Virginia Gay Marriage Lawsuit Hearing Held in Harrisonburg

As many readers already likely know, there are two federal court challenges to Virginia's gay marriage ban that are pending.  One is in the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk and the other is in the Western District of Virginia in Harrisonburg.  Ted Olson andDavid Boises have joined the legal team in the Norfolk lawsuit.  The Harrisonburg lawsuit - while is being spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal - seeks to proceed as a class action on behalf of all LGBT Virginians who are denied marriage equality.   Yesterday, the Court in Harrisonburg held a hearing on the issue of class action certification.  NBC29.com has details on the hearing.  Here are highlights:

The Shenandoah Valley is a major player in the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage Tuesday, when attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union argued in Harrisonburg's U.S. District Court to make their case a class-action lawsuit.

The ACLU is suing Governor Bob McDonnell, the Staunton Circuit Clerk Thomas E. Roberts and state registrar of vital records, Janet Rainey, on behalf of two lesbian couples who were denied marriage licenses. One of the couples shared their story with NBC29.

Joanne Harris and her partner, Jessica Duff, have been together for 12 years. They had a commitment ceremony in 2006 and together they're raising 4-year-old Jabari. When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act over the summer, they rushed to Staunton Circuit Court to finally make it official.

"It's really sad for someone to say 'no' when you want to legally be married,” Harris said.  The clerk said he could not approve their request because Virginia does not recognize their union. Harris and Duff attracted the attention of Lambda Legal and the ACLU.

Tuesday, their attorneys asked a judge in the Western District of Virginia to consider their request along with a series of motions.

"That laws concerning marriage in Virginia really affect almost every part of state government,” said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of ACLU VA. “It affects how taxes are filed, it affects how adoptions are processed and granted, it affects how state employee benefits are allocated."

In the courtroom, the attorney general's office and the lawyer representing the clerk both asked to dismiss their clients as defendants, saying that they are not the appropriate people to sue. The state also challenged the ACLU's desire to apply the ruling to all same-sex couples living in Virginia on the grounds that courts cannot accurately identify the target group.

For same-sex couples like Harris and Duff, the case is about much more than love.  "Our story is not just Jessica and I; our story is indicative to same-sex couples across the state of Virginia, quite honestly, nationally. Everywhere,” Harris said.

From here, the judge will write a formal opinion deciding on each of these motions and explain the reasoning. The gay rights activists also asked the judge to rule right now that the bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The judge will also consider that.

With Ken Cuccinelli the current Virginia Attorney General, it's as if The Family Foundation was arguing the case against gay Virginians. 

The Obama Realignment - Will the GOP Get the Message?

It will take days to sift through all of the analysis and data from yesterday's election.  But one thing is clear: Obama won re-election because he once again put together a coalition of those too often treated derisively and as something less than full citizens by today's Republican Party: women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and younger voters.  I have saying for a long time that the GOP is engaged in a slow form of political suicide and last night was another step toward a much deserved death.  There simply are no longer enough angry white, male, homophobic, evangelical Christian voters to win at the national level.  And the demographics should clearly tell this to anyone not sticking their head in the sand and/or drinking the GOP Kool-Aid like some of my former GOP cohorts from years ago. And the demographic trend is spreading to the state level even here in Virginia.  A column in the New York Times looks at Obama's victory and the GOP's self-inflicted loss.  Here are excerpts:

When you do it once, it’s just a victory. When you do it twice, it’s a realignment.

The coalition that Barack Obama put together to win the presidency handily in 2008 looked a lot like the emerging Democratic majority that optimistic liberals had been discerning on the political horizon since the 1990s. It was the late George McGovern’s losing coalition from 1972 finally come of age: Young voters, the unmarried, African-Americans, Hispanics, the liberal professional class – and then more than enough of the party’s old blue collar base to hold the Rust Belt for the Democrats.

The Republican Party, left for dead after 2008, revived itself, and at many points across the 2012 campaign season Obama’s majority coalition looked vulnerable. Its policy victories seemed to teeter on the edge.  And the Obama coalition was vulnerable. 

But the lesson of the election is that the Obama coalition was truly vulnerable only to a Republican Party that took Obama seriously as an opponent – that understood how his majority had been built, why voters had joined it and why the conservative majority of the Reagan and Bush eras had unraveled.

Such understanding eluded the Republicans this year. In part, that failure can be blamed on their standard-bearer, Mitt Romney .  .  .  .   .  he was ultimately defeated less by his own limitations as a leader, and more by the fact that his party didn’t particularly want to be reinvented, preferring to believe that the rhetoric and positioning of 1980 and 1984 could win again in the America of 2012.

You could see this belief at work in the confidence with which many conservatives insisted that the Obama presidency was not only embattled but self-evidently disastrous, in the way so many voices on the right sought to raise the ideological stakes at every opportunity, in the widespread conviction that the starker conservatives made the choice between left and right, the more votes they would win.

But even less starry-eyed conservatives — like, well, myself — were willing to embrace models of the electorate that overstated the Republican base of support and downplayed the Democrats’ mounting demographic advantage.  Those models were wrong about 2012, and they aren’t likely to be right about 2016 or 2020.

Tuesday’s result ratifies much of the leftward shift in public policy that President Obama achieved during his first term. It paves the way for the White House to raise at least some of the tax revenue required to pay for a more activist government and it means that the Republicans let a golden chance to claim a governing coalition of their own slip away.

[T]here will come a day when a Republican presidential candidate will succeed where Mitt Romney just failed.  But getting there requires that conservatives face reality: The age of Reagan is officially over, and the Obama majority is the only majority we have.

