able to practice their faith freely in this country are about as un-American as they come.

Jeff Crouere discussed this and I called in at the 1:40 mark. You can here the show here.

Jeff claims that the family victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks should have been consulted. However, as you can see in the article, some family members support the building of the mosque.

     I lost 16 friends down there. But Muslims also got killed on 9/11. It would be a good sign of faith that we’re not condemning all Muslims and that the Muslims who did this happened to be extremists. As a black man, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against when you haven’t done anything.

Daisy Kahn, the executive director of the muslim society was quoted in the article as well. So many people have complained “why havn’t Muslims came out against these attacks and these activities if the people involved in them are extremists and not part of the mainstream”. Remember people asking that? Well, anyone with internet access back then could have easily found quotes by Muslims condemning the attacks. Kahn said of this project:

It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum.

Seems as if the people building this complex want to stop the extremism in their own community and view their complex as a way to do just that. Something like that should be encouraged, not condemned. We should be building bridges with the Muslim community and not condemning all of them for the few who feel that violence is the answer.

I have added a new section to my cafepress store. It is called “Porn vs Whores“.

Stormy Daniels, potential porn star politician, has joined the Grand Ole Party.  Many assume that she will be challenging David “serious sinner” Vitter in the GOP primary.

What is great about a Stormy Daniels candidacy is that David Vitter cannot attack her personal morality without reminding people of his own “serious sins” with prostitutes.

I am not supporting any GOP candidate in this race. I am just stating my opinion on the question of what behavior is better: legal sexual behavior or illegal sexual behavior?

If you agree that Porn > Whores, buy the bumper sticker (or buy in bulk and share with your friends). I will be creating more content shortly.

The GOP has chosen David Vitter to be first up to bat when it comes to derailing this bill to fix the Senate bill.

This means that David Vitter is now on record as wanting to kill the legislation that would have eliminated the “Cornhusker Compromise” and that would have eliminated the “Donut Hole”.

Again, do the Republicans really want to be on the record as the party who fights to keep the “Cornhusker Compromise” (or Cornhusker Kickback) in the healthcare bill? Do the Republicans really want to be on the record as the party who fights to keep the Medicare Donut Hole? Do the Republicans really want to have serious sinner David Vitter as their lead spokesperson? Really?

You say that the Democrats should not use options that get around a filibuster to pass healthcare reform.

If they do, and if as Eric Cantor suggested, the Democrats lose their majorities because of it… would you use options that bypass the filibuster to overturn the legislation?

If so, why does that not confirm your hypocrisy?

Rachel Madow criticized GOP Representative Shock for his attacking the stimulus and then taking credit for projects funded by the stimulus. His response?

With all due respect, Rachel, does that mean you’re going to give back your Bush tax cuts that you continue to rail against?

This was a lame argument when he made it himself. But then I started reading it all over the place. Politico mentions Garrett saying pretty much the same thing.

Garrett said Democrats have accepted the Bush-era tax cuts although many voted against them.

But that really isn’t true. Democrats supported Barack Obama for President. Barack Obama, as a candidate for President, said that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making $250,000 or more. Obviously the people who are Democrats who are exposing the GOP hypocrisy want those tax cuts rolled back. But they have to file their taxes just like anyone else. So until those taxes are rolled back, they are required by law to fill out their tax forms that include those cuts.

And remember, we are not criticizing the GOP for actually spending the funds. The funds are there and have a purpose, to create jobs and put Americans back to work. What we are criticizing is the constant claims that the stimulus didn’t create jobs and is bad for the economy and then turning around and using the projects created by the stimulus to propel your political career.

So not only do the GOP fail for their hypocrisy, they fail again in trying to expose a supposed hypocrisy (that does not exist) on the part of the Democrats.

Nobody has used the filibuster as much as the GOP has this year. The GOP are even filibustering bills that they would support of they were in power just to hand Obama political defeats. To them, political victories are more important than passing policy (even if the policy is one that they would agree with).

That being said, there are liberals who are saying that you only need a majority to eliminate the 60 vote cloture requirement. Senator Tom Udall believes that it can be done at the beginning of each Congress when they “set the rules”. He is calling it the “constitutional” option.

The Constitution is clear. It allows the Senate to make its own rules. Any rule that the Senate makes must then be deemed constitutional (unless it violates a specific requirement placed on Congress listed in the Constitution). The Constitution does not require the rules to be rewritten every term.

You and I both know that had the GOP actually used parliamentary trickery to eliminate the filibuster when they had control, that the Democrats would have cried foul. Had they actually used the “nuclear option”, they would have been the target of harsh campaign ads.

