MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)

I could not agree more. I'm impressed by both the talent and the courage of Macklemore and Ryan Lewis.

Religious Zealotry

These are modern times.  Religious Zealotry is no longer confined to the worship of a god or goddess.  It can be an equally blind dedication to any idol, a dedication that moves beyond admiration or even belief and into worship at the expense of all other goals, ideas, morals and principles.

While we are all familiar with the traditional religious zealotry of the far right conservative Christians and the Islamic Fundamentalists, there is equal and even more destructive zealotry on what we call the "left" or Progressive end of the political spectrum.

Because such zealotry is blind, the zealots often don't realize they are violating their very own stated principles and ideals.  Lately I've seen way too many examples of the leftist zealotry and it makes me terribly uncomfortable.

As a Liberal I strongly believe in diversity, tolerance and acceptance of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and even diverse value sets and lifestyles.  This view or principle is stated often by ALL who claim to be liberals and progressives.  You can see it and read it and discuss it on every liberal blog and progressive forum.  Tolerance and acceptance are the holy grail of Liberal beliefs.

Except........ it seems the VAST and VOCAL majority of self proclaimed liberals and progressives don't believe a damned word of it.  It seems their beliefs on any issue is actually a RELIGIOUS DOGMA that cannot and must not ever be violated.  These so-called Liberals are nothing more than the Taliban of the Left.

One need look no further than famous (and incredibly talented) actor Brad Pitt's mother to see the Taliban of the Left in action.

Jane Pitt wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper in response to another letter.  In what ought to be a liberal example of TOLERANCE she actually admonished a conservative Christian for his prejudice against the Mormon religion.  Jane Pitt urged fellow Christians to vote for the man who shared their ideals of being "pro-life" and opposing "gay marriage," even if Mr. Romney didn't share their exact Christian faith.

Now, to be certain Jane was vocal and aggressive in her opposition to President Obama attacked his positions on these same issues.

Of course I personally disagree with Jane Pitt's position on both gay marriage and abortion.  But, tragically, many of my fellow (not really) liberals and progressives took it much further.

Hollywood rose up and attacked Mrs. Pitt with vile and horrific glee.  And the Twitterverse was even worse:

“BRAD PITT’S MOM WROTE AN ANTI-GAY PRO-ROMNEY EDITORIAL. KILL THE B***H.”
“Brad Pitt’s mom, die”

“F*** you, Brad Pitt’s mom. The gay community made your kid a star, you whacko.”

“Brad Pitt’s mother…what a brainless old b***h…”

“Brad Pitt’s Mom Slams Obama, Gays. That stand makes her a deluded, dumba** Fascist Repuke”

“I hope Brad Pitt has been supporting his mother and decides to cut her off. What a b***h.”

“Brad Pitt’s mom can choke on a (redacted).”

Jane Pitt has also received numerous death threats and the attacks are unrelenting.  The Hollywood attacks have been played out all over television. 

What disgusts me most is that (so far) Brad Pitt himself has been silent.  He can't bring himself to step up to the plate and defend his mother. In fact the only prominent Hollywood voice to defend Mrs. Pitt is Jon Voight, Brad Pitt's Father-in-Law (Angelina Jolie's father).

As usual, conservative firebrand Michelle Malkin has said it best: "Hollywood and the American left love diversity, except when it offends their “progressive” value system."

An excellent article on Jane Pitt's letter and the Hollywood backlash can be found in The Huffington Post

UPDATE 7/12/2012: Brilliant blogger B. Daniel Blatt also defends Jane Pitt over on The Gay Patriot.  This short essay is a must read confirmation of the misplaced hatred of the left in attacking Mrs. Pitt unfairly.

Til the Thames Freezes Over, Part Three

There is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy out there determined to PROVE ME RIGHT about everything I've written over the last three days.  I don't like writing about any topic for three days.  Hell, I'd love not to visit this topic ever again.  If only the Church of the Holy Global Warming would let it be.


If any of you didn't read my two previous blog entries, here are direct links:
Til the Thames Freezes Over
Til the Thames Freezes Over, Part Two


For those of you who just want to cut to the chase, my point these last two days is that the Global Warming Zealots (who may or may not be correct in their science and beliefs) will tolerate NO DISAGREEMENT with their orthodoxy.  Just like the early Christian Church, the Afgan Taliban and other tight religious orthodoxies, they persecute, hound and attempt to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with their version of the facts.

Their next victims will be any local television weathermen who might not follow the Global Warming Script to the letter.  Firing will be the minimum punsihment, stoning is not out of the question.


Here's today's latest example, courtesy of Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin:

Global Warmists Seek to Flush Out ‘Denier’ Meteorologists

The ultimate goal is to clone Al Gore to serve as a weatherman at every local television station so he can offer the patented Hypocrite-Cast® nightly, but that can’t happen if there are still global warming deniers allowed on the air:

The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs.

“Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,” the group explains on their website. “We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.”

According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

This seems incredibly counter-productive, because the more successful they are in adding names to the ever-growing meteorologist denier list, the faster the notion of “scientific consensus” goes out the window.

An additional version of this story is also available on The Daily Caller: Global warming activists seek to purge ‘deniers’ among local weathermen

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/global-warming-activists-seek-to-purge-deniers-among-local-weathermen/#ixzz1kzEHOnTq

Political Correctness is Soooo Much Sweeter Than Actual Freedom

This blog started almost 20 years ago principally to defend freedom of speech and to be certain that the cherished freedoms we have in the real world extends into the internet.  Twenty years later those freedom are still under assault, both in the real world and on the Internet.