Reactions to the Presidential Debate

I hate to say it, but in my opinion Obama blew it tonight.  Romney lied through his teeth repeatedly - e.g., his claim that he would not seek a huge tax cut for the wealthy, that he'd lower the number of those without health care and the utterly farcical claim that small businesses can effectively negotiate with big insurance companies for heath care plans - and Obama failed to effectively call him out.  The end result was that Romney looked commanding and those not aware of his total dishonesty likely had their opinion of the man enhanced.  As for the moderator, he completely lost control of the situation.  Obama had better regain his game quickly and Romney's shocking lies of the evening need to be exposed.  In sum, I am NOT a happy camper.

P.S. I cannot help but note that Romney, who claims to be the protector of traditional values and religious values, proved to be the biggest liar of the evening.  Of course, that's really no surprise given that the "godly Christian" crowd and professional Christians are the worse lairs one will likely ever encounter.

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Calls Conversion Therapy Unethical

In the wake of California's ban on reparative therapy for individuals under the age of 18 there is now more bad news for those who promote the "ex-gay" myth and the myth that gays can change: British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, the United Kingdom’s largest professional organization for psychotherapists, has adopted a resolution that labels so-called conversion therapy as unethical conduct.  Among the reasons for the action is the finding that "“there is no scientific, rational or ethical reason to try to change someone’s sexual orientation."  Indeed, the ONLY reason for seeking to change someone's sexual orientation is RELIGIOUS BELIEF.  There is NO scientific reason and the claim that tormented gays need help reconciling their sexuality with their religious beliefs begs the issue.  It's not someone's sexual orientation that needs to be changed but instead backward, ignorance embracing religious beliefs that need changing.  Box Turtle Bulletin looks at this development.  Here are some excerpts:

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the U.K.’s largest professional organization for psychotherapists, has issued a new policy statement (PDF: 627KB/1 page) which reminds members that “there is no scientific, rational or ethical reason” to try to change someone’s sexual orientation:

The British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy (BACP) is dedicated to social diversity, equality and inclusivity of treatment without discrimination of any kind. BACP opposes any psychological treatment such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or based on the premise that the client/patient should change his/her sexuality.

BACP recognises the PAHO/WHO (2012) recent position statement that practices such as conversion or reparative therapies ‘have no medical indication and represent a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons’.

BACP recognises that the diversity of human sexualities is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment (Royal College of Psychiatrists). A recent research review (King, et al 2007) showed that those who do not identify as heterosexual may be misunderstood by some therapists, who see the client/patient’s sexuality as the root cause of their presenting issue. The ability to appreciate differences between people, to commit to equality of opportunity, and to avoid discrimination against people or groups contrary to their legitimate personal or social circumstances, is central to ethical and professional practice (BACP 2010, Ethical Framework).

BACP believes that socially inclusive, non-judgemental attitudes to people who identify across the diverse range of human sexualities will have positive consequences for those individuals, as well as for the wider society in which they live. There is no scientific, rational or ethical reason to treat people who identify within a range of human sexualities any differently from those who identify solely as heterosexual.

In 2010, the British Medical Association approved a motion saying the National Health Service should not fund Sexual Orientation Change Efforts ("SOCE"). That statement came after a reporter for The Independent went undercover and reported on a NARTH-affiliated therapist who offered SOCE. In the first session, the therapist sought to uncover the source of the reporter’s homosexuality by asking about childhood neglect, whether he had a difficult birth, and whether anyone in the family practiced Freemasonry. That therapist, later identified as Lesley Pilkington, was expelled from the BACP last May for professional malpractice.

Secret Video: What Mitt Romney Really Thinks of Most Americans

I have repeatedly felt that Mitt Romney is an arrogant bastard who cares little or nothing for most Americans or the struggles that we deal with.  Now, we have proof from Mitt Romney's own lips as he describes half of America's population as "dependent upon government, believing that they are victims, believing the government has a responsibility to care for them, and believing that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."  And how would Romney respond to these Americans?  "My job is not to worry about those people."  Talk about assholes.  His remarks veritably drip with contempt.   And he openly slams Hispanic voters.  Oh, and did I mention that Romney was talking to a group of 1% supporters?  Mother Jones broke the story - there's more to come tomorrow - and here is a video clip followed by some excerpts:

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity.

Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation."

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

What is equally disgusting is that many on the right - including the "godly Christian" crowd - don't want  Romney to apologize for his heinous and contemptuous comments.  So much for the Gospel message of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless.   Mitt and Ann Romney truly make Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette look like Mother Theresa in comparison.

Gay Democrats' New Visibility

While little has changed in the GOP political world for gay Americans - we are still viewed and treated as a threat to morality and even Western civilization - it has been nothing short of a revolution for gays involved in Democratic political circles.  This bold new world was highly visible at the just ended Democratic convention in Charlotte.  Even in Virginia (hardly a state in the forefront of anything progressive) one can see the change and the boyfriend and I have often been sought out to be on host committees as an openly gay couple.   I'm sure that in local GOP circles that include anti-gay bigots like Scott Rigell, George Allen and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli we'd be directed to hide our unfortunate "lifestyle choice" assuming we were self-loathing enough to support a political party that seeks to stigmatize us and keep us legally inferior.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the new world of Democratic political activism.  Here are excerpts:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — After years of struggling for attention and recognition from the nation’s political parties, gays and lesbians have catapulted to the forefront of the Democratic convention here, prominent on the stage, in speeches, in the platform and at parties that go on after the proceedings have finished.

The turnaround has surprised even gay leaders, who just four years ago were frustrated in their attempt to get same-sex marriage mentioned in prime time. Many spent the first two years of the Obama presidency criticizing President Obama for failing to move to fulfill a campaign promise to eliminate the ban on gays serving openly in the military. 

Eric Marcus, an author who has written extensively about gay history, said: “I used to think I was bold in being as out as I am, but now I feel like our straight supporters have zoomed past me in their enthusiasm and their out-ness about being pro-gay. They’re actually wearing their pro-gay agenda as a badge of honor. What a transformed world from my youth.” 

