American Reality

This morning I saw a report in regards to the revelation that the NYPD was doing undercover (secret) surveillance of various Muslim organizations. This included mosques, student organizations and businesses. The report underscored some trends that I have noticed in regards to newcomers to the US and their [mis]understanding of what actually goes on here.

The piece has the following:

the news is having side effects: prompting some Muslims to stop frequenting places out of fear of being monitored, or avoiding discussion of politically sensitive topics...

"A lot of families are pressuring their sons and daughters to either not be involved in anything to do with the Islamic Center at NYU, to not pray there, to not go, to not hang out with other members,"

Hunter College Muslim Students Association posted a sign asking students to refrain from having political discussions when initial reports of NYPD surveillance surfaced last year.

Imam Al-Hajj Talib Abdul Rashid, president of the Islamic Leadership Council of Metropolitan New York, says that while African American Muslims haven't changed their patterns of worship at mosques, Muslim immigrants have. [my emphasis]

I believe that the emphasized text is very important here. African-American muslims, like most all other African-Americans (those being the descendants of the slave trade, not the new arrivals) are well aware of how the government, on all levels, act towards certain "minority" groups. We know that the government, from the very top was involved in infiltrating and disrupting our organizations who's ONLY purpose was toe secure ourselves against racism and certain elements of White Supremacy.

We have read the FBI files on Martin Luther King Jr. We read the FBI files on Malcolm X. We know of the stated purpose of COINTELPRO to disrupt these organizations by various means . We know that any of us who have said, written or so much as viewed something considered "radical" or "pro black" that someone somewhere has a file with our name on it.

We know that the government on every level was convinced that the Black struggle in America was a Communist plot using "Dumb negros" (their words not mine) to further it's aims.

With this knowledge none of us should have been surprised when it was announced that the NYPD was doing surveillance on Muslims in America. As a matter of fact I would hazard to guess that most of us would have been surprised if the NYPD was not engaged in such behavior.

The problem is that many recent immigrants, particularly those coming from countries with oppressive regimes, have bought into some fairy tail fantasy version of America where the government is benign. This mistaken assumption that "America doesn't do this" is why so many of these "new" Americans are so shocked at the news and reacted just like many African-Americans did (and do) when their children or other loved ones became interested in "the black struggle": Telling them to not hang out with those potential radical organizations and people because as to not "catch the eye of the government".


Welcome to America.

What these new immigrants are going to learn is that so long as some members of their group are seen as threats, the entire community is liable to have COINTELPRO type actions made against them. The real difference between the secret police of the regimes that many of the recent immigrants have left and the one they are currently under is that the here it is far more sophisticated and done in a "respectable" way. Citizens here have far more leeway to critique the ruling government which is generally pacifies the general public. However make no mistake, the US has "secret police" just like every other nation that is interested in maintaining institutional power.

This kind of willful ignorance is how we have a civil war going on in Syria and the US talking about who is a war criminal and how the government should stand down, when back in the 90's the government sent in tanks and bombed a compound of religious nut after attempting to serve them with a warrant for allegedly stockpiling "illegal" arms (That's Waco for those who do not know). So how the US can straight faced tell the Syrians what to do to challenges to their authority is beyond hypocritical (this does not serve as an endorsement of the Syrian government's actions).

I would say it would be of great benefit of recent immigrants to learn of the actual history of the United States so they fully understand how this particular system works.

More On That Union Busting Bill

To appreciate what that means, try to imagine a Republican president and Republican Senate majority leader signing off on a bill with pro-union language despite thundering objections from most big businesses. Your imagination may not be good enough to picture that, which tells you everything you need to know about the asymmetry between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to labor.

Just had this conversation. Obama is able to pass things that couldn't have been done without major noise from "liberals" had a Republican president tried it.

On another note is anyone else bothered by a rule about union voting being a part of an FAA Reauthorization Act? What does a rule on how unions vote, or do anything a part of FAA authorization?

Hypocrisy in Syria

I neglected to post a link to this when I first read it but it deserves a look:

In 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, federal agents launched an armed assault on a religious group in a compound outside Waco, Texas. The Feds deemed the compound and the Branch Davidians therein, headed by David Koresh, an affront to their authority. After seven weeks, Attorney General Janet Reno concluded that negotiation with the besieged Christian fundamentalists was useless and ordered an assault. Seventy-six Branch Davidians were burned alive. Autopsies showed that five children were among those shot to death by federal agents. The outcome was widely endorsed by the national press and Attorney General Reno commended for her resolve.

No one could doubt that determined separatist activity or armed challenges to the government of the United States are always met with immediate, overwhelming and lethal ferocity. For further historical illustration I recommend an interview with any moderately informed American Indian or black.

I said the same thing when I wrote about the goings on in Libya. Does anyone really think that the US govt (inc.) would allow folks to simply up and rebel with arms and sit back and allow it to happen?

Barack Obama Deals Crippling Blow to Unions, Black Economic Self-Help

A single 3 day strike by the black led New York City transit workers in 2005 protected the homes, the medical care, retirement security, college educations and living standards of more black families than the half-dozen wealthiest black Americans – that would be Oprah, Puffy, Bob Johnson, Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby and some real estate guy have employed or helped in their entire careers.

Think about that.

Santorum on Income Inequality

Charles M. Blow quotes Rick Santorum in his recent opinion piece in the NY Times:

Santorum said, “I’m not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be.”

Unbelievable. Maybe not, but stunning all the same.

Unbelievable? Maybe. If you are in denial that statement is probably shocking to you. If you are not in denial then when you read that statement your response would have been something along the lines of: "And?"

I have found it to be the case that not a few people in America are under the impression that they are somehow owed equal outcomes. It comes as a shock to them that there is no such thing. The only thing one may have a right to is equal opportunity, but outcome? Nope.

Certainly this is not something you generally say to the public during a campaign, but that says more about the American public than it says about the candidate.

Certainly Blow is right in his concern about Detroit but that doesn't excuse him for painting Santorum's statement as out of line.