But my source of outrage today....  well, not outrage as much as disappointment is an article that appears in Time Magazine's Opinion Section on-line written by Bruce Crumley.  In my constant war to protect free speech I have always counted on virtually all journalists and major publishers as trustworthy allies.  Time Magazine and Mr. Crumley have defected to the other side.

The headline of Mr. Crumley's Op-Ed is Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr You can click on the headline to read the entire article, I'm only going to reprint a small portion below.


 .... The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists .... 


 .... the coarse and heavy-handed Islamist theme of the current edition of Charlie Hebdo. As part of its gag, the paper had re-named itself “Sharia Hebdo”. It also claimed to have invited Mohammed as its guest editor to “celebrate the victory” of the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia's first free elections last week. In addition to satirical articles on Islam-themed topics, the paper contains drawings of Mohammed in cartoons featuring Charlie Hebdo's trademark over-the-top (and frequently not “ha-ha funny”) humor. The cover, for example, features a crudely-drawn cartoon of the Prophet saying “100 Whip Lashes If You Don't Die Of Laughter.” Maybe you had to be there when it was first sketched. 


.... free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn't happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off. Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk ....


Aside from the all too obvious "let's blame the girl for getting raped because she wore a short dress" theme of his diatribe, the conclusion of Mr. Crumley's essay is that we shouldn't needlessly offend a large portion of the population, especially if you're not very funny.


Mr. Crumley wants to place two limitations on free speech. First you must not needlessly offend a large segment of the population.  This begs the question of how we might determine the need to offend.  If I campaign here in Mississippi against the certain to pass "Right to Life" Amendment 26 I am certain to offend a majority of the population who believes abortion should be banned.  My efforts will be futile, but are they "needless?"


Secondly, Mr Crumley wants the standard to be that the offending speech be really funny, or perhaps of sufficiently high literary quality.  Certainly my writing is of inferior quality and not funny at all. So my campaign for a woman's right to choose fails on both points.


Obviously, in the gospel according to Crumley, I must just shut up.


Fortunately for Bruce Crumley, I strongly disagree with everything he wrote.  Therefore I am able to staunchly defend his right to write an insanely stupid, poorly written, terribly unfunny, horribly offensive article in Time Magazine.  And I will condemn anyone who chooses to firebomb his office or otherwise attack his free speech rights.

Religion Versus Science

Throughout history the conflicts between religion and the scientific community have been explosive, emotional, violent and, occasionally, deadly.

When we think of science versus religion we often think of Galileo Galilei, whose on-going battle with the Catholic Church resulted in his imprisonment and, ultimately, in his death in 1642.

Galileo is best known for is his studies of astronomy, free fall, and his several inventions. His inventions include the telescope, microscope, compass and thermometer. Galileo studied medicine, philosophy and mathematics and taught mathematics at the University of Pisa and at the University of Padua.

While teaching his theories, Galileo gained a following of students that recognized his genius. In 1616 however, he came into disfavor with the church. Galileo, as a man of science, expressed his support of the Copernican theories that stated the earth and other celestial bodies rotated around the sun.

Unfortunately his teaching directly contradicted the teachings of the church and he was summoned to Rome and reprimanded for his "heresy". In 1633 he was sentenced to life in confinement. Even though his health was declining and became completely blind by 1638, he continued developing his theories and communicated, often in secret with his followers.

Over 300 years after his death, a statement by the Pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992 is interpreted as the official rehabilitation of Galileo by the Catholic Church.

Any time an idea or philosophy becomes a religion it tends to lose all flexibility. True believers defend the orthodoxy at all costs and make every effort to silence, or even imprison or kill opponents.

Ultimately, it tends to all be about power. The church in Galileo's time had enormous power and wealth. It felt terribly threatened by Galileo's ideas. If people no longer believed the earth was the center of the universe, they might not continue to support the church with tithes, taxes and lavish gifts.

Today we have a rather strange twist on the old science versus religion battle. But, in this case, the "religion" is the orthodoxy of "global warming" or, as it is now more properly called, "climate change." The great religious leaders of climate change are still hounding, censuring and trying to silence the scientists who dare to question the established religion.

And, just as in the time of Galileo, it is still about money and power. There is the opportunity for great power and immense wealth in climate control. One Prophet of the new religion, former Vice President Al Gore, has already made millions of dollars, won a Nobel Prize and is poised to make billions. But the issue certainly isn't Al Gore. Governments and corporates stand to gain immense profits and power from the enforcement of climate control regulations.

For some time a rapidly growing number of scientists have realized that climate change models just don't work. We've had global cooling for eleven straight years and it now appears this cycle of cooling will continue for at least twenty more years. In addition, some models point to entirely different, and occasionally more dangerous scenarios going forward. And the solutions being proposed by the established global warming religion might make matters a whole lot worse.

The very unscientific efforts to hide conflicting facts, destroy historical data and marginalize those who dared to question global warming all came to light when a huge series of emails were hacked and then released to the public. And, as is often the case, the cover-up quickly became worse than the original crimes.

The more the established global warming community attempted to explain the email, the obvious it became that the cover-up was long running and unacceptably extensive. The most recent "disclosure" that historical data was destroyed to "save space" is so laughable that all remaining integrity of the climate change community has been lost.

