Valerie Jarrett (or maybe her boss Barry O.) still clueless?

Here is a clip from CNN, showing both American Hero Lieutenant Dan Choi's response to the Obama Administration's incredibly arrogant and stupid decision to appeal the federal court decision striking DADT, and Administration Spokesperson Valerie Jarrett repeating her laughably silly talking points in response.



(NOTE: If you are seeing this as a Facebook NOTE, go to my Blog to actually see the video!)

http://www.trans-cendence.blogspot.com


Let's set the record "straight" on the President's power on DADT, and why the Administration position is playing politics, as Lieutenant Choi points out.

To be fair, President Obama can (and does) point to a number of positive accomplishments, but his errors, misssteps, and his continual attempts to compromise with evil has weakened his administration.

The statutory authority to suspend the discharges in found in 10 USC § 12305 - the exact text of this statute is quoted here, so that it might be abundanty clear that President Obama has failed on this issue:

§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to
promotion, retirement, and separation

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

(b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate

(1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or

(2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, whichever is earlier.

(c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a)of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

So, what part of 10 USC § 12305 (a) does Valerie Jarrett or Barack Obama not understand?

DADT should have been addressed with a statutorily-permitted "stop loss" executive order within the first 90 days. The Joint Chiefs should have been told on day 1 to prepare for this, and resignations accepted from those not willing to implement the stop loss. The Congress should have been told on day 1 that repeal was a priority issue just as important as the economy.

The President and his administration claim a desire to repeal DADT through congressional efforts - but Congress has already provided the means for the President to stop the losses - based on a statute passed by Congress before DAY ONE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. The President should have issued such an order within his first 90 days of taking office, so that there would have been no shameful discharges under his administration.

As long as there are members of the reserves serving during a war, national emergency or other circumstances, the suspension of discharges of LGBT persons in military service could be ordered by the President. The question to Valerie and Barry has been and still is:

Why does the administration not make use of existing law to suspend the discharges?

And Lieutenant Choi knows the answer - it's a cold political calculation - and it's one that is an utter failure. On the one hand, the President claims, in his own words, and through his people, that he is committed to the repeal of DADT. But his actions show an opposite commitment. He already has the STATUTORY authority to stop the discharges - but he has failed to do so. He has the authority to recognize the decision of the federal court that sets aside the DADT statute as unconstitutional, but instead, has ordered an emergency appeal to keep the discharges coming.

There is one glimmer of good faith - the Secretary of Defense recently amended DoD policy on how to implement DADT discharges - and this may actually be the closest thing to a "stop loss" order that we are going to see. Authority to decide on discharges under DADT has been stripped from unit commanders and are now in the hands of five senior DoD civilian personnel. This is fairly close to a stop loss order - and could well have kept Arabic language expert Lieutenant Dan Choi in service to the nation, protecting us from harm.

But why hasn't Valerie Jarrett pointed that out?

We've been told that Lieutenant Choi tweeted that his re-enlistment papers, taken during the week during which the discharges were suspended, are apparently being shredded by the Army. I don't think it should be like that - why hasn't Valerie, who knows that Dan Choi re-enlisted the moment he could do so, asked Secretary Gates why this isn't being handled by the five civilians in charge? Don't they still have a shortage of Arabic translators? Or is this a case of "military intelligence" as an oxymoronic statement?

White House FAIL on DADT; Ted Olson in 2012?

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett shows exactly how clueless the Obama administration is about the duty to uphold the law in this video:



(IF you're seeing this as a facebook note, do yourself a favor and go directly to my blog at:

http://www.transcendence.blogspot.com

Facebook does not pick up the video.

The best answer to Valerie's obvious ignorance comes from former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson:

"It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law. I don't know what is going through the [Obama] administration's thought process on 'don't ask, don't tell.' It would be appropriate for them to say 'the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'"

There is NO earthly reason for President Obama and his "Justice" department to be appealing the DADT decision. The existing statute allows him to issue a stop loss Order - something he should morally have done within the first 90 days of having taken office. The existing law is not constitutional - and the executive is not required to attempt to enforce a law known to be unconstitutional, at least once a court has correctly weighed in on the subject.

I am taking the opportunity right now to call on someone with brains, a heart and some backbone, to step up the day after the mid-term elections, and start campaigning in a run for the Presidency in 2012. Barack Obama has earned a primary challenge.