One of the Democrats’ first acts was adopting a party platform that for the first time endorsed same-sex marriage. Gay rights — whether they be same-sex marriage, the lifting of the ban on gays in the military, or anti-discrimination measures — have been mentioned in nearly every speech, including one by Michelle Obama.

The higher profile of gays extended beyond the arena. It was not uncommon to see same-sex couples walking hand in hand down Tryon Street, in the heart of Uptown. Parties sponsored by gay and lesbian groups have become as sought after as the ones sponsored by Google and by the Illinois delegation. 

The contrast with the Republican convention last week in Florida was striking. In Tampa, there were no openly gay people speaking from the stage, and minimal discussion of gay issues, though there were small contingents of gay delegates and celebrations in more obscure venues. That said, gay delegates there noted that unlike past conventions, there was no chorus of attacks on gay rights from the stage. 

There's much more in the article, but the highlights above make the point: with the younger up and coming generations supporting LGBT rights and same sex marriage by large majorities, the Democrats seem to have eagerly grasps the future whereas the GOP remains mired in trying to recreate a past that in many ways never really existed.  By focusing almost solely on the demands of angry white conservatives (many of whom will have literally have died off in a little more than a decade, the GOP to me seems to have a death wish.

Catholic Priest: It’s The Kids’ Fault They Were Molested

If one wants a glimpse into the utterly f8cked up world  and alternate universe of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, one need only the statements of Fr. Benedict Groeschel (pictured above), who in comments during an interview with the National Catholic Register basically blamed children and youths for their own molestation at the hands of Catholic priests.  In Groeschel's bizarre world, the victims seduced their molesters.  It's beyond sick, but in my view is representative of the Church hierarchy's mentally disturbed mindset.  How anyone moral and honorable can still give any deference or respect to these foul individuals is mind boggling.  Box Turtle Bulletin has a good analysis of Groeschel's batshitery.  Here are excerpts:

Fr. Benedict Groeschel, the 79-year-old founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, is not just a curmudgeonly New Jersey-born and -accented Capuchin monk. He is also a long-time television personality on the Catholic television network EWTN and popular speaker among American Catholicism’s conservative set. But he’s not just a Franciscan priest, he’s also Dr. Benedict Groeschel, having earned a Ph.D in Psychology from Columbia University back in 1971, when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness by the APA.

As one of the Church’s acknowledged “experts” on sexuality, Groeschel was called upon by east coast dioceses, including the Boston Archdiocese, to perform psychological screenings to candidates for the priesthood. He has also been called upon to counsel Catholic priests who were accused of sexual improprieties — including those who had sex with minors – with disasterous results. Nevertheless, he was honored in 2011 by the Catholic Psychotherapy Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

I think it’s important to understand all of that before reading what Groeschel told the National Catholic Register this week:

People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.

Moments ago, the Register’s editor placed the following note at the URL where the interview was originally posted:

Child sexual abuse is never excusable. The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel’s comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our publication of that comment was an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize. Given Father Benedict’s stellar history over many years, we released his interview without our usual screening and oversight. We have removed the story.

The story may have now been removed, but while it was online, it gave a glimpse of the real mindset and unbelievably sick psyche that, in my opinion, predominates the Church hierarchy.

Washington State:Catholic Churches Can’t Collect Donations to Overturn Gay Marriage Law

I noted recently that the Diocese of Yakima, Washington, was directing all churches in the diocese to have a special collection effort in September to raise money to help overturn Washington State's marriage equality law enacted earlier in the year.  Now, the state has stepped in and told the Catholic Church that it cannot proceed with its plan without violating the state's campaign finance laws (I still believe the IRS needs to step in as well).    It's yet another example of the "godly Christian" folk believing that they are above the laws that govern the rest of us.  I hope the state goes after NOM as well.  The Boston Edge has details on the smack down received by the Catholic Church.  Here are highlights:

OLYMPIA - Washington’s campaign finance watchdog says the state’s Catholic churches can’t collect donations from parishioners for the campaign seeking to overturn the state’s gay marriage law.

Last week, Yakima Bishop Joseph Tyson sent a letter to pastors in 41 parishes of the Yakima Diocese asking them to announce a special collection that would go to Preserve Marriage Washington, which is fighting the same-sex marriage law that was passed earlier this year. The diocese’s chief of staff, Monsignor Robert Siler, said Tuesday that the expected collection date was Sept. 8-9.

But Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, says no organization can be an intermediary for a contribution. She says the church can hand out envelopes, but either a member of Preserve Washington has to be on hand to collect them or parishioners must send them in individually.  Anderson said the restrictions stem from Initiative 134, which voters passed in 1992 to regulate political contributions and campaign spending.

Siler said the diocese coordinated its efforts with the Washington state Catholic Conference.

Anderson said that even so, what the church is proposing to do is what federal laws refer to as "bundling," and that isn’t allowed under state law. Anderson said PDC officials would be reaching out to church officials in the coming days.  "We just want to make sure they understand what they can and can’t do," she said.

"Under state law, no one can be an intermediary for a contribution," Anderson said. "It doesn’t matter if it’s a loose pile of money or if each is in a little envelope."

I hope the state holds tough against the Church and shuts down their effort.