Science will ultimately prevail, as it always does. Those who forecast global may ultimately be proved correct. Or, it may be determined that the global warming heretic's ideas were censured or imprisoned under false pretenses.

But certainly the warnings about the dangers of turning scientific research into a political or religious cult should be learned and heeded.

Excellent articles that should all be read:

Financial Times: Secrecy in science is a corrosive force By Michael Schrage

The Telegraph UK: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Associated Press: UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

US News and World Report: Penn State Will Investigate 'Climategate'

Finally, a real and genuine tip o' the Wizard's Pointy Cap to Lee over at Lee's Tid Bits who has been at the leading edge of this controversy for over a year. Like the scientists who dared to question the global warming orthodoxy, Lee has been subject to great harassment and persecution. Lee has constantly held his own. His blog is a must read in my book (for this and for many other reasons, including that he is just a great guy).

Disorganized, Dispondent Republicans Are Not Ready for Victory

I really regret that I haven't had the time to address many of the important issues swirling around our nation over these last few weeks. I appreciate all of you who stop by here daily only to find the nest empty. I am humbled by your loyalty.

There are three points that deserve to be discussed and I've decided to cover them in three separate blog entries over the next three days.

First, in what will be the shortest entry, I'm going to take just a couple of paragraphs to discuss the sorry state of the Republican Party. This ought to be really short.

Al Gore wrote to me today (along with about ten million other Democrats and liberal leaning folks). What former Vice President Gore wanted, of course, was money for the Democrat Party. But he did make a really important observation.

Dear Robert, (Good old Al always calls me Robert) I've seen it happen. In 1992, Democrats had finally regained the White House and had control of Congress. Everything was in place to bring about historic change. But in 1994 - just two years later - the Republicans surged back, capturing the Senate and the House. As a result, every bit of progress was a struggle, and Republicans blocked many important initiatives entirely. We can't let it happen again, but history is not on our side. In all but three midterm elections since the Civil War, the president's party has lost seats.

Good old Al is right. If one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency it is likely the opposing party will take some of that power back. It happens for a variety of reasons: buyer's remorse, desire for a balance of power, and a re-energized opposition.

This year, for reasons I will discuss thoroughly in my third blog entry, Republicans should really gain ground. The mistakes President Obama and the Democrats are making are huge and potentially devastating to the country. But the Republicans may not be able to pick up the pieces.

In 1994 Republicans had a secret weapon: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was probably the brightest and most able member of the House of Representatives in our generation. And he was organized and had a superb marketing plan. He capitalized on Clinton's mistakes and energized the party and, ultimately, the nation.

Today there is no Newt Gingrich, not even the badly tarnished and out of power Gingrich himself.

Although we Democrats are wasting our time, energy, intelligence and credibility attacking Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, neither of these people, nor any of the other talking heads are leading the Republican party or speaking for the Republican party. And potential leaders like Governor Mark Sanford are self destructing.

In the House and Senate there is literally no leadership with even marginal credibility. A few are captive of far right Christian groups bent on repealing the laws of Evolution, others lack the charisma to capture the imagination of the populace.

So while my close personal buddy Al is right, history favors the Republicans, there is no cohesive group able to capitalize on this historic opportunity.

That is a shame and I'll explain why in part three.

Liberal Intolerance, Hate and Derangement

I simply must take today's five minutes to express my profound disgust at the giant cadre of liberal pundits and bloggers who are mounting an unrelenting attack on Reverend Rick Warren, pastor or the immensely popular Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, California, a "new age fundamentalist Christian church." Warren's egregious sin? He was chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009.

The level of intolerance and absolute stupidity being portrayed on the pages of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Slate Magazine and others is stunning and deeply saddening, especially coming during the holiday the celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. So much for peace on earth and good will toward men.

I absolutely refuse to post a single link to any of the crap out on the blogosphere from those who insist on condemning Warren for actually daring to believe the tenets of Christianity. Warren is roundly condemned for daring to both believe the basic dogma of his church and then to actually have the intellectual and moral courage to practice his faith in his daily life.

I am a deeply devout Unitarian Universalist. Warren and I share very few religious beliefs. I disagree with him profoundly on most theological issues. I most certainly disagree on the issues of human sexuality and lifestyle, especially Gay Marriage, which I strongly support.

But I disagree with almost every large and fundamentalist religion worldwide. I strongly disagree with most Islamic teachings and abhor the discrimination against women embedded in many religions.

But I DO NOT EXPECT, LET ALONE DEMAND that Pastor Warren magically abandon his core beliefs, just because liberals find some of those beliefs distressing. Far from it. I actually expect Warren to believe, follow, live and preach the word and commandments of God as he believes them. If Warren failed to do this he would simply not be a fundamentalist Christian.

Many, in fact most, of my close personal friends are Jewish. Many are Orthodox and live very conservative lives, keeping the Sabbath and following the laws of Judaism as closely as they can. Like Warren they reject homosexuality, They also deny that Christ is the savior.

Some day very soon a strongly conservative or ever Orthodox Rabbi will give an invocation at an Obama state function. Likewise I'll bet we soon see a Muslim pray at a state sponsored event. Will we so-called liberals DEMAND that they renounce their most sacred beliefs?

Or do we only demand that Christian ministers give up their beliefs and deny their God, as so many are now demanding of Warren?

And why do these supposed liberals insult and ridicule Christians, but remain reverent and respectful of other world religions? I've actually read these moronic pundits insult Christ in the most foul mouthed and demeaning language possible and then turn around and condemn the Danish who published the Mohammad cartoons for insulting Muslims and failing to respect their "deeply held beliefs."