Of Contraception and Constitution

There is a lot of back and forth on the recent back and forth between the Council of Catholic Bishops and the Obama administration over the mandate that all businesses, including those that are run by religious organizations provide coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans. The issue has been framed by interested parties in the most inflammatory ways possible. On the right we have claims that the Obama administration is waging an all out war against religion and on the left we have claims that the Republicans are trying to control women's bodies and specifically ban contraception. While there is truth in both claims, neither of them are actually relevant to the specific topic at hand but only serve to cloud the actual relevant issues that should be discussed.

If one looks at the common commentary given by random "liberals" you will see a very anti-religion, specifically anti-Christian strain in the commentary. This cannot be denied by anyone who is honest. Even if you agree with the general critique of "The Church" you must admit that not a few liberals would love to dictate the religious liberties of certain religious people (if not ship them out the country as soon and as fast as possible).

On the right there is a concerted effort to ban abortion and other reproductive choices of women. This is undeniable. Due to this fact it is easy, if you are against these efforts, to be alarmed at anything the right is for. As easy as it is to fall into these two camps, the problem with taking sides in this particular case is that neither concerns are relevant. What no one is talking about much, if at all, is what the relevant law is on this matter. In this entry I'm going to lay it out.


The Constitution

Nowhere in the popular discussion of this recent controversy have I seen from my friends on the left is any mention whatsoever of the U.S. Constitution. This is particularly bothering because it seems to me that they, just like their counterparts on the right are fully prepared to trash the Constitution if it serves their own purposes. These same folks were very quick to point to the Constitution when the issue was so called "anchor babies" or "voter ID laws", but suddenly they are all mute on the Constitution. So let us look at the relevant passages.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress cannot pass a law (and since the executive cannot pass laws, they cannot make rules either) respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What does this mean?

Firstly this means that the Congress cannot establish a church. For those familiar with the history (which should be anyone moving their lips on the subject), the reason that the English first came here was due to religious persecution by the king of England who was also the head of the officially established Church of England.

So first and foremost the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a "Church of the United States".

Secondly the Congress cannot pass any law; none whatsoever; that prohibits the free exercise thereof. Now I'm not clear as to whether this means that say human sacrifice could not be outlawed (it is illegal to kill) but I'm going to err on the side that the intention here was not to allow for what would be considered criminal behavior being covered by religion. So for the sake of argument the Congress cannot tell any adherent of a religion what it's precepts are, what books,if any, are or are not valid, etc.

There is only one breech of this that I can think of. The admission of Utah into the Union came with the stipulation that polygamy be outlawed. Polygamy was a tenet of the Mormon faith and was clearly abridged (and continues to be abridged).

So generally speaking there is no law congress can pass that forces a religious person to do something against their faith. Quakers cannot be forced to join the military and kill for example. This concept extends to church organizations. This is clear.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964


As a result of the struggles of African people to secure their citizenship rights the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The Act contains Title VII section 702 which states:

Exemption:

This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

A religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society....to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, education institution, or society of its activities.

Therefore if a church opens up a hospital and considers it a part of it's "ministry" and employs persons, it can not only discriminate against those person on whatever religious grounds it likes but due to the first amendment the Congress cannot pass a law to prevent it from doing so.

I became familiar with this concept in October of 2005 when I discussed a ruling on the Salvation Army

But the judge's 48-page opinion upheld the principle that a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds. That principle is at the heart of the Bush administration's policy.

"It's huge," H. James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said of the decision. "It's certainly a vindication of what President Bush has been saying from Day One -- that religious groups do not have to sell their soul, compromise their hiring practices, in order to partner with government in providing social services."

At the time I was against this ruling because I took the position that the receipt of government funds preempted the right of discrimination found in the Civil Rights Act. I noted this conflict writing:

So we see that there is a conflict of interest here. The government cannot by law give funds directly to organizations that discriminate, yet "faith based" organizations are free to discriminate.

I was wrong then in thinking that the state could preempt the First Amendment right of a religious group to essentially do whatever they please in the name of religion. I have changed my position due to seeing over the seven years that passed, the danger of passing laws that abridge constitutional rights. It is a slippery slope that I gleefully jumped on at the time.

But what is worse for those on the left is that this 2005 decision underscores the correctness of the Republican position on this matter and provides precedence.

The Contraception Issue

With the law on this matter now in hand, we can properly look at the whole contraception issue. The Catholic Church (and possibly other religious organizations) have a religious objection to contraception. It does not matter whether we the general public like it. It does not matter if 90% of American Catholics don't listen to the church about contraception. It is the constitutional right of citizens to use or not use contraception. It is also, as we showed, the constitutional right of the church organization to have it's policy and to not be burdened by the Congress with any law that prohibits the free exercise of that policy. That is the law. There is no way around that without trashing the First Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Viagra Argument

It does not matter one bit, under the law, whether the Catholic church provides for Viagra. In fact, putting the law aside, it is NOT contradictory for the Catholic church to provide coverage for Viagra (if it does) and not contraception. The Catholic church, as I understand it, is pro reproduction. If Viagra helps a catholic couple to reproduce, then it makes sense that the Catholic church would cover it. We should ask then what would be the equivalent male contraceptive coverage?

If the Catholic church provided coverage for say condoms and vasectomies and whatever other means for preventing a male from inseminating a woman while denying women equal access then we would have an actual case of contradiction, even though legally it wouldn't matter.

But Contraception Can Be Used for Things Other Than Contraception

This is a common argument I am seeing on this matter. I would guess that the prescription of contraceptives for reasons other than contraception is what we would call "off label use". I do not know the Catholic church's policy on the off label use of contraceptives. I would hope that if a woman is prescribed the chemicals used in contraception for treatment of a disease (pregnancy is not a disease), that such use is covered by the Catholic church. But even if it does, that does not mean that those who want contraceptives because they simply do not want to get pregnant have a leg to stand on because the church has a problem with the purposed use of the chemicals (as far as I know) and not the chemicals themselves.

It's About Who Pays

I've seen way too much commentary that this particular issue is about controlling women's vaginas, ovaries and whatever. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lets be clear the Catholic church may want to control a woman's vagina. Republicans may want to control a woman's vagina. However this issue is about the constitutional right of religious organizations to have their religious precepts and principles and their right not to pay for something that is against those precepts and principles.