I am putting the Democratic Party on notice - I will continue to work for Democratic candidates who support real human rights and full equality. If Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president in 2012, I will not carry his petitions. I will not campaign for his re-election. I will not make a donation to his re-election, and I will vote for some other candidate. And if there is no suitable candidate, I will write in my own name.

If I had the money, the time, and the support, I would run for president in 2012 myself. I'm more qualified for the job than the incumbent - I have a brain, a heart, and a backbone, and I won't compromise with evil. While President Obama is a wonderful public speaker, and is very bright, he has not shown the heart or the backbone to do right by the nation.

You know what? Even though he's a Republican, I think I might be willing to vote for Ted Olson, regardless of party line. Maybe Ted should run in 2012.

Carl Paladino APOLOGIZES!

After first trying to deny his words, or some of them (the ones he had in his written speech but didn't read), Carl Paladino has done something unusual - he has actually apologized.

The actual and unedited text of his apology is below. While I still disagree with him on a large number of issues and I still support his Democratic opponent in the New York gubernatorial election, the issuance of an actual apology that has a minimum of weasel wording is worth noting. As a reward, I am editing my earlier post to remove the caricature of Mr. Paladino's head with the Charlie Chaplin moustache photoshopped onto a picture of one A. Hitler, former Fuehrer of the Third Reich.

Here is the text of the apology, followed by my comments:

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign - I have made mistakes all my life- as we all have. I am what I am - a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong. My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

The only weasely words?

I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated.

The "should have chosen better words" part requires some amplification, as does the "misinterpreted and misstated."

It's really hard to misinterpret and misstate an unaltered video.

Essentially, what Carl biggest mistake was to read someone else's words as his own, slightly edited. That someone was most probably the ultra-conservative right wing "Rabbi" Yehuda Levin, the leader of a tiny ultra-Orthodox but not Hasidic Jewish sect.

Carl was trying to garner support from these people by telling them pretty much what their leader wanted them to hear. So, if he doesn't believe what he told them, he was lying to them to get their vote, possibly not thinking that the terribly nasty things he was saying to pander to this small group was going to be spread to the rest of the world by way of the news media and the blogosphere.

This is the sort of campaign trick that used to work fairly well - a candidate would tell a small group what they wanted to hear without fearing that the words would be recorded and broadcast, and then promising something else to some other group.

In this case, Mr. Paladino got caught.

His hiding behind Barack Obama's skirts as if the President is his mommy, on the issue of marriage equality, is rather disingenuous. President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is another example of a lying politician who has told many different stories to many different groups on many different issues, though President Obama's actual record is mixed.

If Carl really believes in "live and let live," he would be willing to put the Constitution above his religious prejudices - why should the Catholic Church decide whether gay Unitarians should be able to get legally married?

The fact remains that no one who places the immoral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ahead of the Constitution of the United States or that of the State of New York, is and remains unqualified to be Governor.

The addition of "Initiative" and "Referendum" like they have in California, particularly if not limited so that individual rights are unaffected, is likely to result in what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Popular votes taken to limit the rights of people who are different that they don't like, can result in injustice - the majority is not always right.

Carl - if your apology was genuine and sincerely intended:

- Will you openly sponsor a civil marriage bill as a Governor's program bill? (It has to be civil marriage, because "live and let live" does not work any other way unless you abolish civil marriage for everyone in New York and leave it up to the churches and individuals to decide for themselves on the basis of their own personal beliefs). It is okay for you to be personally against marrying a man yourself - you already have a wife, and a female concubine (well, how else am I supposed to describe the mother of your daughter . . .) - you don;t have to choose to marry a man - so that's where your personal beliefs are appropriate.

- Will you make GENDA a Governor's program bill? It would extend human rights and hate crimes protections to the trans community.

- Will you direct insurance companies and Medicaid to provide for medically appropriate care for all, including transgender New Yorkers?

- Will you pledge to let the federal government deal with immigration issues and leave the State out of it?

- Will you support abolishing city, town and village governments (excepting New York City) and provide for consolidation of services (including school districts) at the county level?

- Will you support making Medicaid costs the sole responsibility of the State without passing the cost off to the counties?

- Will you support the abolition of "member items?"

- Will you support the elimination of all loopholes in the mortgage recording tax?

- Will you support the adoption of the ACRIS recording system on a statewide basis, with local recording officers acting only as agents of the state? Will you provide for free online public access to land records (as they do in the State of Florida?)

I have much longer laundry list, but something along these lines would be a start.

Taking the Medicaid burden off county governments and consolidating local municipalities and districts to the county government level would go much farther toward reducing the real property tax burden than the things you're foolishly promising already.