Frankly, if Barack Obama chose Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration, I suspect that Barack Obama actually wanted a conservative Christian of deep moral faith to give that Invocation. Otherwise Obama could have chosen one of the many extremely fine and talented Methodists, Episcopalians or Unitarian Universlists to give the Invocation, or perhaps a great rabbi or Buddhist monk.

As to my fellow bloggers and pundits, have the courage to direct your outrage toward the person who chose a fundamentalist Christian to speak. Direct your outrage toward Barack Obama.

Blind Prejudice

I've been writing a great deal lately about the blind prejudice that all too often turns into absolute hatred in our political and economic discourse. Much of what is written in blogs and repeated on talk radio (from the left and right) is nothing short of hate speech.

And while racial prejudice and sexual discrimination (and the objectification of women in our society, hat tip to the ikonoclast) continue to fester and infect our society, the "Derangement Syndromes" surrounding political philosophies and our supposed opponents and members of opposing political movements has reached a boiling point.

It hit really close to my home (both physically close and close in terms of religion and values) Sunday with the shooting and murder of two members of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during morning services. The shooting occurred during a children's performance. Thank God no children were killed.

The shooter, Jim D. Adkisson, left a letter in his car with the reason for his rampage. Adkisson "stated hatred of the liberal movement."

Thankfully Adkisson himself was not killed in the rampage and didn't have the chance to commit suicide. One report stated he had 76 shotgun shells and planned to use them all. He was wrestled to the ground by church members. He is now being held by the Knoxville police.

Among the many sins of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church were it's sponsorship of the American Civil Liberties Union and its support of women's rights and gay rights. They had recently put out a sign welcoming gays to the congregation.

These people were shot for the very beliefs I hold and practice every day.

As a society we must learn to respect each others views, religions and politics or we will find ourselves mired in internal fighting like the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, or past sectarian battle in Ireland.

Love is the spirit of this church and service is its law. This is our great covenant: to live together in peace, to seek the truth in love, and to help one another. Written by James Vila Blake and used in many Unitarian churches (including the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church) as a Statement of Faith.

If only everyone could live by this simple and non-sectarian creed. Please send your prayers and thoughts to the friends and members of the Knoxville community touched by this tragedy. This tragedy touches everyone.

Here is a link to the website of The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church

What Obama Can Teach Jesus

"Some might call this arrogance, but I call it spiritual confidence."

O.K., I know I'm going to get crucified for this (pun fully intended) by my friends and readers on both the left and the right. But only Greg Gutfeld can manage to offend Christians, conservatives, liberals and Obamamaniacs in the same two minutes.

This is easily the funniest thing I've seen so far in this otherwise nearly humorless Presidential campaign season.

Prejudice

I am becoming increasingly concerned about blind prejudice in our society. You know the kind of prejudice I mean. When one group makes a blanket condemnation or criticism of another group, usually wrapped up in rather hateful or even hate filled jargon, that is pure prejudice.

As a society we generally condemn racial prejudice and occasionally condemn religious prejudice. Liberals, like myself, are quite quick to condemn prejudice based on sexual orientation. Why do so many in any society insist upon the stereotyping of people who are perceived as different?

Often such prejudice is just plain laughable. Or it's just plain stupid. It's generally always based on ideas or assumptions that is simply wrong. Blacks are not lazy. Hispanics are not thieves. Muslims are not terrorists. Gays can be good parents.

I'd like to think we all recognize prejudice.

But, here in the blogosphere I'm becoming increasingly concerned about BLIND and totally misguided prejudice base solely on political and/or economic beliefs. The name calling and the blanket condemnations are seriously out of control. Just read the comments sections of almost any political blog, left or right. Hate is being spewed in almost laughable proportions. Except it's just not funny.

I've got news for you. Conservatives DO NOT HATE the environment. LIBERALS DO NOT HATE America. Conservatives DO NOT HATE minorities. Liberals DO NOT HATE the military.

If you think I'm wrong you are just not getting out enough. You are not reading the blogs of those who differ from you politically and making a genuine effort to communicate (not lecture or call names).

I have a list of 26 blogs I try to read at least once weekly. Three are decidedly non political. Eight concentrate on International events or regional issues (Darfur, Iraq, Iran, Burma, etc). The remaining fifteen are political.

Of those 15, eight (8) are liberal and range form the very large (Daily Kos and Huffington) to the small and thoughtful (The Vigil and Liberal Values).

One is a rather middle of the road blog. That leaves six (6) that are conservative, again from the large (Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs) to the very small (the unbelievably prolific Freedom Eden, I swear the woman writes 24 hours a day).

The comments attached to these blogs are nearly identical. I mean scarily word for word identical. Every damned day. Just remove the key words "liberals," "conservatives," "democrats, or "republicans" and the comments can simply be picked up and moved from the blogs on the left over to the blogs on the right. All spew blind and blanket prejudice. All are laced with vitriolic hatred. Many actually wish death upon their political opposites.

Michelle Malkin, who I always read and frequently quote in this blog, has pointed out the incredibly hypocrisy of and obvious prejudice of liberal economist Robert Reich. Her article today, The left-wing bullies in Robert Reich’s backyard, is really worth a read.