The Catholic Church does not [now] have the power to deny women the right to contraception. I submit that the Catholic Church in the US has never had such power. It does however have the right to not pay for providing it. The women employed by the Catholic Church have the right to purchase contraception and, as far as I know the Catholic Church cannot prevent them from doing so while they are employed by the church.

The risk to this current prohibition against the church being able to dictate the private lives of it's employees are these precedents of employers being able to hire, discipline and fire people based on their non-work activities. I have also warned people about that issue and the danger such actions have on the rights of citizens. However; too many people are not paying attention to the long term threats posed by things that are not a part of their pet issues.

In the end, providing coverage for contraception equals providing contraception. The Catholic church does not approve of or provide contraception. The Congress cannot pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. By mandating that the Catholic church provide contraception via insurance policies is congress prohibiting the free exercise of the Catholic church. The legal ground is clear. This shouldn't be up for debate because the entire proposal is unconstitutional on its face.

The president and the Congress is duty bound to protect and defend the Constitution. If they want to change it they ought to do so by the means provided by the Constitution.

Ex “Love Connection” Host Chuck Woolery Bashes Civil Rights, Gay Rights

Negroes are just so predictable. You can predict what will come out of their mouths, almost to the word, if you mention the phrase "Civil Rights" "State Rights" or things of that nature. Your Black World writes in that vein:

Ex-”Love Connection” host Chuck Woolery came out from under whatever rock he’s been hiding under for the past 20 years to disavow civil rights and gay rights.

“Majority rules,” he said, referring to the Proposition 8 vote in 2008. “We were born with national rights. We don’t need civil rights. [African-Americans] don’t need civil rights. They don’t need them. They have inalienable rights granted by God in the Constitution. I mean, I’m discriminated against all the time. I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me. [I'm discriminated against] because I’m old.”

I've already covered the legal grounds of Prop. 8 so I won't cover it again. Essentially California law never recognized same sex marriage and operated under the definition of husband, wife and marriage as understood under English Common law so Prop 8 should never have been proposed, much less passed. It was unnecessary.

But the point about "national rights" is right on the money and I don't think Chuck Woolery meant "natural rights" as suggested by the writer. Chuck Woolery covered "natural rights" in his "inalienable rights" part of his commentary (which in reality was not meant to include those persons deemed "savages").

I have long argued that actual citizens do not need a civil rights act because actual citizens have their rights protected under law. case in point, The litigation that happened around Jim Crow was not to secure the rights of white citizens. Why? They were citizens and were accorded all the rights and privileges of citizens. Blacks were being denied their rights as citizens. That is, when the 14th Amendment stated that the States could not pass any laws that abridged the rights of US Citizens, which the 13th Amendment included those of African descent, the States were in clear violation of the Constitution. Each and every law they passed were violation of stated "national rights" of blacks. It was the failure of the courts and other government bodies to enforce the constitutional rights of blacks that was the problem.


So to anyone who can actually read (which yes, I failed at yesterday...ha ha haaaa) it is clear that Chuck Woolery does not mean that African-Americans did not have or should not have civil rights. Rather Chuck Woolery is dead on that if you are a citizen you are ALREADY covered.

But trust the Negroes to get this wrong.

Revisiting that Ebony.com Piece on Bobby and Whitney

So yesterday I scored a big F on my reading of Ebony.com's piece on Bobby and Whitney. It happens. I usually catch such glaring errors before they are posted but not this time so I deleted the piece. Those of you who are subscribed to the Blog had it land in your inbox for all posterity (Ha!). I deleted it because I made claims that were unsupported by the text I quoted. However; this morning after sleeping on it I have come to the conclusion that though the text did not say what I claimed it did, the underlying sentiment that perceived is still worthy of examination.


The original piece and object of my scorn said the following:

Fifteen years ago, none of us would have guessed that in 2012, Bobby would be remarried, the father to a young child and (allegedly) sober for years and that Whitney would die alone in the Beverly Hills Hotel with Xanax and an uneaten turkey sandwich by her side. Many had hoped that the end of what seemed to be the toxic Bobby and Whitney marriage would signal the rebirth of the latter's career and her health. That was not to be the case.

I'm still bothered by this. Starting from the opening "None of us". None of us would have guessed that Bobby would be remarried, a father and allegedly sober? If "none of us" expected Bobby to be all of those positive things then what exactly did "all of us" expect? This is a serious question. I'm even putting aside the gross generalization of "none of us" because I certainly was not "expecting" Bobby Brown to have done anything because frankly I wasn't really paying attention to Bobby. Or Whitney for that matter. I still think that this is a case of low expectations of Bobby as a man, a black man at that. We "expect" black men to crash and burn *cough* DMX *cough*.

Now someone is saying that's a pretty hard charge to make. Sure it is but I think the next few sentences of that piece provides support for this. Supposedly "many", a far cry from the "none" had hoped that the break up with toxic Bobby would have been a rebirth of Whitney's career. Really? I suppose we could ask given the evidence presented in the opening sentence, WHO was toxic for who? If it was Bobby who, after getting the divorce, straightened up and flew right, can't we theorize that it was perhaps Whitney who was toxic for Bobby and that Bobby was the one who needed to get away so he could have a "rebirth"?

Of course we can't make such a suggestion in this environment because it is expected that the man must be the toxic one, the source of all the ills befalling a woman, because men are simply evil creatures and women are passive victims of them. I call this the "non agency argument.

Why couldn't "we" have hoped that when Whitney and Bobby got divorced that it would be an opportunity for rebirth for both of them since by not being together neither one of them could enable the toxic behaviors of the other.

But beating on Bobby is far easier to do than to place the responsibility of Whitney's behavior on Whitney. Such an ideology allows us to "expect" Bobby Brown (or any other man who has been deemed "bad") to not straighten up while hoping for the best for Whitney or any other woman who has been deemed the victim of a man.

So yes, I misread the piece originally and claimed it made statements that it did not, but the underlying ideology is there; and it should bother us.

Israel Blames Iran for Attacks in India and Georgia

Tensions between Israel and Iran rose sharply on Monday when bombers struck at Israeli Embassy personnel in the capitals of India and Georgia. Israel accused the Tehran government of being behind the attacks, which Iran denied.