But Carl, I do thank you for the apology - it's not something that a Ruben Diaz or a Sally Kern would ever do. It may be that all you need is a little education.

If you don't follow through on your apology, would you prefer I find a photo of Benito Mussolini to use as the basis for a caricature?

Start a Dialogue? Yes, we CAN!

Now that Rev. Rick Warren has delivered his invocation at the Obama inauguration, perhaps we can start to focus on how we’re going to be advancing the cause of gaining recognition of equal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under federal law.

For those who don’t think we should be ready to move forward, ready, let’s recap the situation:

Rick Warren is the pastor of the Saddleback Church, an evangelical mega-congregation in Lake Forest, California, and is the author of a best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life.

His notoriety in LGBT circles peaked when, after having equated same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy (though it’s pretty obvious to me that the equivalency of these things in his mind may charitably be limited to “these are things Rick doesn’t equate with marriage”), he was invited by the Obama people to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural.

Here is what he said at the time, in an interview:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

If it was merely a matter of drawing a line from Point A to Point B, it might have been what Joe Solmonese of HRC hysterically called “a punch in the gut.” Or it might not.


There was was more to it – there was a point in the presidential campaign at which Barack Obama and John McCain appeared to speak at the Saddleback Church, and Rick Warren endured much criticism from hard core Right Wing Christianists for allowing Obama to speak.

I’ll let singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge have the floor now – I’ve said and written from a similar viewpoint, but I think I’ll give the platform to her. She actually had a chance to talk to Warren. Here is what she says about her meeting:

"On the day of the [Muslim Public Affairs Council ] conference [at which Rick Warren was the guest speaker] I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with Proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine. When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.”

After her meeting, Melissa Etheridge bravely went forth with her message of peace and reconciliation:

"I believe I understand Obama's choice here. I believe that Barack Obama wants to be the President of the entire United States. Pastor Rick Warren reached out to him, brought him into his church during the campaign, which outraged many members of his church. Yet he reaches across and I think this is Obama reaching back and going, 'I think we can disagree on things, yet we can still all move forward. We need to get past our differences.' And I just want to make sure that as the liberals and progressives and Democrats or whatever you want to call us are moving into this new time with this new president do not say that they, the Evangelicals who say such horrible things about gays, they have to stay over here and we're not going to let them in. That makes us no better than the last administration."

After hearing the actual words Warren used, Melissa continues:

"Just because he (compares gays to incest or polygamy) does not mean I have to not speak to him, or don't ever want to be in his company. We had a crazy experience at the Muslim Public Affairs Council conference...We met, we spoke. He's a fine person...He said he was trying to make the definition of marriage not change, not necessarily saying that gays are pedophiles or any of that stuff. One can draw whatever they want from that. This is what he told me."

Now, I am going to reproduce the Rick Warren invocation here, highlighting what may be words of conciliation:

Let us pray.

Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership.

And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.

May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.

I underlined the parts of the prayer that seem to be showing a conciliatoty attitude. Certainly invoking the idea of a loving God who loves all his creation (even gay and trans people) is a good start.

Invoking the idea that as Americans, we must be dedicated and committed to "freedom and justice for all" doesn't seem to close the door on civil marriage for same-sex couples.

And if I want to be charitable (and why shouldn’t I be?), I would put a very positive spin on his “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.”

Of course, this last sentiment might be in accord with one of the schizophrenic sections of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the treatment of gay people:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now, aside from the catechism being totally incorrect about Sacred Scripture and natural law in relation to “homosexual acts” in Paragraph 2357, leading to the false conclusion that such “acts” cannot be approved, the next section, with regard to the treatment of gay people, says “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Now, I know Rick Warren isn’t Catholic, but perhaps he’s suffering from the same sort of schizophrenic “I want to treat gay people with compassion, but I can’t condone gay marriage or human rights laws” theology that grips the Catholic hierarchy.

I think that unlike those evangelicals who believe that “homosexuality is a choice” Warren may be reachable on the theological side. (Alas, with the Catholic hierarchy, the encrustations of mistaken “tradition” keep the Church on a wrong course.)

Let’s look at Warren’s prayer asking for forgiveness for failing to treat “our fellow human beings and all the earth” with the respect we deserve as a start.

On the other hand, it may not be so far removed from the Pope’s 2008 Christmas Greeting to the Curia and Prelature referred to in my last post. The key is to discern what Pastor Warren might mean, regarding the LGBT community, to be the respect that we “deserve.”