But even after Malkin gets it so spot-on right, a few of her own readers quickly revert to the same exact name calling and hate speech and class prejudice she has just condemned

Timetable? We Should NEVER Leave Iraq

Aided by blind hatred and near sickening political demagoguery by those who simply despise George Bush, America stands on the verge of making one of the worst foreign policy decisions in all of history.

And George Bush and his aides are so wounded, not to mention virtually incompetent in all matters political, they are doing nearly nothing to prevent the coming disaster.

This textbook failure will make Viet Nam look positively heroic.

Put simply, America stands poised to snatch defeat (and so much worse) from the jaws of victory. Bush and the military leaders in Iraq have virtually won the peace. We've gone from Invasion, to War, and then on to Occupation. FInally we are on the verge of peace.

I believe the occupation is now at an end and we are ready to enter into a period of mutual support, cooperation and even friendship.

And the Iraqi Government clearly believes the same thing. We should see troop withdrawals begin this fall.

If intelligent forces were guiding the foreign policy of our country, instead of electioneering and demagoguery and the flames of personal hatred, we would be entering into a long term agreement of mutual support and protection between our countries. The agreement would absolutely mirror our agreements with Japan, Germany and dozens of other countries.

Instead, Bush is unable to negotiate such a treaty. Not because the Iraqis are unwilling, they are actually begging for such an agreement, but because Bush is terrified by our Congress and the mood of the electorate.

He cannot bring a treaty before a Congress that most certainly will fail to ratify it.

No the mood in this election year is retreat, submit, withdraw and abandon. There are no facts on the ground that will ever placate a Congress effectively controlled by Moveon.org.

Bush is so inarticulate and so inept he cannot speak to the American people and convince them to do the right and intelligent thing. He lacks the powers of persuasion of his predecessors and the current Democrat Presidential candidate.

Instead Bush has "promised not to tie the hands of his successor." No treaty, no agreement, no nothing.

And Obama will most certainly leave a very fragile Iraq to fall under the control of a religious dictatorship that will become the greatest enemy ever faced by any power on earth.

And it's so damned unnecessary. The war is won. The occupation is over. All we need to do is support the people of Iraq, exactly as we have supported the people of Germany, Japan and South Korea. Trade, financial aid, rebuilding, mutual aid. Iraq is ready to govern. If we don't abandon them.

Please read the entire Wall Street Journal article from Friday, How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq.

America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.

These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today.

And while you're in a reading mood, please read the news report from this morning, Iran police start wider crackdown on un-Islamic dress. Is this really the future we want to grant to the women of Iraq?

A Return to Reason and the Rule of Law

Longtime Wizard readers know what strong confidence I have in the U.S. Judicial System. As a long time member of the ACLU, I remain confident that, given time, the courts will defend the minority against the oppression of the majority. It is the way our Constitution was designed and it almost always works.

But I was really starting to get worried in the case of the Texas Department of Child Services massive raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) ranch in El Dorado, Texas. The armed assault based on a prank phone call, followed by the wholesale arrest and confinement of over 500 children and mothers, was one of the darkest days in recent American history.

The Texas CPS violated Texas law, the Texas Constitution and their own guidelines in removing, confining and then placing into foster care over 440 children, many as young as 1 year old, without even a hearing.

And the children and parents were left with a ragtag team of court appointed lawyers from all across the state who had neither the time nor the resources to fight the battle.

Even the neighboring states of Arizona and Utah were appalled by the out of control Texas Department of Justice. They took the unusual step of meeting with their FLDS communities to assure them that there would be no repeat of the Texas raid in their states.

Yesterday the Third Court of Appeals in Austin issued a sweeping ruling that should finally put both this case and the egregious actions by Texas law enforcement back on the right track.

From Michelle Roberts Associated Press story as published in The Huffington Post:

SAN ANGELO, Texas — In a ruling that could torpedo the case against the West Texas polygamist sect, a state appeals court Thursday said authorities had no right to seize more than 440 children in a raid on the splinter group's compound last month.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.

It was not clear when the children, now scattered in foster homes across the state, might be returned to their parents. The ruling gave a lower-court judge 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and block that.

The decision in one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history was a humiliating defeat for the state Child Protective Services agency. It was hailed as vindication by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who claimed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

"It's a great day for Texas justice. This was the right decision," said Julie Balovich, a Legal Aid attorney for some of the parents. She was joined by several smiling mothers who declined to comment at a news conference outside the courthouse.

Sect elder Willie Jessop said the parents were elated, but added: "There will be no celebrations until some little children are getting hugs from their parents." He said his faith in the legal system will be restored "when I see the schoolyard full of children."

Over on Huffington, a commenter with the handle named iratior summed up my feelings best:

"I'm just as much against child abuse and spousal abuse as anybody else, but I think that the way the Texas authorities handled this case set some terrible precedents. When they began their actions, all they had to go by was the phone call; the person making the call could have been a complete fake, for all they knew."

"If you have children, would you want the government to have the power to seize them just because somebody who doesn't authenticate themselves and could be a complete fake calls a government agency and accuses you of abusing them? This concept of "guilt by accusation" is ruining our legal system."

This Apologizing Crap is (Almost) Out of Control

Don Imus, you are one "nappy headed ho." There I said it! I mean Christ, you have got to do something about your hair! It's out of control!

And your latest whoring, this time for RFD-TV mogul Patrick Gottsch is disgusting. Man, the guy can't even manage to sell a single commercial to sponsor your show! If I have to sit through one more slobbering love tribute from you to Mr. Gottsch , I'm gonna be sick. Get a frakking room!