All we need now is for an Iranian military person to say:

I don’t know who took revenge on the Israeli scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear,

Men Lie, Women Lie – Numbers Don’t: The Financial State of African America

I was recently suggesting a viewing of Dr. Claude Anderson's speeches to some people. In line with that is this piece.

It appears that many of us simply just don’t know how BAD things are. We get blinded by a few and I do mean a few success stories and start confusing the exception to the rule as the rule. There is also the purveying confusion of many of us between wealth and income. That someone who makes millions is indeed a millionaire – even though MC Hammer & Mike Tyson remind us otherwise. So let’s take a look at some of the hard numbers when it comes to the state of African America’s financials.

The numbers that follow are truly sobering.

Prop 8 Follow Up

After posting my original piece on the recent Prop 8 decision. It was pointed out that the 1849 California constitution was superseded by the later 1869 constitution. This is absolutely correct and was a serious oversight on my part. However; the main argument that I had still stands. Let me elaborate.

The 1879 California constitution is a greatly expanded document which includes a great deal of detail as to the form of government who is and is not a citizen, legislative limits, and a great deal of copy from the US Constitution. As was correctly pointed out, the word "her" does not exist in the 1879 document as it does in the 1849 document. This is explainable and also does not change the meaning of "wife" as referenced in either document.

The original 1849 document had 2 references as pointed out in my original piece:

ec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.

and

Sec. 14. All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as to that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife's separate property.

Section 12 remained in the new constitution as Section 7 of Article 20
Section 14 was completely removed.One can guess why but the most likely reason for this is that section 14 was a placeholder for laws that were anticipated to be passed in regards to the rights of women and wives. Between 1849 and 1879 it can be assumed (or researched if you like) that the laws anticipated in 1849 were dealt with and that the framers no longer saw the need for that section. Hence it's removal. To suggest though that the removal of section 17 was because the framers actually meant to remove "her" in reference to "wife" is laughable and untenable.

Why do I say that? There are few reasons:

1) The explicitly sexist (by our standards) definition of citizen found in the 1879. Citizenship was explicitly male. The same constitution blatantly discriminated against "Chinese" by name. To even suggest that the same people who saw citizenship as male and non-Chinese and non-Mongolian thought that wife and husband were anything other than a pairing of female and male is ludicrous.

2) Besides this clear lingual evidence we also have the fact that the 1879 constitution also has the following:

‎"SEC. 11. All laws relative to the present judicial system of the State shall be applicable to the jUdicial system created by this Constitution until changed by legislation."

This means that before the 1879 constitution went into effect there were a set of laws on the books. There was no expectation that the laws that were passed under the old constitution would be null and void. Rather they were to be considered just as valid as anything passed after the ratification of the 1879 constitution unless they were changed via legislative process. This means that if the courts already considered wife as "her" or female gender, it was still the operating assumption. Since it is demonstrable that wife was indeed considered "her" and "she" prior to the 1879 constitution then it also applies post 1879 constitution.

3) The California Civil code, under which marriage falls, contains a number of bits that supports the assumption of male- female marriage:

California Civil Code Section 22.2 "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State."

Furthermore:

California Civil Code Section 5: "The provisions of this Code, so far as they are substantially
the same as existing statutes or the common law, must be construed as
continuations thereof, and not as new enactments."

What this means is that the California civil code, the common law of England is considered to be the rulefor all courts in the state so long as it was consistent with the US Constitution. This means that the California court used English common law understanding of marriage when discussing husband and wife. So of course we must ask what is the Engish common law understanding of matrimony?

The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

Clearly then, under English common law thought of marriage as between a man and woman and therefore wife as "she" and "her" and husband as "he" and "him"

Even Stonwall UK, notes on it's website that English common law did not recognize homosexuality as valid.

1290

First mention in English common law of a punishment for homosexuality

1300

Treatise in England prescribed that sodomites should be burned alive

It is clear then that English common law is and was the basis of California civil law. It is clear that English common law did not 'approve of" or recognize as valid any sort of homosexual activity. It is clear that the framers of the California constitution understood wife and husband as "she" and 'he" respectively and that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Since all of this is clear and understandable by anyone who can comprehend the texts as plainly written. How did the justices come to the conclusion that at no time before November 2008 that were homosexuals denied the privilege of marriage? In addition why was Proposition 8 even written and passed since it was clearly unnecessary due to a plain reading of the relevant law?

I think this ought to go to the Supreme Court and that these issues should be dealt with. The way I see it, if the legislature of California wishes to extend the franchise then it should be free to do so. But it should be clear that it is a change in status rather than some misreading of the relevant law.

The Problem With The Latest Prop 8 Decision

So my Twitter timeline has been cheering the recent Prop 8 decision in California, mostly noting the "unconstitutionality" of the Prop 8 amendment. Whether it is remains to be seen but that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to highlight a blatant problem with the decision as rendered by the Appeals Court.

The decision is flawed from the very first paragraph. Really. Let me quote it:

Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to
marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of
California adopted Proposition 8, Which amended the state constitution to eliminate
the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider Whether that amendment violates
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it
does.

You'll note that the decision first notes the California constitution and then the 14th Amendment of the US. Constitution. Lets deal with the first part

Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to
marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike.

That is actually a false statement. The California constitution as enacted in 1849 is very clear as to what it considers "marriage". The word "marriage" appears exactly twice in the original California constitution:

Sec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.

Sec. 14. All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as to that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife's separate property.

As anyone who can read will note, Section 14 of the California constitution clearly refers to a "wife" as "her". It does not refer to a wife as a "person" or "persons" or "him". It refers to wife as "her". That is all. Husband is also referenced relative to wife. Husband is never explicitly linked to gender but is implied as male.

Therefore the California constitution as ratified in 1849 defines marriage as having a wife and husband in which the wife is explicitly a female and the husband implicitly a male. Therefore the original California constitution defines marriage as between a male and female.

Therefore for a justice to claim that prior to November of 2008 that any other marriage arrangement was legal or recognized under the California constitution is factually wrong.