I think that Pastor Warren, despite being “on the other side” on the marriage issue, may have a more open mind on the subject than he gets credit for when things are painted in pure black-white, good-evil terms. And he isn’t encrusted with as many barnacles of “tradition” as the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

We have to remember, too, that President Barack Obama, while certainly better on LGBT issues than anyone who has ever been President of the United States, still himself falls short of endorsing full equal civil rights for our community. There is a need for dialogue with the Administration as much as there is a need to dialogue with those with whom we have a fundamental disagreement.

The immediate and marked change on the White House website, including us under Civil Rights in the Administration’s agenda, is a huge step. The inclusion of “gender identity and expression” for the first time in the anti-discrimination hiring policy of this administration, in addition to the inclusion of sexual orientation (first added by President Clinton), is also monumental.

We have hope. With this Administration, we have a chance to change minds – and the opportunity is also clear that we must engage those who oppose the recognition of our rights with clearly articulated arguments from all perspectives. We do have the Judaeo-Christian ideological high ground, as well as the constitutional high ground, as well as the critical underpinning of the basic underlying rational philosophy under which the United States was created. It is only a matter of articulating these things in a way in which reasonable opponents can understand.

There may well be a basic disconnect between our understanding and that of our opponents. We can look at the same constitution, and the same sacred scripture, and the same philosophical writing, and come to such an amazingly and diametrically opposed conclusion.

If we can come to the point where we can resolve this underlying disconnection, I believe that we will find much more support in unanticipated places – support we can never find if we do not engage in the conversation. We may not have to convince, we may only have to go so far as to get the opposition to realize that “reasonable minds may differ” in order to defuse the opposition. After all, America is founded on the idea of respect, tolerance and free exercise for the religious beliefs of others as well as ourselves. If we can convince Christianists that their beliefs are not the only valid Judaeo-Christian understanding on our issues, they might well be willing to go the distance with regard to civil marriage – especially when they come to the realization that there would be no infringement of their right to refuse to sanctify a marriage that does not follow their interpretation of scripture.

Yes, we CAN!

Can Roman Catholics vote for Obama?

Can Roman Catholics morally vote for candidates who support laws that protect women's rights to reproductive health (including abortion) or equal marriage rights for all citizens (even gays and lesbians)?

My short answer is that if Catholics have an informed conscience, they should feel free to ignore the immoral instructions from members of the Church hierarchy that make opposition to abortion rights the litmus test for supporting a candidate - but who at the same time ignore the issue of the prosecution of an unjust and immoral war.

There is a controversy that Catholics in American politics face - the fact that the Church hierarchy insists on mandating that their personal beliefs as Catholics must guide their work as legislators, government executives or judges (at least on the abortion issue).

Catholic public officials in a society ostensibly based on the principles of freedom and individual liberty, who may well as a matter of their own "moral" belief would not make a choice themselves to have an abortion, but who see a difference between their own personal beliefs as Catholics and the imposition of those beliefs on others who do not believe in the same way, are in trouble with the Catholic Church hierarchy.

For just one example of the directives that go out from the Vatican to constrain Catholic public officials in America, take a look at the following 2003 document published by the Vatican and issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a Catholic Congregation in the Curia formerly known as The Holy Office and earlier, The Inquisition):

In this document, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy actually states:

"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

There are conservative Catholic bishops in America who have denied access to the sacraments to Catholic politicians who don't vote as the Church requires, when it comes to abortion or gay rights.

Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, has been denied Holy Communion in the Diocese of Scranton, because the local bishop, like the people behind that dreadful document on marriage, is trying to meddle in American politics. (Sadly, the hierarchy doesn't do the same to Catholic politicians who vote for unjust wars.)

There is apparently an inherent conflict between the philosophy of tolerance and respect for disparate religious viewpoints that marks the American Experiment in establishing a democratic republic that has protection of individual rights, differences and dignity, and the repressive attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which wants to impose its version of Catholic morality on the secular world.

In my view, the Church oversteps its bounds. The private moral decision as to whether to have an abortion should belong to a woman. If she is a Catholic, she absolutely should take into account her beliefs as a Catholic as to the sinfulness of the decision. In America, people should have the right to make their own moral choices as long as no other living person is harmed.

While the Church considers all the rights of personhood to commence with conception, that actually doesn't have a great deal of support in sacred scripture (a much more likely time for "soul infusion" would be when a born person takes their first breath - but I shouldn't be arguing theology here).