Democrats, we all want to point out that the GOP is being a bunch of hypocrites for campaigning against the stimulus while using the funds in the stimulus to bolster their political careers. However, when making that argument we need to do so with clean hands. If we start acting like Republicans in trying to eliminate the filibuster by doing it outside of a simple rules change as defined in the Senate rules, we will look like hypocrites (well, you will… because I do not agree with parliamentary trickery and am firmly stating so here).

There is a movement going on called PASS. It stands for Parent Approved Skip School day. Conservatives have a letter ready to go to their principal in Mandeville telling her that they intend to keep their child home from school on this coming Tuesday because  they want to “make it clear to you, your staff, other parents, and (most importantly) our child, that we do not support this President or his his radical leftist agenda.”

So they are keeping their kids home from school in an act of  “civil disobedience”. But it seems they have forgotten an important part of the act of civil disobedience. And that is when you commit an act of civil disobedience, you must also be willing to deal with the consequences of that act.

They write in that letter: “Our son, __________ will be prepared to make up any classwork he has missed. We expect he will be given an opportunity to make up any tests as well.”

I say nay nay!  Of all the horrible lessons that they are teaching their kids (that you should skip school if you disagree with the subject matter or that you should not listen to people who disagree with you), this may very well be the worst lesson that they can teach their children… that your actions do not have consequences. If they want to keep their kids home from school then that is their call. But this should not count as an excused absence and if there are tests on that day, too bad. Little Johnny gets a 0. After all, that is the consequence of missing school with an unexcused absence. I hope their kids grow up and when they are late for curfew say “but that’s ok Dad, I was practicing ‘civil disobedience’ and as you showed me when I was younger, acts of civil disobedience require no punishment”.

I also want to point out, as others have pointed out so far, the absolute hypocrisy of the arguments made by these conservatives. They claim that the President should not use children to push his agenda. But Ronald Reagan did just that by explaining why we should cut taxes. They claim that President Obama is awful for asking kids to write and tell him how they can help Obama “achieve his goals”. Even if that was the case (which it isn’t, the Department of Education was talking about students achieving their own goals) it shouldn’t matter because President George H. W. Bush asked students: “Write me a letter on ways you can help us achieve our goals”

Obama is doing a good thing by suggesting that kids should stay in school and by telling them how important an education can be. But people hate him so much that they just have to turn every positive Obama does into a negative, even if it means that they are hypocritical when they likely supported their former GOP presidents while they did the same thing. With all that, and with their teaching their children terrible lessons (that their actions should have no consequences), this is why conservatives who are against Obama speaking to the schools should be constantly mocked and ridiculed for their foolish behavior. It is time we drew a line in the sand and said “no more” to this foolishness.

Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? 

No. And where were the conservatives when this Republican Senator pushed this back in 2007? And they get mad when we suggest that this is fake outrage and these protests are astroturf and not grassroots?

Read the link and share it with your friends, especially conservative ones who believe the crap Palin and other wackos and liars are telling them.

Republicans often threatened to use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the ability of Democrats to filibuster the judicial nominees of President Bush. Harry Reid has stated that Democrats have taken the “nuclear option” off the table.

I was waiting to see what might happen if the Republicans prove themselves (again) to be hypocrites by actually going against the false claim that an “up or down vote” is required by the Constitution (especially since talks of judicial filibusters are gearing up). I was ready to criticize Democrats had they threatened to use the nuclear option. I am glad that I don’t have to.

Jindal spoke to a GOP fundraiser last night and again proved himself to be a hypocrite.

Calling for more civility in politics, Jindal said “it is wrong to suggest that this new administration has anything other than good intentions.” He said the tendency in politics is to talk about the other party as if its members are “sinister people.”

Really? Is that why your campaign for Governor claimed that people who opposed you were part of some corrupt crowd? Bobby Jindal really needs to learn to practice what he preaches. When he doesn’t, the media needs to call him out on it.

During his trip to Washington, Jindal attended a fundraiser hosted by former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-Metairie, now a lobbyist, and was to attend another fundraiser today — both benefiting his 2011 re-election campaign.

Because Louisiana is prospering in this economic boom so there is not much for Governor Jindal to do back at home. And of course, Jindal and his staff would never use taxpayer funds to cover expenses on these trips, right? Wrong!

While the Governor uses campaign funds for travel that is not state business, his staff and security detail bill the state taxpayers for their expenses. In addition, taxpayers foot the bill for all of the car rentals that the Governor and his staff use on all of these trips regardless of the purpose.

And this was supposed to be the ethical governor? Are you kidding me? What do you say now Jindal apologists?

Cross posted at Jindal is Bad.