Furthermore, for the justice to state that prop 8 took away a "right" that previously existed is simply untrue. The alleged right of same sex persons to marry was interpreted. The California legislature attempted to have a law enacted to add same sex marriage but that was vetoed by the Governator. Thus it is factually incorrect to state that same sex partners ever had the right to marry under the California constitution or under California civil code. All marriages in California has occurred under a legal cloud and this court of appeals decided to act as if they had not been. That is plain wrong. It is like saying that a person isn't trespassing on private property because he is currently under negotiation with the owner of the property he has trespassed on for permission, after the fact.

The issue with Proposition 8 was that it explicitly stated that a husband is male where before it was implied (which is not the first time such action has been taken in California). How so many people have missed these constitutional facts and how it went unnoticed in the previous arguments is beyond me. Furthermore I think that this very fact is grounds for appeal and the Supreme Court ought to note this error and at the very least remand the case back to the appeals court on this basis.

But I am not a lawyer so take this opinion with the appropriate amount of salt.

However, all is not good for those who are for Proposition 8. Section 12 of the same constitution states that marriage shall not be "invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect." This means that if Prop 8 was argued in anyway to conform to religious principles the state cannot adopt such a measure.

You'll note that the court points out that California statutory law provides same-
sex couples "all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status. Which is, in my opinion, constitutional. The state may extend all benefits of marriage to anyone it chooses without actually changing it's constitutionally defined state of marriage.

This is a part of a larger problem which is highlighted in the recent controversy over the Catholic hospitals being told they had to cover, and therefore provide, contraception for it's employees. Is marriage a secular concept or a religious one? If it is a religious one then by what basis did it enter the 1849 constitution which clearly has a problem with "religious sects" trying to change marriage? If marriage is a religious term then does the state have the right to change it's "traditional" meaning and therefore trample on the constitutional rights of citizens to their own religious tenets?

For example what happens if a same sex couple with a marriage license enters a Catholic hospital for whatever reason and for whatever reason the "spouse" needs to make a medical decision. Say that hospital, under it's religious affiliation does not recognize homosexuals as being married and refuses to consult with that "spouse"? Who wins? The state is barred from telling the religious institution what it's religious tenets are and how to observe them and the state is under an obligation to protect the equal rights of all those with valid marriage licenses. Who wins?

I take the reader back to my oft repeated solution. The state should get out of the marriage business completely. No one gets a marriage license from the state. People can register a business partnership with a tax ID and "articles of incorporation". That business unit can do what any other business entity does: Buy insurance, declare power of attorney, etc. In this way, every citizen regardless of what arrangement they willfully contract into has all the rights and responsibilities that every other citizen has. In addition, the state does not infringe on the rights of religious organizations to recognize "marriage" as they understand it. They are not serving "married" persons of any kind. They are serving representatives of Jane and Jane inc.

It will be interesting if the US Supreme Court takes this case. I think they should. I also think that the issue of how Utah became a state, by a complete trampling of their religious tenets in the name of religion, can be upheld if the Fed cannot make a moral argument against same sex marriage.

Something a Republican Would Do?

I note the amount of "fun" that people are having over the recent comments by Mitt Romney who isn't all that worried about the very poor...or the very rich. Democrats and liberals have been having a field day over that comment. Meanwhile the NY Times reports on a cold situation in Maine:

This winter has been especially austere. As part of the drive to cut spending, the Obama administration and Congress have trimmed the energy-assistance program that helps the poor — 65,000 households in Maine alone — to pay their heating bills. Eligibility is harder now, and the average amount given here is $483, down from $804 last year, all at a time when the price of oil has risen more than 40 cents in a year, to $3.71 a gallon.

With this in mind shall we ask if this administration is "worried about the very poor"? Apparently if you're poor and in need of heating assistance so you don't freeze to death, you're out of luck as far as the Feds are concerned. The administration does know that about 1/2 the country is in the "cold zone" right?

Meanwhile we get to see "Joe" from Citgo with his annual reminder of how much heating oil the people of Venezuela are sending to poor Americans, while other oil companies are of the opinion that they can freeze to death.

I guess the real question is does anyone on the federal level really care about the poor?

Obsessing on White Folks

James McBride, writing in somewhat defense of Spike Lee's commentary at the Sundance Festival, wrote the following:

America is a super power not because we make the biggest guns. We’re a superpower because our culture has saturated the planet: Levis, Apple, Nike, Disney, Coke, Pepsi, McDonald’s, Jazz, Rhythm n Blues, Rock ‘n Roll, and Hip Hop. Our culture dominates the world far more than any nuclear bomb can. When you can make a person think a certain way, you don’t have to bomb them. Just give them some credit cards, a wide screen 3D TV, some potato chips, and watch what happens. This kind of cultural war, a war of propaganda and words, elements that both Hollywood and Washington know a lot about, makes America powerful beyond measure. The hard metal of this cultural weaponry, much of it, emanates from the soul of Blacks, the African American experience in music, dance, art and literature.

But this kind of cultural war puts minority storytellers – Blacks, Asians, Latinos and people of color – at a distinct disadvantage. My friend Spike Lee is a clear example. [my emphasis]

This statement reveals the deficit of independence of the African American. The problem with the highlighted comment is that Asians in fact have a movie making center, mostly in Hong Kong, but also in Japan. So Asians are good. They don't depend upon white folks to tell their stories.

Similarly we have Bollywood. So Indians are good. They can and do tell their own stories at will.

In Nigeria we have Nollywood. And while we can complain about the quality of some of the material that is produced it shows that we Africans can in fact produce their own stories if they so choose.

Latinos, in addition to have their own productions in their own countries (or countries of origin, have channels on TV that provides them with a broad array of stories. So Latinos are not exactly dependent upon white Hollywood to provide for them. Who does that leave? The African American, who after spending time under the boot of whites in America, have decided to be the pimple on their butts, in hopes that if they itch enough they will get a scratch or two.

How about we expend our energies into making our own production studios like Tyler Perry has done (and this is not an endorsement of his films) and as Wesley Snipes Amen Ra productions. Hire these hungry (as in want to make movies) African film makers, sound technicians, etc. and produce our own content, Put them into Magic Johnson theaters and tell Hollywood to kiss our collective behinds?

I suppose though that complaining about whether white folks "understand" black lives and the like is easier though. Not as much work involved. And as an extra bonus, Negroes can again ask for the approval of white folks for their work.