There is certainly room for people of good will and different faiths to disagree.It's a similar thing with marriage - the Catholic Church doesn't have to sanctify a marriage involving a same-sex couple. If the Church wants to excommunicate gay Catholics who get civilly married, that is the Church's right.

But to tell Catholic politicians that even if they are never going to enter into a gay marriage themselves, that they must oppose civil marriage rights for gay people or be in a state of sin, goes against the principles under which the United States was founded.

Catholics in American public life are thus faced with a dilemma - if they obey the Church, they accept the anti-American idea that the Church position on a controversial issue is not only for Catholics, but must be imposed on everyone. If they don't, they can be denied access to the Sacraments, and be judged public sinners.

The Church hierarchy's position on this is untenable. Essentially, the only moral choice for a Catholic who respects the hierarchy's teaching and the underlying principles of American liberty and civil rights is to stay out of politics.

The moral depravity (yes, moral depravity!) of Church leaders who use their clout to try to force Catholics in politics to vote against their own consciences and the principles of American democracy and the liberties and freedoms we cherish - especially when it is on two issues and ignores a myriad of other issues, is despicable.

If a politician were to introduce legislation that would force women to have abortions, the Church would be right to be against it. If a politician were to propose that would force all churches to bless gay unions, the Church should rightly oppose it. These would be laws that interfere with personal moral choices that do not harm other people. (Fetuses may be "human life" but they are not (yet) people.)

But when Church leaders don't use their moral suasion to oppose an unjust war such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when they ally themselves with those whose political philosophy lacks true compassion for the poor and downtrodden, but instead rail against gay rights and women's rights. they show the true extent of their erroneous thinking.

Their meddling in American politics could hurt Catholics in American politics, too. it was not so long ago that Catholics were viewed with nearly the same sort of suspicion that many modern Americans see in Muslims today - Catholics were different; they didn't eat meat on Friday; their religious rites were in a foreign language; they were different from the WASPs who ran the country and were the majority.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy had to tell people that he would not be taking his marching orders from the Vatican.

In 1960, the Catholic Church wasn't giving orders to Catholics in public office. In 2003, they did.

If it wasn't for the fact that many Catholics in politics have used their consciences to try to separate Church teaching from the good of the American people, we'd be in a lot more trouble in this country than we already are.

What might work in a country where Roman Catholicism is the official state religion and all the people in the society must belong to the Church (or else) fails terribly in a nation built on principles that include religious freedom and individual human rights.

The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy oversteps its bounds when it interferes with the individual liberties guaranteed to all Americans.

So to my Catholic friends, use your moral compass and informed conscience and please vote for Obama on November 4th - he may not be perfect but he's a lot better than the other major candidate.

Does Sarah Palin secretly support Obama?

First, here's how we're doing with the Trans Community Supports Obama campaign:



Now, on to my current thoughts:

I don't really want to pick on Sarah Palin, perhaps because there are times she seems to be somewhat defenseless. While I would not criticize her for being a woman, or being "qualified" to be President (the proper age and a natural-born citizen - something John McCain actually isn't!), and I think it's nasty to harp on her so-called lack of "foreign policy experience" as a so-called qualification, when the last President to be elected who wasn't a Governor or Vice President was then-Senator John F. Kennedy. Obviously, foreign policy expericnce wasn't important when people elected either George W. Bush (all right, he was technically appointed by the Supreme Court as part of a bloodless coup) or Bill Clinton.

Anyway, all that aside, I saw a Katy Couric television interview of Governor Palin, and here is a Q&A from the interview transcript that intrigued me (emphasis added):

Couric: When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?

Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world.

Whoa! Avowed "social conservative" Sarah Palin is actually calling for us tio spread democracy to bring freedom, independence, tolerance and respect for equality?

Is this the same Sarah Palin who called for a referendum to change the Alaska constitution tom deny same-sex partner benefits? (while she did veto a law that would strip the rights after the state supreme court held that same-sex partners are entitled to insurance benefits, she did so because she took good advice that the law would be unconstitutional. However, she wants to change Alaska's constitution to take away equal rights.

Is this the same Sarah Palin who opposes same sex marriage?

Is this the same Sarah Palin who opposes women's reproductive health rights?

Is this the same Sarah Palin who supports freedom and equality only for people who share her narrow religious beliefs? who thjinks the Iraq war is God's war against Islam? Who thinks the Iraq war is a fight against Al Qaeda? Who cut financing for a shelter for young unwed mothers?