GOP Senate Candidate: "Legitimately Raped" Women Don't Get Pregnant

Just when you think the batshitery from the GOP cannot get any worse, someone like Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) - who is running against Senator Clair McCaskill - comes along.  Adkin opposes abortion in all instances because Adkin says "legitimately raped" women don't get pregnant.  I don't know if I want to know what Adkin considers to be a "legitimate rape" - although something tells me that if the woman is white and the man is black, then it'd be legitimate in Adkin's mind.  One can only wonder what cave or from under what rock Akin has slithered.  Yet, in Missouri, Adkin is frighteningly leading McCaskill in the polls at the moment - not a very good commentary on the people of Missouri if you ask me.  Has the state of Missouri had a collective lobotomy?  Here's a video clip of Adkin's lunacy:

Like most of the loons who inhabit today's GOP, Adkin doesn't let the facts get in the way of his cretin like pronouncements as noted by Joe Jervis:

A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found “rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency” and is “a cause of many unwanted pregnancies” — an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.” In a tweet, McCaskill said she was “stunned” by Akin’s comments. Akin is perhaps the boldest among a crop of conservative 2012 nominees who could hamper GOP efforts to take back the Senate in the fall. Akin has called for an end to the school-lunch program and a total ban on the morning-after pill.

Yet despite this all too typical insanity (never mind the racism, hate and bigotry) people seriously tell me that I should go back to the GOP!   Adkins opponent had this to say:

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” McCaskill said in a statment. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.” 

When the GOP decided to embrace the Christianists for political gain, they also made the conscious decision to embrace ignorance as well.  To be a Republican today, one needs to be a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, motivated by greed, and ignorant by deliberate choice.  The GOP itself has become offensive.

Christian Publisher Stops Publication of David Barton's Revisionist History Book

As a history major in college and a firm believer that only by knowing true and accurate history can we avoid mistakes and horrors of the past, I have long been appalled by the work of supposed historian David Barton who would have fit right in with the Goebbels propaganda machine for the Nazi Party.  The man constantly spews deliberate lies and has been a leading advocate of the myth that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation."  It's a total lie and the real truth about the Founding Fathers reveals that they were extremely suspicious of religion and that virtually none of them were of a mindset like today's evangelical Christians who live in some kind of deranged alternate universe from objective reality.  And not surprisingly, Barton is a huge proponent of Bible based civil laws that would make homosexuality a crime worthy of severe punishment.   Barton's latest book, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson, sought to rewrite the history of Jefferson into some kind of fantasy that turned the truth about the man upside down.   Fortunately, the books publisher has ceased distribution of the book in the face of blistering condemnation.  Here are highlights from NPR:

Citing a loss of confidence in the book's details, Christian publisher Thomas Nelson is ending the publication and distribution of the bestseller, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson. 


The controversial book was written by Texas evangelical David Barton, who NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty profiled on All Things Considered Wednesday. The publishing company says it's ceasing publication because it found that "basic truths just were not there."

Since its initial publication, historians have debunked and raised concerns about numerous claims in Barton's book. In it, Barton calls Jefferson a "conventional Christian," claims the founding father started church services at the Capitol, and even though he owned more than 200 slaves, says Jefferson was a civil rights visionary.

"Mr. Barton is presenting a Jefferson that modern-day evangelicals could love and identify with," Warren Throckmorton, a professor at the evangelical Grove City College, told Hagerty. "The problem with that is, it's not a whole Jefferson; it's not getting him right."

Warren Throckmorton and I have dueled over the years on reparative therapy - he has since changed his positions supporting the "therapy" -  but he believes in honesty.  That's something unknown to Barton.  Bob Felton has some commentary on Barton's lies about Jefferson:

In order of the provocative ‘truths’ Barton proposes to set the record straight about:

• Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings? Almost certainly. DNA tests performed in the late 90s established that the descendants of Sally Hemings have DNA that matches Jefferson’s descendants. Most historians think that settles the question, but others point out that the common DNA may have entered the family line through the Randolphs, Jefferson’s wife’s family. The Randolph descendents have refused to submit to DNA testing and so, strictly, the matter is unresolved. Rumors of Jefferson’s relationship with Hemings were a commonplace during his lifetime, however, and it is undisputed that there were a lot of red-headed slave children running around Monticello, and that Hemings and her children received privileged treatment in Jefferson’s will.
  
• Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he disagreed? The truth is more complicated than the question implies. Jefferson was an admirer of Jesus, but skeptical of the magic-man persona and the miracles. Jefferson cut-and-pasted the gospel narratives into an order he thought more coherent than in the traditional Bible, and omitted the miracles. Jefferson was carefully ambiguous about his religious beliefs, which, given his Enlightenment temperament, probably signifies agnosticism or deism.
  
• Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans? Jefferson wanted to send the slaves back to Africa, and intimated toward the end of his life that he thought slavery might someday lead to exactly the civil war we got. It’s not clear whether he was a racist per se, so much as that he believed the race problem was irreconcilable and dangerous to the union. He was instrumental in the colonization movement that culminated in the founding of Liberia.
  
• Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the secularizing of public life? Yes, emphatically so. Though his public pronouncements on religion were few and ambiguous, his private letters speak plainly and often of his contempt for the clergy.

There is much to admire in Jefferson, and even his flaws are not so bad when we consider his time and place. To recreate him as some sort of American saint is dishonest, though, and it is gratifying that Barton’s revisionism has fallen with such a clunk.

I know I comment on this repeatedly, but no one lies as much or as often as the "godly Christian" crowd.  It's ironic that the "godless liberals" do a much better job at being honest and avoiding constant outright lies.

Lisa Miller Kidnapping Accomplice Goes on Trial in Vermont

The trial of Kenneth L. Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Virginia, is about to commence in Vermont.  Miller is on trial for helping and abetting Lisa Miller (who farcically claims to now be "ex-gay") in kidnapping her daughter, Isabella, and absconding to to Nicaragua in violation of Vermont custody orders.  The Virginia Supreme Court twice upheld the validity of the Vermont court orders.  Not indicted but believed by many to be involved in the kidnapping are staff members at Liberty University Law School.  Obviously, I would be  delighted to see evidence come out at trial that might lead to additional prosecutions against these gay-hating religious extremists.  NBC News has coverage.  Here are highlights:

The trial of an Amish-Mennonite minister accused of helping an American woman spirit the child she had with her former same-sex partner out of the country just before she lost custody is getting under way this week.