RE: Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped

On Jan 14th Ebony.com posted an opinion piece entitled "Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped: Our victim blaming tactics do little to prevent sexual assault" in which author Zerlina Maxwell presented what she thought would be best for 2012 as it related to female victims, or better put, potential victims of sexual assault:

New rule for 2012: No more ad campaigns and public service announcements targeted at women to teach them how to avoid rape.

I'm not entirely sure what ad campaigns she was speaking of and there were no examples of said media campaigns given in her piece but I'm sure they are out there. Somewhere.

Assuming that these ads are out there somewhere, has anyone actually asked what specifically is wrong with informing women on how to avoid being raped? Do we, for example, object to public service announcements that inform the public on how to avoid being robbed? or how to not be an inviting target of pick pockets? Do we object to advice given to those who have iDevices that perhaps they ought not have them out? Do we? If we do not, then why do we make a special exception for rape?

Let's continue with Ms. Maxwell's commentary so as to perhaps understand where she is coming from:

It’s not effective, it’s offensive, and it’s also a lie. Telling women that they can behave in a certain way to avoid rape creates a false sense of security and it isn’t the most effective way to lower the horrible statistics which show that 1 in 5 women will become victims of a completed or attempted rape in their lifetime. The numbers for African American women are even higher at nearly 1 in 4.

It's not effective? What's not effective? Giving advice to women on how to decrease the chances of being raped is not effective? Says who? What data actually supports this statement? None has been provided. I suppose we should just take Ms. Maxwell's word for it.

But lets take for example the young woman who is instructed by her parents to not take a drink from strangers. Doesn't this constitute "advice" on "how to avoid being raped"? And if she heeds such advice is she not now more empowered and therefore less likely to be a victim? If so, doesn't that mean that Ms. Maxwell's statement is demonstrably false?

Mind you not all advice is useful. For example people who wish to say that a woman ought not to have worn a skirt of a certain length or show a certain amount of cleavage is certainly out of order as we know that what is worn by a woman has little if any bearing on whether a woman will be victimized. However; just because some advice is downright silly and objectionable, it does not mean that all advice is useless. Therefore; it is best to discern useful advice from the weeds. But again, no such advice is listed for us to evaluate so we are left thinking that any advice given must be ineffective.

Ms. Maxwell then moves onto what she thinks will be most effective:

We need anti-rape campaigns that target young men and boys. Campaigns that teach them from a young age how to respect women, and ultimately themselves, and to never ever be rapists. In addition, we should implore our men and boys to call out their friends, relatives, and classmates for inappropriate behavior and create systems of accountability amongst them.

I see. So Ms. Maxwell's position is that young men and boys are not being taught not to rape.

I see.

I would hazard to guess that a good number of parents would object to such a characterization, but I'm not in a position to speak for them. But it certainly is curious that Ms. Maxwell would make such an assertion with no data presented to show that young men and boys are not being taught to respect girls and women. The actual interesting thing is the demographic she targeted in this discussion, Young men and boys. Statistics show that rape victims tend to fall into this category. It is not surprising because persons in this group, male and female alike, tend to make choices that are more likely to leave them vulnerable to being victimized and are very likely to succumb to peer pressure and other group dynamics in which people can do things they actually do not want to do. That includes women who have sex with males and then later have regret and claim to have been raped. Yes, it happens. Sadly.

On the point of "men and boys" calling out their friends, relatives and classmates, there is the large problem of simply not knowing. I cannot call out a friend's behavior if I do not know about it. The fact is that most rapes occur when the perpetrator and the victim are alone. They occur most by those who are trusted by the victims. In such a case, so called "good men" are nowhere to be seen. Worse yet, they can only act after the fact. I don't know about Ms. Maxwell, but I would prefer to not deal with after the fact.

In regards to inappropriate behavior. What constitutes "inappropriate behavior"? who gets to judge that. I don't drink. I may be of the opinion that getting drunk is "inappropriate" period. Someone else may not see it that way. I may be a "hands off" person in my interpersonal dealings, while someone else may be particularly physical. Who am I to determine who's behavior crosses the line? I don't have such authority. But I can act if a woman indicates without question that some man's behavior has crossed a line. But that would be giving women "advice" to speak up. Advice is apparently verboten.

Speaking of drinking, Ms.Maxwell gives us an example:

For so long all of our energy has been directed at women, teaching them to be more “ladylike” and to not be “promiscuous” to not drink too much or to not wear a skirt. Newsflash: men don’t decide to become rapists because they spot a woman dressed like a video vixen or because a girl has been sexually assertive.

I've already covered the total BS that is the "you shouldn't wear that" so I wont cover it again. However; to the "drink to much" point I would counter: what is the likelihood of a sober (or at least in control of herself) person being raped compared to one who is passed out, or falling out drunk? I'll actually answer this question later. Again, this is not to say that a drunk woman "asked for it", but as I said before, I would rather not deal with the aftermath of being vulnerable, than not advise my lady friends to not get so drunk that she is "easy pickings" for one seeking to victimize.

Speaking of drinking:

How about we teach young men when a woman says stop, they stop? How about we teach young men that when a woman has too much to drink that they should not have sex with her, if for no other reason but to protect themselves from being accused of a crime?

Did I read correctly? So we're good with advising men to not deal with a drunk woman because he might find himself on the wrong side of the law, but advising a woman not to get drunk around men she neither knows or trusts is bad? Talk about blatant double standards. Is that what's good for 2012? And who are we to tell men and women how they prepare themselves for intercourse. A lot of men and women apparently need to be liquored up in order to disinhibit themselves. Who am I to judge someone who does that?

In regards to "'no' meaning 'no'".=, I'm all for it. The actual data shows that most of us men are for it. Here's the thing though, unfortunately there are a number of women (how large a population I have no idea) that seem to think that teasing a man is "cute". Where there is "no" and "maybe" and "well a little bit". Personally I think that men who encounter such women ought to leave (or have her leave). However; some of these encounters happen and once a "no" turns out to mean "try harder" or "keep trying 'cause I wanna see how much you'll beg for it" then every other woman that man meets after her, is in danger. Why? Because the mixed signals, particularly when young men and women are still trying to figure out what is what in the mating world, lead to the next woman's certain objection to perhaps be mistook for "try harder".