If Sarah Palin really meant what she said, she means she is voting for Barack Obama! Because she and Senator McCain don't support freedom, respect, or tolerance for people who don;t fit their narrow view of who is entitled to freedom, respect, or tolerance.

On the other hand, she obviously means those words in the usual conservative Republican Orwellian Newspeak way:

Let's translate what she really meant to say:

(Not the real quote - biut translated into American English from Newspeak):
Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread [democracy] Conservative capitalistic Western American Culture for those who desire [freedom] to lose their cultural heritage, [independence] the loss of independence and an enforced alliance with the United States, [tolerance] enforcement of Traditionalist Christianist or similar fundamentalist-type Values, [respect for equality] and tolerance of inequality for those who don't agree or who are different.

All the more reason to make that donation to the Obama campaign - have you given yet? It's still not too late!

Here's the link again.

A day late? It isn’t too late! ACT NOW!

Before I start with my thoughts, let’s start with the link I want you to go to:


The Transgender Community and Allies Support Obama page

Now, on to why you should go to the link:

There’s that old complaint, “A day late and a dollar short.”

Yesterday was the day for a big push to get trans donations for the Obama campaign, and as much as I wanted to, what with the stock market crash, crazy things at work, and Rosh Hashannah (my sweetie being Jewish, even if I am not), I just never got around to doing my bit for the campaign.

Well, here I am, it’s Tuesday September 30, 2008 – and TODAY is the last day of the quarter – so we can make those donations count even today.

Readers of my occasional thoughts here know that I am supporting Barack Obama for President. I am one of those Hillary Holdouts in the sisterhood who, when my candidate made her speech at the Democratic convention, finally came around to support Barack.

But I already pointed out here in my blog that Barack was actually better on the repeal of the Defense Against Marriage Act than Hillary. And compared with the “social conservative” platform offered by the McCain/Palin ticket, there is no doubt but that Barack Obama is the best candidate on LGBT issues, even if he isn’t quite “there” yet on marriage.

Right off the bat, he supports the trans-inclusive version of ENDA. Of course, what I want is a real Civil Rights Act – but give us Barack Obama in the presidency, 60+ senators and a reasonably good majority in the House, and we might be able to get there.

So, what am I asking?

If you have some spare change, use that link and give something to the Obama cause.

But don’t worry if you don’t have the money – the Obama campaign needs our time and efforts as well. My forte is stuffing envelopes, but others with the talent can go door-to-door getting voters registered (in New York, until October 10th), manage a phone bank, write letters to the editor, blog, etc. . . .

If you can give, do it today. If you can’t give today, do it tomorrow – we have until November 4th to get the job done.

If you do give – feel free to post a comment to this blog entry if you like (unless you want to be anonymous). For that matter, feel free to post a comment to any of my blog entries.

There you go – I may be a day late, but it isn’t too late!

Barack Obama and the Compromise with Evil

I thought Barack Obama gave a pretty good speech when he accepted the Democratic nomination for President last week.

That is, I thought it was pretty good up to the point where he started to speak about "our sense of common purpose" with the enemies of freedom in the Neo-Con and Christianist right wing that represents the core of the Republican party.

Here are the dangerous words from Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech, with my comments inserted in the place of the pauses for applause:

"America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country."

(APPLAUSE: The Republican party is in the thrall of Religious and other "social" conservatives who have no respect for the rights of women, particularly women’s reproductive rights, unless the sole expression of those "rights" is to "choose to have babies." The Republican party and its standardbearers in this presidential election, John S. McCain and Sarah "Barracuda" Palin, are both sufficiently "social conservative" enough to oppose the quite sensible Roe v. Wade decision, to oppose any sex education oher than "abstinence only" education that leads ignorant teens into accidental pregnancies. The "social conservatives" in Congress have passed barbaric laws that curtail women’s reproductive rights. Seeking "compromise" on this vital issue is a weakness. But now that the applause has died down, back to Senator Obama . . . )

"The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

(APPLAUSE: Hmmm. I won’t argue too much on the Second Amendment – just this year, the Supreme Court has spoken, quite unconstitutionally and somewhat irrationally, on the subject (at least IMO, but they're the ultimate arbiters of "what the Constitution really means", and I'm not), divorcing the right to bear arms from its attendant constitutional responsibility and purpose – that of providing for a well-organized militia.