Kenneth L. Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Va., is charged with aiding and abetting Lisa Miller in taking her child, Isabella, to Nicaragua with the intent to obstruct the parental rights of her former civil union partner, Janet Jenkins, according to the court indictment. He is not related to Lisa Miller and could face a three-year sentence if convicted.

Federal agents haven’t been able to locate Isabella or Lisa Miller, who was indicted on international kidnapping charges in 2010.

The case has drawn attention in part because it involves an international custody dispute, but also because it touches upon two major issues in the public square: gay rights and religion. A jury was selected Tuesday in Burlington, Vt., and opening arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.

Kenneth Miller allegedly helped arrange the pair’s exit from their home in Lynchburg, Va., to Canada, where they crossed the border from New York on Sept. 22, 2009. He then facilitated the purchase of plane tickets to Nicaragua and set up contacts for them in the Central American country, according to an affidavit filed by Deputy U.S. Marshal Max Galusha.

The court determined in November 2009 that Jenkins would have sole physical and legal custody of Isabella starting on Jan. 2010, ruling that Miller had willfully interfered with her visitation rights. But Miller had already fled her home in Lynchburg, Va., with her daughter in tow.

Hopefully, Kenneth Miller will be convicted and a message sent to Christianist extremists that they are not above the civil laws.

Has Romney Been Cheating the Mormon Church as Well as the IRS?

A CBS News piece out of Boston offers some further speculation as to why Mitt Romney may be refusing to release his tax returns: he may have been short changing the Mormon Church by not tithing 10% of his income as the church's directives dictate.  If this speculation is true, then it adds another layer to the "what is Mitt trying to hide" story line.   It might further suggest why Harry Reid - a Mormon himself - is going after Romney with such a vengeance since many other Mormons might be less than pleased if the penny pinching Romney was short changing their denomination.  Here are highlights from the column:

Whatever the level of exaggeration from the Senator [Harry Reid] or his source, there is probably at least some level of truth to the statement. Unfortunately, Romney is stonewalling the American public by not releasing his records so we’ll never know the truth.

But the source coming to Harry Reid for these revelations adds a level of intrigue. Reid just happens to be the highest-ranking member of the Mormon Church in the history of this nation.  It is likely that Senator Reid’s source shares the Mormon religion with Reid and Romney.  That message will not be lost on Romney. If the Bain fortress is not a fortress; if people are talking, Romney knows that trouble lies ahead.

And the motivation for this leak may not be political. It is likely personal and tied to the Mormon Church.
Specifically, if Romney was hiding money from the IRS he may have hidden money from his church.

This is something I have speculated about in this space in the past: a large part of Romney’s reluctance to release his records may be based on his relationship with his Mormon Church.  Some have speculated that Romney’s donations to the church might be a problem with the American public. Perhaps it is Romney’s shortchanging of his church that is Mr. Romney’s concern.

Perhaps there is a major story in the works on Romney’s IRS audits.   .   .   .   If reporters are working on stories about Romney being audited then he knows it and his staff knows it.

Whatever becomes of this story, Romney has opened himself up to endless speculation. Whatever is in those records must be devastating because he continues to allow the speculation around his returns to be a dominating cloud over his campaign. 

The Increasingly Delusional Virginia GOP

As a one time Republican, the increasing insanity of the Republican Party particularly here in the Old Dominion is getting harder and harder to fathom. One cannot help but wonder what drugs or strong Kool-Aid is being imbibe by the party base. The party has suffered repeated losses of late but rather than moderate and acknowledge the state's changing demographics, the Republican Party of Virginia ("RPV")retreats increasingly to the far right alienating even more voters. Pam's House Blend has a good recap of the bat shittery to use her term of what's going on within the RPV. Here are a few highlights:

*

In case the RPV didn't notice, the Democrats carried the state and added a new U.S senator during this month's election. White conservative voters are a shrinking part of the electorate. Republicans can get 100% of the conservative white vote, but it wouldn't be enough to win state or nation-wide. So, what is the RPV's plan to build a coalition that will make them competitive? Move further to the right!

*
So, let me make sure I understand this strategy. The party just lost the state to a democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1964, the state has changed from red to blue, they just lost the other U.S. senate seat to a Democrat, they lost control of the state senate, and have a 7 seat lead in the house of delegates, and they want to move even further to the right. This illogical thinking is what is driving people like me and others away from this party in droves. What should the party do?

*
The first thing they should do is to get rid of their racist chairman, Jeff Frederick. Last month he compared Senator Obama to Osama bin Laden, saying, "they both have friends that bombed the Pentagon." Which of course is not true. Frederick has yet to apologize for his ignorant remarks...Not one person in leadership from RPV called him to task on this insidious comment.

*

As long as the RPV continues to inject race into their campaigns, require conservative litmus tests for participation, and ignore the changing demographics of the state, they are destined to continue losing seats and elections.

*

I would further add that besides abandoning the politics of racism, the RVP needs to dump its Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell element and likewise stop listening to profession homophobes such as Victoria Cobb at The Family Foundation.

More GOP Post Mortem

As always, Frank Rich has a great way with words and his column today in the New York Times about the post-2008 Republican Party is no exception. He and I are on the same page in terms of not seeing the GOP come to grips with the fact that it is no longer mainstream for some time. Now run by the delusional far right and Christo-fascists, there is nobody home in the party to focus on reality. Those who have tried to carry the message have been treated as heretics worthy of burning at the stake. I can only shake my head when I see how out of touch with reality the party I once was so involved in has become. The party has now become the party of ignorance and religious lunacy. Here are some highlights from Rich's column:

*

Will the 2008 G.O.P. go the way of the 1936 G.O.P., which didn’t reclaim the White House until 1952? Even factoring in the Democrats’ time-honored propensity for self-immolation, it’s not beyond reason. The Republicans are in serious denial.