Again, not that I think it excuses the behavior of a man who does not adhere to the "no" rule, but as stated before I'd rather not get that call from the woman who, unfortunately ran into that man.
Ms. Maxwell then discusses what she calls a "culture of violence towards women":

The culture that allows men to violate women will continue to flourish so long as there is no great social consequence for men who do so. And while many men punished for sexual assaults each year, countless others are able to commit rape and other crimes against women because we so often blame the victim instead of the guilty party.

Culture that allows men to violate women? Really? Here in the US where Ms.Maxwell pointed out that 3 of 4 women (75%) will never be sexually assaulted or raped in her lifetime? How do you claim there is an at large culture of violating women with statistics like that? There are, in fact, sub-cultures in which violence as a whole is acceptable and therefore women in those circles (or who share geographic areas with such persons) are more likely than average to face such violence, but the statistic as provided by Ms. Maxwell simply does not support an at large "culture of violating women".

"Many" and "countless" are used skillfully by Ms. Maxwell to hide the fact that she has provided no data. You would be under the impression that there are men all over the place who are simply waiting for a woman to pass by so they can hop up on them. So since we need actual data so that we can move from conjecture and generalizations, lets look at some actual statistics.

A Harvard paper from 2002 entitled "Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists"

Informs us of a group of 1,882 men out of whom 120 self reported acts that met the legal definition of rape. For you math heads out there that means of the group only 6% of the men self reported legal rape.

Furthermore the report showed that the majority, 80% of these men committed rapes on women who were "incapacitated" due to drug or alcohol use

Let's pause here for a minute. If we go back to Ms. Maxwell's position that it is "offensive" and "ineffective" to advise women to not get drunk, how do we reconcile such a position with the above fact? It seems quite clear that advising women to not get drunk or otherwise incapacitated would possibly reduce the incident of rape by 80%.

Eighty. Per. Cent.

Are we really going to be "offended" by such advise?

If we continue looking at the data we find that of the 120 men who admitted to having committed a rape, 76 (63%) of them had committed multiple rapes. These 76 repeat rapists accounted for 439 individual acts of rape out of 483.

Again for the math people, this means that 4% of the men interviewed were responsible for 90% of rapes.

In the paper we also find that 10 of these 76 had committed between 9-50 rapes per individual.

What did this paper state as their conclusion?

The evidence that a relatively small proportion of men are responsible for a large number of rapes and other interpersonal crimes may provide at least a partial answer to an oft noted paradox: namely, that while victimization surveys have established that a substantial proportion of women are sexually victimized, relatively small percentages of men report committing acts of sexual violence.

So if we take this report as being an accurate representation of of society at large (which has *not* been determined by any larger scale studies) it would be the case that the vast majority of men do not commit or condone rape. This means that, contrary to the assertion made by Ms. Maxwell, there is not an at large "culture of violating women". It would also be the case that a very, very small subset of actual rapists, relative to the overall number of males in the US population are actually responsible for 90% of rapes.

Given that the report also indicates that these men also engage in other interpersonal violence, that they do not care about being "educated" about rape or what constitutes rape. They, like all criminals, simply do not care about their victims or what society thinks is proper. This means that no amount of "educating young men and boys" will stop rapists from doing what they do any more than laws against theft stops the thief.


Since Ms. Maxwell is so concerned about violence though I think she and others who think like her may want to consider a recent study on domestic violence. If this study turns out to be statistically accurate across the US Population, Ms. Maxwell may want to direct her "education" recommendation towards women. the National Institute of Justice and the Department of Defense has found that:

Among males, 92% reported experiencing physical violence from a partner, while 6% said they experienced both physical violence and stalking.

Since the majority of these males would have been in relationships with women, it means that the vast majority of men in relationships, at least in Atlanta, are targets of intimate violence by women who apparently are under the impression that it is OK. Sounds to me that we actually have an at large culture of violating men on our hands.

Imagine that.

State of the Union 2012

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

There are in fact Americans in Iraq. The same Americans that made up a large percentage of the "combatants" in that country: Independent Contractors. They are American (and maybe some other nationalities). So the most accurate comment is that there are no US GIs in Iraq. They are now in Kuwait. That is those who have not been sent home or to Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, The US is currently in negotiations with the Taliban. I'm not sure how this equals "momentum is broken". I told you in 2003 that the US was dealing with the Taliban and I told you again last week that the US is dealing with the Taliban.

Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.

You all did read the NY Times piece on why Apple produces the iPhone in China and why Steve Jobs told Obama outright that those jobs are not coming back. Alrighty then.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

Very true. Of course since the countries the US now competes with were still under colonial control and therefore the international playing field was nowhere near "level" of course the US had such spectacular growth.

I won't discuss the segregation.... Speaking of which:

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

Unless you were black. In which case, well, if you made it you were VERY fortunate on top of the hard work you did. But that kind of history doesn't make for feel good State of the Union speeches.

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

I'm sorry but is Obama somehow unaware that there was never a time in US history where "everyone" got a fair shot? Or where everybody played by the same rules? There is no history to back this up. Why are black people eating this up when they know this was simply not the case?

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

That offshoring was going on under both Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses. In regards to the mortgages and the subprime fraud. The regulators did in fact have authority. They looked away. We know that. So lets' not act as if the regulators could not do anything.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs

Absolutely the best decision made by the administration. But do be clear that in terms of GM, they were also saved by the Chinese who for some reason love Buicks. GM's largest sales, as far as I know, come from China, not the US. I'm not saying that to down the statement made by Obama, but to point out the increasing irrelevance of the US consumer as the Chinese grow their economy.

We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores.

I'm glad he said it. It was said by many that there was going to be a new normal for unemployment. Many didn't believe it. I wonder how long until this sinks in.


Now there's a long stint on teachers and education. Good talk but since education policy is largely state based, there is nothing Obama can actually do but ask and suggest the states to do. Which is underscored here:

So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

Now I don't know for certain, but I was under the impression that school attendance was compulsory. But even if it isn't, how does one deal with some of the reasons that people drop out such as issues at home? Also given the high rates of drop outs in certain communities who's going to foot the bill for the necessary school space and teachers for those students? Not that I'm being down on the suggestion, but just keeping it real. For example Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is on record saying how he'd remove up to half the teachers (assuming this quote to be accurate). I don't see how overcrowded classrooms helps anyone, particularly students who have special needs (or extra attention).