Opps! That was over the line,wasn't it? I guess I better apologize before the Imus fanatics boycott my blog. And death threats can't be far behind. Sorry, Don. I apologize. You really still are the great radio personality you once were. And you do wear a hat, so it's all good. Okay?

In all semi-seriousness, this not offending people thing is simply out of control! Everyone has to be so careful, they almost can't talk, let alone editorialize. And satire.... forget about it.

It's a world wide trend and, tragically, many countries are actually putting it into law. Canada is totally out of control, with many bloggers facing impossible lawsuits for offending someone.

Italy, Spain and virtually all countries with large Islamic populations have strong laws against offending religion, but usually that only means Islam.

Here in the good old U.S. of A. we have one special interest group after another demanding apologies, firing and worse.

So when radio personality Randi Rhodes makes a wild, expletive filled rant about Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, she is forced to apologize or lose her job. To her credit Rhodes quit rather than apologize (and has since found a new radio home for her far left wing talk fest).

Don Imus, of course lost his job and was exiled from radio for six months or more, before finally bringing back a highly sanitized version of his program, this time with two black co-hosts to keep him out of trouble.

Bill Maher's rant about the Catholic Church and the Pope was terribly funny, but far enough over the line that HBO was forced under pressure from Catholics to demand Maher apologize. And he did, sort of.

Of course you will absolutely never hear Maher take on Islam the way he attacks Christianity. Maher nibbles around the edges, but I don't think he wants to risk a fatwa.

And that is a shame. We've got to fight as hard for our right of "FREE SPEECH" as other special interest groups fight to protect their so-calling image or good name.

When the demand that we "never offend" one group or religion, you can easily end up with the kind of out of control mob violence now going on in India at Ranchi University where riots have closed the University because a history professor offended Islam by wording a final exam essay question in a way that was unflattering to the Prophet Mohammad. Links here, here and here.

So easily offended is the Islamic population that the major newspapers in India won't even reprint the question in question. It was something about the tracing the life of Mohammad from "trader to raider." It was an Islamic history class.

By the way, if you'd like to read an extremely funny rant, I point you the newest Internet blogging sensation, Rachel Lucas and her terrific If I were Temporary Supreme Dictator of America. Then read her massive apology the very next day (yes, it's a real apology after outrage from her readers) Bold new blogging horizons: I deconstruct my very own post.

This is the kind of shit that happens when you get really popular. A problem that, alas, I will never have.

I promise that those two posts will brighten your entire day.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better

I watched the Rev. Jeremiah Wright meltdown on Monday and I more than horrified, I was shaken and deeply saddened by the words I heard and show I watched. I felt like 40 years of progress in race relations were melting away before my very eyes.

Surely Dr. Martin Luther King was spinning in his grave. He gave so much to get our society past this point. And now Rev. Wright was moving to goal posts backwards.

I worked on a blog post, but I simply could not find the right words. Fortunately, Tuesday afternoon Barack Obama did it for me.

“I’m outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate. I believe they do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. They certainly don’t portray mine. If he considers this political posturing, then he doesn’t know me very well. And I don’t know him well either.”

"There wasn’t anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was was a bunch of rants that aren’t grounded in truth…It was a show of disrespect to me.”

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he’s done enormous good. … But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. … There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced.”

"It’s antithetical to our campaign. It’s antithetical to what I’m about. It’s not what America stands for. Rev. Wright does not speak for me. He doesn’t speak for our campaign. I can’t prevent him from making these outrageous remarks … When I say I find these statements appalling, I mean it."


"It makes me angry and saddens me.”

Obviously I've done some editing and reworking of my transcription and those I located on other blogs. I apologize for any errors I have made. But, Obama's words are powerful. I certainly couldn't have said it better.

How To Identify Victims of Child Abuse

How can you identify victims of child abuse?

As the State of Texas moved swiftly to protect 460 victims of child abuse, look no further than the common characteristics of the children taken from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints and their Yearning For Zion 1,700 acre ranch.

These children are in such horrific danger that they are being moved as far as 500 miles away from their home, their mothers, fathers and family members, and often out of reach of their court appointed attorneys, in order to "protect" them.

The abused children all have these identifying traits (Source: Associated Press):

• They are healthy and seem happy.


• They are polite and well mannered.


• They have been raised on a diet of home grown vegetables, chicken and fresh fruit. Absolutely No Junk Food!


• The dress modestly. No low slung jeans or bare midriffs for these kids.


• They have been home schooled and are well probably ahead of the children attending public schools.


• They engage in prayers with their family every day.


• They can be any age from one month to 18 years of age or older.


• They can be boys or girls.

The exact nature of the abuse suffered by the vast majority of the 462 "children" now under the protective custody of the State of Texas can actually never be determined by any psychiatrist or other professional. It's so secret only the State of Texas will ever know what it is.

To be certain a very few girls in the FLDS sect have been forced into marriage, possibly at a young age, as young as 13. Of the 462 children taken by the State of Texas their might be fifty (50) who are or were at one time, victims of forced marriage. Maybe. Eventually the State of Texas may or may not get around to actually investigating this potential crime. Certainly no one has been charged yet.

Had the of State of Texas moved to protect those fifty young girls, it's unlikely there would have been much objection. The action might have been applauded in spite of the fact the whole raid on the Yearning For Zion Ranch was started by an easy-to-identify false report. So while the legal grounds for the armed assault on the compound might have been faulty, rescuing the girls could have made it all worthwhile.