I’d like to see Washington D.C. pass a law that requires those who are licensed to have guns also take mandatory militia training and help patrol the streets of the City, and see what the Supremes think about that. But that isn't presidential campaign stuff - the nation itself, as a result of the Second Amendment, really is a bit gun-crazy, unlike the civilized folks over in Europe, who don't need to see too much news to view most Americans as ignorant cowboys, anyway. So, let's see what sort of "compromise" is out there . . . and now back to Barack for the scariest "compromise" item . . . )

"I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination."

(APPLAUSE: This raised my ire just as much as the idea of compromise on women’s reproductive rights. The idea that we should play politics with basic human rights that should be beyond the "right" of the oppressive majority to impose on the oppressed minority by a so-called "democratic majority vote" sickens me, especially when it comes from the very people who should be the strongest allies of the poor, the weak, and the oppressed. When will friends like Barack realize that we should be entitled to the same rights as his parents? When will friends like Barack realize that we are getting tired of beign oppressed? When will friends like Barack get ready to take us seriously?

I’d like to see Barack Obama supporting a full civil rights law for LGBT people, and not the sad caricature of an employment non-discrimination act that Rep. Barney Frank (D. Mass.)keeps watering down because he wants to pass something, anything, in the spirit of compromise on civil rights. It’s not just about repealing the Defense Against Marriage Act (something Barack Obama does support, and the one point where he had a better position than Hillary Rodham Clinton, the person who really should have been the Democrat’s presidential candidate . . . )

I’d like Barack to reverse the October 2002 change in Social Security regulations that leaves transitioning transsexuals and non-op transsexuals in limbo, without proper identification documentation.

I’d like to see Barack reverse "don’t ask, don’t tell" and I’d like to see immigration rules for gay and trans people be put on a par with the rules for straights. I’d like to see the bizarre rules banning people with AIDS from entering the country lifted. I’d like to make sure that tax dollars are not spent to support religious discrimination in the providing of social services and medical care. The applause has died down again, time to see what Barack has to say next . . . )

"You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers."

(It would have been nicer if Barack had mentioned the separation of people in same-sex relationships here, too. There wasn’t a pause for applause here – but the immigration issue is more like the Second Amendment issue – one that might well be amenable to compromise, but not with the hard-core white supremacist right wingers. It isn’t just about Mexicans "taking American Jobs" by crossing the border. American businesses these days steal American jobs by using the current version of NAFTA to exploit cheap Mexican labor.

It seems like Republicans support NAFTA so that jobs can be exported to Mexico, and Democrats (these days) seem to oppose it. I think that NAFTA needs fixing – there should be a level playing field on the issue of minimum wage (in equivalent currencies among the trade partners, which would not free-float against each other, ultimately leading to a common currency), worker’s rights, and other sisues, so that it will not be any more advantageous to locate an industrial plant in Michigan, or Tennessee, or Sonora, or Manitoba. If we were to improve NAFTA to bring the standard of living for Mexicans, Canadians and Americans to equivalent standards, maybe there wouldn’t be a need for a Metal Curtain on America’s border with Mexico.

An improved NAFTA could also bring along other friendly nations in our hemisphere, and perhaps we could encourage South American nations to form a SAFTA - with a view toward eventually entering into a hemispheric treaty and an economic union that would go beyond the borders of the United States. Such ideas aren’t forthcoming from any of the candidates – Democrat or Republican. Let's let Barack sum up this segment of his speech . . . )

"But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.

And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters."

(APPLAUSE --- Despite these qualms and misgivings, and since Hillary Clinton isn’t running any more and she's also supporting him, I will support Obama for President. Even if he isn’t perfect, he represents the best available hope for keeping the darkness and oppression of "social conservatism" at bay.

Postscript: Listening to Sarah Palin this evening, I realize that if it weren’t for the scary "social conservatism" aspect of the McCain/Palin ticket, the part that makes them totally wrong for the country, they wouldn't seem terribly different from the Obama/Biden ticket. This explains why Americans "in the middle" often seem to have such a problem identifying the better candidate - they aren't hurt by oppressive "Social conservative" Republican policies, so they're more likely to be unaware of it, or perhaps they don't care. (Hard core Republican conservatives either don't care or they're the types who aren't terribly different from their Islamic fundamentalist jihadist counterparts - ready to stome people like me in stadiums.)

Both sides are pushing for winning against terrorism (though Obama actually understands that it’s Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda who are the enemy, not the people of Iraq), both sides want America to be energy independent (though Democrats appear to be divided on the oxymoronic "clean coal", and Republicans add more nuclear and oil drilling to the mix), both sides are "patriotic" (though the Republican version of patriotism is a scary sort of McCarthyite, jingoist, Orwellian thing, while Democrats know that one really doesn’t have to wear a flag pin to be patriotic).