As to the cost of a college education, Obama said:

this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

I think the reason why he is saying that interest rates would double is due to the following

The bill eliminates $9-billion that had been approved in the House version to reduce the interest rate on federally subsidized loans in 2012-13 and subsequent years. That rate is now due to drop to 4.5 percent for the 2010-11 academic year and 3.4 percent the following year, but then rise to 6.8 percent after that.

It would appear that there will need to be money spent to get that interest rate to not go up.

So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

That's a nice line. I work in education. Tuition WILL go up. If the state cannot cover it's cost of doing business (employee raises, technology maintenance and procurement, cost of third party services, etc.) they will raise tuition. Obama knows this. His people know this. This is an empty threat. If this threat is carried out, what will happen is that faculty and staff (the people who run these schools) will be forced into furloughs. Furloughs are a quaint way of saying "pay cut". Now some faculty members at the high end of the salary range will probably be able to absorb that. But there are many people at the low end of the salary range for whom such a thing can be a disaster for their household budget.

Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let's be clear. A College education is already a luxury. Only 27% of the US population has a 4 year degree. College education has always been "for the few". The real issue is an employable education for all.

That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

Actually the fewer crossings have more to do with the depressed economy than with "boots on the ground".

Moving on.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

Going by the comments I saw on Twitter, I am under the impression that folks on the left are now for drill baby drill. I think liberals need to make up their minds. Are they against drilling for environmental reasons like oil spills and global warming or are they not?

Now if we know that only 2% of the work reserves are in the US, then no matter how much oil is "opened up", there is no escaping dependency on foreign oil. So the ONLY way to get off foreign oil is to get off oil completely.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

I will simply direct the reader to the 60 Minutes report on drilling and the consequences on certain neighborhoods in the vicinity of said operations.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

Absolutely. I've been saying this.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender.

But he just said that there were no regulations. Which one is it sir?

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

I thought this was already done. Anyway, yes, yes they can because that payroll tax goes to social security that they'll likely be pulling from in the future. And that payroll tax is on a sliding scale depending on how much you make. And if you make enough to get that $40 hit, you're not in financial straights; at least not one of the government's making.

’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

Which cannot be done while cutting the payroll tax that directly funds Social Security.

Moving on to taxes:

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

I agree with this but I don't see it happening. Both parties are deep in hock to corporations for this to go down.

On Executive Power:

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Really? After signing an unconstitutional law that could indefinitely detain people, we are supposed to give the executive more unchecked power? Really? Are people so un worship of Obama that they'd actually go for that?

On War:

From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.

Yes because under this president we have to most drones in operations and have killed more people with them than any other president. Ever.

Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

I don't expect a single liberal to even comment negatively about this. Not a single one. Not a one that rightly derided McCain's "bomb, bomb Iran". Not one. Sanctions are acts of war. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has met it's obligations under that treaty. Furthermore; as a sovereign state it has the right to develop whatever nuclear devices it wishes.

What is the school there for?

“Oh yes it is and I will say it again, you are lazy. Poor and uneducated Africans are the most hardworking people on earth. I saw them in the Lusaka markets and on the street selling merchandise. I saw them in villages toiling away. I saw women on Kafue Road crushing stones for sell and I wept. I said to myself where are the Zambian intellectuals? Are the Zambian engineers so imperceptive they cannot invent a simple stone crusher, or a simple water filter to purify well water for those poor villagers? Are you telling me that after thirty-seven years of independence your university school of engineering has not produced a scientist or an engineer who can make simple small machines for mass use? What is the school there for?”

...“As long as you are dependent on my plane, I shall feel superior and you my friend shall remain inferior, how about that? The Chinese, Japanese, Indians, even Latinos are a notch better. You Africans are at the bottom of the totem pole.”

I don't know if the story related here is fiction or not, but the sentiments are completely Garveyite in nature. Don't get mad at the Bwana for saying it. Garvey made the same argument.

Former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor had US spy agency ties

WASHINGTON - When Charles G. Taylor tied bed sheets together to escape from a second-floor window at the Plymouth House of Correction on Sept. 15, 1985, he was more than a fugitive trying to avoid extradition. He was a sought-after source for American intelligence...

The Defense Intelligence Agency refused to reveal any details about the relationship, saying doing so would harm national security.

Taylor, 63, pleaded innocent in 2009 to multiple counts of murder, rape, attacking civilians, and deploying child soldiers during a civil war in neighboring Sierra Leone while he was president of Liberia from 1997 to 2003.

Well we've always known that US National Security interests are above those of the innocent people now either dead or limbless. Or in the case of Libya, simply wiped out.

So remember this when next you think to pooh-pooh claims by certain governments (Iran) that they have captured spies and that there are spies in their countries. Just know that a lot of innocent people are dead for US "national security" interests.

PS: This is why I believe the US had Bin Ladin killed on sight and thrown into the sea. There was NO WAY the US wanted detailed information on how in bed they were with that man. Dead negroes may not concern a lot of people, but 3000K dead Americans? That's another thing entirely.

Where Are You From

I’ve also had these questions about identity since I was nine years old. I wrote a whole chapter called ‘Where are you from?” where I describe the sensation of being in Switzerland or Sweden or Germany or London and running into an indigenous African, an African who was not a forced immigrant because of the slave trade. On countless occasions before I even opened my mouth, an African man or woman would walk up to me and ask, ‘Where are you from?” I would answer, “I’m from Houston, Texas.” They would say, “Okay great, that’s where you live but where are you from? Where are your people from?” I would stand there like, “What is this person talking about?” That happened so many different times

Isaiah Washington

Just Can't Be Black

The thing with these Garifuna is that they are no more or less "mixed" than many people in Jamaica, Trinidad, etc.

That they object to using "black" when "Black" is generally a catch all for those of African Descent, which clearly these folks are (more so if you look at the culture) shows just how divided the black house is. Of course some of them, just like some Jamaicans, and African-Americans are not black and/or are more mixed than others.

My suggestion: They should check the "black" box and also the other box and put in their ethnic identity. Just like there are Gullahs in the US African-American population.