But that's not what happened. Janet Bennion, the nation's leading expert on the polygamist sect is appalled. Bennion is a world renowned Professor of Anthropology at Lyndon State College in Vermont. She has spent months living with the sects in Utah, Montana and Mexico.

As reported by Vermont's WCAX-TV, Professor Bennion stated, "This is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. This is a group of people that are already against the government and the outside world, and then you get raided by state troops, kidnapping the children."

"If you can establish abuse, of course intervention must be made, but use an intervention that doesn't break the constitution and that doesn't violate all these civil rights laws," argues Bennion.

Some believe it's polygamy, not the alleged child abuse, that's actually on trial. Others fear it's an excuse to attack the underlying religion.

A motley assortment of almost four hundred lawyers is struggling to sort out this madness. Unfortunately, most are court appointed and come from all four corners of the state. Some have yet to meet their clients, others are simply trying to figure out where their clients have been taken.

According to Texas law none of this should be happening. But short circuiting the law has become the norm for this case.

So some of the lawyers for the parents and other lawyers for the children are attempting to restore logic and order.

ABC News reports tonight, "A state appeals court has agreed to hear arguments next week about whether the state can place the children into temporary foster care without giving each family an individual hearing."

"These families have the right to have their voices heard in the legal process," said Robert Doggett, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which filed the appeal. "The idea that these children can be taken away without giving their families the opportunity to address allegations and fight to stay together is absurd."

Lawyers point out that the figurative cows are already out of the barn. Now that the children have already been scattered throughout the state, it may be nearly impossible to insure them of their rights.

HOAX

Could a deranged woman in Colorado Springs, Colorado call the police and accuse you of child abuse or rape and have the police bring an armed assault force to break into your house and take your children into "protective custody?"

That's exactly what happened this week in El Dorado, Texas. The woman, who has a long history of making false abuse claims, called long distance from Colorado. She claimed to live at the Yearning For Zion compound in El Dorado, Texas. In repeated calls that may have continued for two weeks, she accused her imaginary husband of rape.

And Texas responded in full force. They sent a veritable army. They expected a war.

Hasn't anyone in Texas ever heard of "Caller ID?" And what ever happened to old fashioned ideas like investigation?

Texas had four years to investigate the compound. A simple Google Search would have yielded plenty of information about the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), most important their demand that sect members practice polygamy, illegal under Texas law.

But that never happened. Instead a false claim by a very sick woman has yielded the results that critics of the sect have long desired.

The state removed all 416 children from the compound and are holding them in frankly disturbing conditions. Families are split apart and all children over the age of 4 have been forcibly separated from their parents.

Experts say this will continue for many months. The court today decided to continue the state's custody. And they ordered DNA tests in hopes of proving some children were born to mothers under the age of 16.

It's a pretty good bet that there have been forced marriages and polygamy and children born to young teens. But, lawyers tell me, it's unlikely that anyone will ever be prosecuted. No one is going to jail.

But some children may end up in foster care. And, under Texas Law, the court battles will go on for years and will likely result in many children ultimately returning to their parents, though perhaps not to the compound.

Many of my readers think that's a good thing.

I hate the fact that the State of Texas was unable or unwilling to do their job. Instead, they've made a mockery of the judicial system, and all of us are more vulnerable because of their failures.

The New York Times has an excellent investigative article here.

I encourage my readers to also read a strong opposing view presented by Utah Savage. Be sure to read the extended discussion by her readers. This is an important issue that does involve all your civil rights as well as the illegal activities and the lifestyle of the FLDS.

Three Thoughts

FIRST: Please, please, please take the time to watch the entire video I posted earlier this evening, Missing Pieces. It's a remarkable music video and all based on a true story.

SECOND: I think the questioning during the Democrat Debate last evening was entirely appropriate and necessary. The critics of ABC's moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are just plain wrong.

Barack needs to be asked tough and occasionally personal questions that directly reflect his character. Hell, until last night, the contestants on American Idol were facing tougher scrutiny than Barack Obama. And, frankly Simon Cowell is a whole hell of a lot tougher than any debate moderator Obama has ever faced in the 25 preceding debates.... until last night. Kudos to Gibson for a job long overdue.

The man is running for President of the United States! I want to see him under fire before I cast my vote next November. Namby-pamby questioning on The View just ain't gonna cut it.

The best benefit of the debate last night was that it helped prepare Obama for the fall campaign. Yes, Obama struggled at times. But he'll be ready next time.... when it will really count.

THIRD: The State of Texas versus 416 innocent children is a moral, political, financial, legal and logistical disaster. The children of the families of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints face absolutely no imminent danger from the church, it's elders, the families and certainly not from their mothers.



But the children are in a living hell thanks to the State of Texas. And based on today's nightmare in Court, they will likely be in limbo for years. As MICHELLE ROBERTS, writing for the Associated Press, said today, "As many feared, the proceedings turned into something of a circus - and a painfully slow one."

Now we have 400 lawyers all trying to make a name for themselves. God help us all. And God especially help Texas District Judge Barbara Walther. She will need the wisdom of Solomon.

Protecting the Most Vulnerable Among Us

The Child Protective Service (CPS) in Texas will tell you they have a sacred obligation to protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. They could not ignore the accusation of rape from the now curiously missing sixteen year old girl and they absolutely couldn't leave the 416 children at the Yearning for Zion compound in west Texas in harm's way.