*

The trouble is far more fundamental than that. The G.O.P. ran out of steam and ideas well before George W. Bush took office and Tom DeLay ran amok, and it is now more representative of 20th-century South Africa during apartheid than 21st-century America. The proof is in the vanilla pudding. When David Letterman said that the 10 G.O.P. presidential candidates at an early debate looked like “guys waiting to tee off at a restricted country club,” he was the first to correctly call the election.

*

On Nov. 4, that’s roughly the sole constituency that remained loyal to the party — minus its wealthiest slice, a previously solid G.O.P. stronghold that turned blue this year (in a whopping swing of 34 percentage points). The Republicans lost every region of the country by double digits except the South, which they won by less than double digits (9 points). They took the South only because McCain, who ran roughly even with Obama among whites in every other region, won Southern whites by 38 percentage points. Those occasional counties that tilted more Republican in 2008 tended to be not only the least diverse, but also the most rural, least educated and slowest-growing in population.

*

There’s endless hand-wringing about Bush and McCain blunders and Abramoff-Stevens corruption, but there’s barely any mention of the nasty cultural brawls that defined the G.O.P. campaign narrative this year as the party clung bitterly once more to its 40-year-old “Southern strategy.” There were as many Republican prejudices as candidates.

*

Not that McCain was innocent in these exclusionary escapades. He strenuously sought the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee, even though Hagee had blamed gays for Hurricane Katrina, referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore,” and theorized that Hitler came about because God’s “top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

*

In defeat, the party’s thinking remains unchanged. Its leaders once again believe they can bamboozle the public into thinking they’re the “party of Lincoln” by pushing forward a few minority front men or women. The reason why they are promoting Palin and the recently elected Indian-American governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as the party’s “future” is not just that they are hard-line social conservatives; they are also the only prominent Republican officeholders under 50 who are not white men.

*

Such window dressing aside, there remains only one Republican idea for reaching out to minority voters: Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recommends pandering to socially conservative blacks and Hispanics with yet more hyperventilation about same-sex marriage. . . . Pitting blacks and Latinos against them could open up a whole new bloody front in the G.O.P. civil war.

*

The worse news for the country is that at a time of genuine national peril we actually do need an opposition party that is not brain-dead.

Another GOP Post Mortem

I've written often about the demise of the GOP from what it once was - i.e., the days when did not have to be a wingnut evangelical, racist, or miser worried only about what YOU will pay in taxes. I like many question where the party goes from here. Sadly, I suspect the party will trend even further to the irrational far right before the reactionary forces now controlling the party tire of politics after more future election debacles or some leader appears who can lead the party back from Christianist lunacy. Anyone who sees Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee or Louisiana Governor Jindal as the future of the party has not received the message that moderates and independents do NOT want a quasi-theocratic party in the White House. The Chimperator - currently the least popular president EVER - has shown the perils of a small minded fundamentalist Christian holding that office. Charlie Cook in National Journal has a column that looks at what the Christianist lock on the GOP is doing. Here are some highlights:

*

One key to Barack Obama's victory, however, was his overwhelming support among voters ages 18 to 29, whom he won by 34 points, 66 percent to 32 percent; and his support among those ages 30 to 44, whom he carried by 6 points, 52 percent to 46 percent. Those numbers are ominous for Republicans looking to 2010 and beyond.

*

Republicans have lost an enormous amount of support among upscale voters, basically just breaking even among those with household incomes above $50,000 a year, a traditional GOP stronghold. Similarly, McCain's losing to Obama among college graduates and voters who have attended some college underscores how much the GOP franchise is in trouble. My hunch is that the Republican Party's focus on social, cultural, and religious issues -- most notably, fights over embryonic-stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo -- cost its candidates dearly among upscale voters.

*

Those who write off the 2008 election by saying that Republican candidates weren't conservative enough are in denial. They are political ostriches, refusing to acknowledge that the country and the electorate are changing and that old recipes don't work any more.

*

[T]he Republican Party's message and agenda haven't changed much other than becoming even more fixated on cultural issues and tax cuts. . . . The question is whether the party's leaders and members will be listening. Will they be open to new approaches to dealing with a dramatically changed country? Or will they simply say, "Back to the Future"?

A Compelling Statement for Obama

Just this morning I spoke with a friend who was complaining that he has supposedly intelligent friends who still say that they will vote McCain/Palin tomorrow. He is dumbfounded as to how anyone could in effect vote for 4 more years of the Bush/Cheney regime. In my view, the reasons for such a mindset boils down to being selfish about what one might pay in taxes or the best interests of the country, latent racism, ignorance, or religious fanaticism. Personally, I do not understand it. Apparently these people do not want to admit what the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney and a GOP controlled Congress have wrought. Andrew Sullivan has a passionate endorsement of Barack Obama which is worth a read. This election will in many ways determine whether or not the soul of the nation is reclaimed from the party of torture, hate, hubris driven wars, intolerance and fiscal irresponsibility. Here are some highlights from his endorsement:

*

These mistakes were compounded - and in large part created - by what I believe will one day be seen as the core event of the last eight years: the collapse of constitutional order and the rule of law fomented in a mixture of hubris and laziness by the president himself. It is now indisputable that the president and vice-president of the United States engineered a de facto coup against the constitution after 9/11, declaring themselves above any law, any treaty, and any basic moral norm in their misguided mission to rid the world of evil.