The rhetoric of "Bush's Third Term" or "Hero, Not Zero" doesn't impress me. My choice is based on what's Right for America, or at the very least, to stave off the people I know are Wrong for America. I don't need scare tactics to be afraid of McCain/Palin. I already know what they think of me, and what they're likely to do to my people.

Why Governor David Paterson "gets it" (and an afterthought as to how he doesn't)

Ever since I met New York Governor David Paterson some years ago when he was the New York State Senate minority leader, I knew that he "got it" about the need for legal recognition of transgender rights under the state human rights laws.

Just yesterday (Thursday, July 17, 2008), Governor Paterson gave a speech to attendees at the national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.) held in Cincinnati, Ohio. In an interview given after the speech, he indirectly explained the context of how he came to this understanding, as he is quoted in the New York Times article cited above:

Governor Paterson’s views on discrimination have been shaped by the fact that he is both black and legally blind. He said one of the most painful experiences he had with discrimination came from a black businessman who refused to hire him because of his blindness.

"That’s when I realized this is kind of a universal problem that exists, this fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference," he said.

[citation: Paterson, at N.A.A.C.P., Warns of Racism’s Power, by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, published Friday July 18, 2008]

The impact of this insight is precisely the reason Governor Paterson has embraced and supported the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) and the Dignity for All Youth Act (DAYA), as well as the bill to make New York’s Marriage laws completely gender-neutral.

People who are transgendered, or gay, experience discrimination for the same reason that African-Americans still experience discrimination – it’s this, as he put it, "fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference."

It’s the reason a major title insurance company fired me as its chief underwriting counsel in January 2000. Just before Thanksgiving 1999, on my own time and after work, I testified at a public hearing, imploring Westchester County legislators to restore language that would have better clarified coverage for transgender people to the then-proposed county human rights bill. My testimony was televised on local and regional news, some lawyer in Long Island realized exactly who I was and called the company headquarters in Texas and asked "what kind of pervert do you have working for you?"

It took two board meetings, one for the national company and one for the New York subsidiary, but despite an excellent history of job performance, I became persona non grata at that company because by being "different" I sparked that visceral and instinctual "fear of the unknown" in the hearts of the company’s management – the same management that only a few months earlier was effusively praising my work.

In the meantime, I am hoping Governor Paterson issues an Executive Order some time soon that provides employment protection to transgender people in state employment - this is something the governor can do without waiting for the legislature. It's something trans community activists and allies were working on obtaining from former governor Eliot Spitzer's administration before he resigned. Now that the legislative session is over, perhaps Governor Paterson will be able to turn his attention to this bit of work.

Afterthought: During his N.A.A.C.P. convention speech, Governor Paterson took the time to condemn the recent satirical cover illustration from The New Yorker magazine, that depicted Senator and presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, as militant radicals seeking to destroy the United States. He called it "one of the most malignant, vicious covers of a magazine I have ever seen."

I wouldn’t condemn the magazine for running the cover – I know the magazine’s purpose was to show just how malignant and vicious the lies, innuendoes and false rumors some conservative Republicans have been spreading about Senator Obama and his wife – things like how he is supposedly a Muslim extremist, or that their "fist bump" is some kind of black radical secret handshake, or that the Senator was educated in a "madrassas" school (depicted as a fundamentalist Muslim school the teaches radical Islamost "Jihad against America" propaganda as part of its interpretation of the Holy Qu’ran, its only textbook).

By printing the cover, the magazine exposed the vicious lies to the light of day as exactly how ridiculous these are – and the reaction the cover has inspired is exactly the reaction intended by The New Yorker – except I think The New Yorker editors expected more sophisticated readers to understand that the cover itself, by being so "over the top" was intended as satire.

Governor Paterson is not alone in his condemnation of the magazine cover.

The reaction to the New Yorker cover is reminiscent of the reaction of abhorrence that another famous satire, a 1729 essay by Jonathan Swift, entitled A Modest Proposal, once evoked.

As with the cartoon cover, Swift had the experience of having some, including some rather sophisticated and intelligent people, take his satire seriously and react with abhorrence.

So in this instance, I’ll part with Governor Paterson, but only slightly, and condemn the malicious and repugnant lies that were satirized by the magazine cover, rather than the cover itself.