Now we see the beautiful, well groomed, nostalgically dressed mother's and grandmothers weeping in genuine agony, their children ripped from them. We are left to imagine the tears and absolute terror of the children who have suddenly had their entire lives destroyed.

Television and reporters are now revealing to us the Yearning For Zion compound. Like the mothers weeping in the foreground, the compound is beautifully manicured, quaintly nostalgic and perfectly maintained. It reminds one of an Amish community.

And the similarity doesn't end there. As I write tonight there is an Amish teenage girl being forced into a marriage she doesn't want, being forced into a life she yearns to escape. A virgin, with virtually no sex education, she is terrified of the wedding bed. Her lifelong religious upbringing prevents her from seeing the event as rape, but many outside her community might see it as such.

This young Amish girl longs to go to college, longs to escape a life that seems like slavery to her. But society, her parents, her family, her church, her traditions will not allow her to escape.

And Child Protective Services will never be called. And, if they were, they would never intervene.

Meanwhile, in Detroit, a young teenage girl is preparing for a day in school. She is dressed in conservative traditional Islamic garb, but she has hidden modern clothing and she will change clothes as soon as she is out of her father's sight.

What this poor girl doesn't know is that her father knows of her sin and plans to take corrective action immediately. Instead of going to school, the girl will be swept off to Pakistan without warning, without a goodbye to friends or family. She will immediately be forced into marriage to a fifty five year old man.

It must be done today, before the young girl's flirtations with secular life goes to far and the family might be forced into taking more horrific action to save their honor. They genuinely believe they are saving the girl's life.

And Child Protective Services will never be called. And, if they were, they would never intervene. After all, a parent has the right to move anywhere they wish, even Pakistan. The child is a minor. We don't arbitrarily rip a child from her parents for something that might happen. Do we?

Meanwhile, just a few blocks away, another child prepares to make a really horrific journey. She is going, alone, to have an abortion. Society will protect her for a few hours. She will be able to abort her unborn child without ever telling her parents. But she is terrified and lonely and, after the abortion, she will return to the drug invested, gang ruled neighborhood that led to her pregnancy in the first place.

She has no way out, at least no way she can see. To survive she will once again give her body to the gang. She sees no option.

Because society has decided abortion is such a sacred right, no one will dare call Child Protective Services. But, if they did, no one will help. They are no laws being violated.

As a society we've deciding polygamy is wrong. And there are only a few hundred members of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. They have no version of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to lobby for their protection or to improve their public image.

But this much is certain. Somewhere tonight a six year old child cries for his mother. He is sick, lonely and frightened. He doesn't understand why the state of Texas decided his entire life should be destroyed.

I'm having a little trouble with it myself.

ALERT: Texas Child Abuse

I've been very concerned about the raid on the polygamous sect in Texas since the moment it began.... for a lot of reasons.

Certainly the hold that Warren Jeffs, the now imprisoned leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has had over his followers, especially the women and children, is cause for great concern. Forced marriages and pre-arranged marriages between young teens and older men offends us all. And the horror stories from women and children who've escaped the cult-like religion are terrifying.

But, this raid seems to have been based on faulty, misleading or nonexistent information. And the resulting horror now being forced on 416 children and their mothers by Texas Department of Child Protective Services (CPS) is potentially much worse. Children are being forcibly separated from their mothers and crowded into living conditions that are simply pathetic.

The size of the relocation and the coming massive legal actions will do tremendous damage to the children. The Texas and federal officials were simply totally unprepared when they invaded the Yearning for Zion Ranch. Like the US troops that invaded Iraq, they were expecting massive resistance, but never figured out what to do once the families and children surrendered.

ABC NEWS is reporting today:

More than two dozen women who belong to a reclusive polygamous sect said in a rare public appearance that they felt lied to by state officials and pleaded for their 416 children to be returned to them.

The women returned to the sect's West Texas ranch Monday night after state officials separated them from their children who were taken into state custody after a raid on the compound last week.

Many of them sobbing, several of the mothers told ABC News that they weren't able to say goodbye to their children before being given the option to return to their ranch or be sent to another shelter.

"All we want is our children back, clean and pure," said a woman who identified herself as Sarah and said her five children were still in the state's shelter. "The last thing we have is our children."

This is being badly mishandled by the State of Texas and their CPS. FOX NEWS Reports:

"They said, 'your children are ours,"' said the sobbing 32-year-old whose three sons are aged 9, 7 and 5 and who would not give her last name. "We could not even ask a question."

She said the children at the ranch have not been abused, but she feels like "they are being abused from this experience." She said the children have been "have been so protected and loved."

The women believe the abuse complaint that led to the raid came from a bitter person outside their community.

What was needed here was a lot more investigation and a lot less Rambo-style raiding and massive relocation of children into poor conditions and terrifying isolation.

The State of Texas is crossing a dangerous line. While we fight on the left for more freedoms and opportunities for gays and lesbians and a greater choice of lifestyles and marriages, things are happening in Texas which seem to deprive us all of freedoms and civil rights and due process.

Are we damaging children in the name of protecting them? Are we denying people their civil rights?

I recognize that this post might make me very unpopular with both my readers on the left and on the right. Equating the plight of this polygamist cult with the fight for gay rights, women's rights and religious freedom may offend many people. But you cannot demand freedom for one group without at least protecting the civil rights of another, even when you disagree with their beliefs. No, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with their beliefs.