*

Cheney and Bush, unlike any presidency in American history, have dangerously pushed constitutional government to the brink of collapse. . . . They did not merely act in the immediate wake of an emergency to protect American citizens swiftly. . . . they claimed the right to seize anyone - anyone, citizen or not - they deemed an "enemy combatant," to hold them indefinitely with no due process and to torture them until they became incoherent, broken, brutalized shells of human beings, if they survived at all. They did this to the guilty and they did this to the innocent. But they also had no way of reliably knowing which was which and who was who.

*

They seized countless individuals with no trials and no hearings. They tortured dozens to death. They subjected many more to some of the worst psychological torture techniques devised by Communist totalitarians and the worst physical suffering devised by the Gestapo. They crossed lines no American president had ever crossed before. They withdrew the US from the Geneva Conventions - and did so secretly.

*

They single-handedly devastated America's reputation for human rights and the rule of law in the minds of the vast majority of people in other Western democracies, let alone the developing world, let alone the millions of Muslims across the Middle East who now suspect that America is not really better than their own thugocracies. . . . No economic mismanagement can compare with this attack on the basic institutions of our democracy and the constitution. No incompetence in conducting an occupation can be deemed comparable with this level of criminality and indecency.

*

This is the depth of the predicament the United States is in. The Islamist threat remains; but the Constitution is in deep disrepair, the military stretched to breaking point, the national debt doubled, and America's reputation in terrible shape.

*

[W]hen push came to shove, even McCain acquiesced to the legalization of America's use of the very same torture techniques once used against him. And in this campaign, we have seen how no Republican candidate can escape the logic of bigotry, fanaticism and xenophobia that now grips and motivates the Republican party base. We have also learned, much more importantly, that McCain would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would acquiesce to and constitutionally entrench the dictatorial presidency that Bush-Cheney believe in as loyally as Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia.

*

If I were to give one reason why I believe electing Barack Obama is essential tomorrow, it would be an end to this dark, lawless period in American constitutional government.

*

The truth is: we are in a war for the future of human civilization. We are fighting for a world in which destructive technology need not collide with fierce religious fundamentalism to annihilate us all; for a world in which dialogue across cultures and religions and regions (even within America) is essential if we are to survive. . . . . I fear and believe we have given away far too much - and that, while this loss is permanent, it can nonetheless be mitigated by a new start, a new direction, a new statement that the America the world once knew and loved is back.

*

But there is something about his [Obama's] rise that is also supremely American, a reminder of why so many of us love this country so passionately and are filled with such grief at what has been done to it and in its name. I endorse Barack Obama because I will not give up on America, because I believe in America, and in her constitution and decency and character and strength. And the world needs that America now as much as it ever has.

A Fading Away of the Culture Wars?

Christianists - and now Mormons - have made a nice living off of peddling the culture wars and using fear and hate as a means to line their own pockets with lots and lots of money. Could those days be ending and hence the extreme hysteria of James Dobson and the other false Christians who have lived very well off of fleecing the ignorant and bigoted. Based on the views of my children and their friends - e.g., race and sexual orientation mean far less to them - perhaps the old hate merchant approach is losing steam. A column in today's Washington Post looks at this possible phenomenon (which I hope and pray continues) and how it may related to the sinking fortunes of the GOP and Bible Spice Palin in particular. Likewise, when people are worried about losing their jobs and/or their homes, who you neighbor is sleeping with just doesn't seem so important. Here are some highlights:

*

Why has America turned on Sarah Palin? Obviously, her wobbly television interviews haven't helped. Nor have the drip, drip of scandals from Alaska, which have tarnished her reformist image. But Palin's problems run deeper, and they say something fundamental about the political age being born. Palin's brand is culture war, and in America today culture war no longer sells. The struggle that began in the 1960s -- which put questions of racial, sexual and religious identity at the forefront of American politics -- may be ending. Palin is the end of the line.

*

This won't be the first time a culture war has come to a close. In the 1920s, battles over evolution, immigration, prohibition and the resurgent Ku Klux Klan dominated election after election. And those issues played into that era's version of the red-blue divide, pitting newly arrived, saloon-frequenting, big-city Catholics against old-stock, teetotaling, small-town Protestants.

*

Then, in the 1930s, the culture war died. A big reason was the Depression, which put questions of economic survival front and center. In the 1920s boom economy, politicians were largely free to focus on identity politics. . . . Something similar is happening today. Our era's culture war also began in prosperity. It was in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the high point of America's postwar boom, that African Americans took to the streets in vast numbers to demand equal rights. And it was in the early 1960s, as a result of the vast increase in postwar college enrollment, that students began challenging the conformity of American life.

*

Today, according to a recent Newsweek poll, the economy is up to 44 percent and "issues like abortion, guns and same-sex marriage" down to only 6 percent. It's no coincidence that Palin's popularity has plummeted as the financial crisis has taken center stage. . . . . Palin is treading a path well-worn by Republicans in recent decades. She's depicting the campaign as a struggle between the culturally familiar and the culturally threatening, the culturally traditional and the culturally exotic. But Obama has dismissed those attacks as irrelevant, and the public, focused nervously on the economic collapse, has largely tuned them out.

*

Palin's attacks are also failing because of generational change. The long-running, internecine baby boomer cultural feud just isn't that relevant to Americans who came of age after the civil rights, gay rights and feminist revolutions. Even many younger evangelicals are broadening their agendas beyond abortion, stem cells, school prayer and gay marriage. . . . The economic challenges of the coming era are complicated, fascinating and terrifying, while the cultural battles of the 1960s feel increasingly stale. Although she seems like a fresh face, Sarah Palin actually represents the end of an era. She may be the last culture warrior on a national ticket for a very long time.

Palin Driving Voters to Obama

UPDATED: Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday. The condemnation of Palin for VP by rational Republicans just just keeps on coming. Meanwhile, the Kool-Aid drinkers think she's the future of the GOP.
*

John McCain's "maverick" pick of "I can see Russia from my window" Caribou Barbie for his VP seems to be one of the large factors as to why voters are fleeing the GOP presidential ticket. The chorus of conservatives who are condemning her as not ready for prime time continues to grow. Now Lawrence Eagleburger has joined the list of those finding Palin totally inadequate to the job. Here are some highlights from the Huffington Post:

*

Lawrence Eagleberger, who served as Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush and whose endorsement is often trumpeted by McCain, said on Thursday that the Alaska governor is not only unprepared to take over the job on a moment's notice but, even after some time in office, would only amount to an "adequate" commander in chief.

*
"And I devoutly hope that [she] would never be tested," he added for good measure -- referring both to Palin's policy dexterity and the idea of McCain not making it through his time in office. . . . Asked by the host whether Palin could step in during a time of crisis, Eagleburger reverted to sarcasm before leveling the harsh blow. "It is a very good question," he said, pausing a few seconds, then adding with a chuckle: "I'm being facetious here. Look, of course not."

*

As the New York Times is reporting, the general public other than the Kool-Aid drinker set seems to concur with Eagleberger's assessment. Palin may be the darling of the delusional Christianists but to those in touch with the real world, she's poison. Here are highlights from the Times story:

*

A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

*

And in a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people for his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.

*

Over all, views of Ms. Palin were apparently shaped more by ideology and party than by gender. Ms. Palin was viewed as unprepared for the job by about 6 in 10 men and women alike. But 8 in 10 Democrats viewed her as unprepared, as well as more than 6 in 10 independents and 3 in 10 Republicans.

The Haters Forget - Obama's White Side

The haters of the Christianist and Klan base of today's Republican Party are going to great lengths to demonize Barack Obama and depict him as "foreign" and "un-American." It's all a lie, of course, but then no group lies more than the self-absorbed, self-righteous false Christian set. Via Pam's House Blend, I found a post on KansasParie.net which underscores just how disgusting and untrue these anti-Obama lies have become. The story of Obama's maternal grandparents (pictured below) doesn't get much more American. Here are some highlights:

*

Barack OBama’s “white side” seems to be overlooked and I find them quite interesting, particularly his mother and grandmother who raised him. I would have liked knowing them. The girl [in the photo] is Stanley Ann Dunham (mother of Barack Obama) who is shown with her parents, Stanley Dunahm and Madelyn Payne Dunham. Madelyn Dunham was the nurturing grandmother who was figured significantly in his early life.

*

“Madelyn Payne, was born in the oil boomtown of Augusta, to stern Methodist parents who did not believe in drinking, playing cards or dancing. She was one of the best students in the graduating class of 1940. And, in ways that would foretell the flouting of conventions by her daughter Stanley Ann, Madelyn was different.”

*

“When World War II came, Stanley enlisted in the Army. Madelyn became a Rosie-the-Riveter at Boeing Co.’s B-29 production plant in Wichita. And Stanley Ann Dunham arrived in late November 1942.” “The Dunhams were full-time working parents, renters and strugglers in pursuit of the next opportunity. After the war, Madelyn worked in restaurants while Stanley managed a furniture store on Main Street in El Dorado.”

*

With each passing day I have a lower regard for the GOP and its increasingly vile base.

You Cannot be a Christian and Vote for Obama

So says professional gay hater Janet Porter, f/k/a Janet Folger who has long worked to deny rights to LGBT citizens and to promote the bogus Christianist "ex-gay" Programs. While her must recent conniption involves trying to depict Barack Obama as a supporter of utterly unrestricted abortion, I suspect that Porter/Folger is terrified that an Obama presidency combined with an increase majority of Democrats in Congress could mean the end to some of the Christianists' favorite legislative goals: the continuation of Don't Ask Don't Tell , defeat of ENDA, defeat of hate crimes legislation and the continuation of the Defense of Marriage Act. With Obama as president and larger Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, the haters could see all of their favorite anti-gay positions fall away. I also suspect that there's some latent racism in Porter/Folger's hysteria since the Christianist organizations she has been affiliated with in the past have one thing in common besides being anti-gay: they are all lily white. Oh, and if anyone isn't a Christian, I'd say that it's Porter/Folger and her fellow hate merchants. Here are some examples of her rantings from World Net Daily (a/k/a World Nutcase Daily) :

*

To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning. Not only is our nation in grave danger, according to the Word of God, so are you.

*

In one week, America will make a choice. And to those who call themselves "Christian" who are planning on voting for Barack Obama, put down the Obama talking points and read God's voter guide before you go to the polls: I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live (Deuteronomy 30:19).

*

Obama-Biden are pro-death. McCain-Palin are pro-life. Now choose life that you and your children may live.

*

On marriage, Mark 10:7 reveals what Jesus had to say about it: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Notice, the man doesn't leave his father and mother to be joined to his domestic partner.

*

No, this election is not about race. It's not about the economy. It's about obeying God. . . . To those who call themselves by the name of Christ who ignore what God says about life and marriage, who and are clinging to a fantasy of economic gain, think again. Obama will use your tax dollars to kill innocent children, and then he'll take your paycheck and use it to "spread the wealth around."

*

Be forewarned: If you willfully disobey God on life and marriage because of race or false hope for the economy, you will usher in the kind of change that brought the Soviet Union to collapse. But the warning goes far beyond that. To those who think that God's grace gives them license to willfully disobey Him without consequences – think again. . . . Then obey Him in the voting booth and out of it. If not, do us all a favor and quit calling yourself a Christian.

*

If anyone should stop calling them self a Christian, it's Porter/Folger and her fellow hate merchants. Oh, and does anyone have a straight jacket they can lend to Ms. Porter/Folger? Or better yet, know of a good mental institution she might want to check into? The woman is seriously whacked out.