About That Mosque(?) at Ground Zero(?)...

I'm tired of hearing the wingnuts lie about this. I'm tired of hearing liars like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich express such concern about a town, New York City,  that they like even less than they like San Francisco. And I'm damn angry that the Republicans - once again - are willing to burn the Constitution that they pretend to love so much, for reasons of expediency, racism, and an undying lust for power. Haven't these jackasses ever read the First Amendment??

• It's not going to be just a mosque; it's going to be a community center. A "separately-run mosque" is part of it, but so is "a swimming pool, gym, basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and a culinary school." It will also offer "a library, reading room and art studios, and childcare services." It'll even have a 9/11 memorial!
• It's not on Ground Zero; it's several blocks away:

• It's not going to be run by a radical imam, he's been a consultant to the FBI on counter-terrorism. 
• There are already two mosques, four and twelve blocks from Ground Zero, that have been there since 1970 & 1985.
• However, there is a strip club two blocks away. I guess that's okay with Caribou Barbie.

I am happy, though, that Keith Olbermann covered all this last night, much more succinctly than I can with the limited time & space that I have tonight. So, here he is:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

California's Prop 8 Overturned By Federal Judge

YAYYYY!!!

TPM:

A federal judge in California has ruled that Prop 8 -- the voter initiative that banned gay marriage -- is unconstitutional.

Supporters of Prop 8 (that is, opponents of gay marriage) have already promised to file an appeal. The judge also approved a two-day stay on the ruling, asking lawyers to respond by Friday, when he will decide whether to suspend his ruling pending appeal.

So, for now, same-sex couples in California can't get their marriage licenses quite yet.

The case is expected to eventually get to the Supreme Court.

From Judge Vaughn Walker's decision:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

More from Walker's decision:

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents' case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

And:

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. ... The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code."

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," he wrote.
In his findings of fact, Walker pointed out that California "has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate."

And here's the money quote:

"The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained," he wrote.

Also (thanks to pico @ DailyKos):

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right.  To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage.  Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

 Finally, he comes to what - to me - is the crux of the matter:

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

Now, will Scalia, Thomas, or Alito please allow their evil to consume them, so we can straighten out SCOTUS?

Stephen Colbert Is A National Treasure

Conservatives are dumb. (Yeah, I know, that's self-evident.) Laura Ingraham was the latest wingnut to stupidly believe that Stephen Colbert is secretly one of them, another wingnut, and not too bright a one, seeing as how he's a comedian. Didn't any of these fools see what Colbert did th Bush at the White House Press Corps dinner in 2005? Can't they get the sarcasm and double entendre he uses every night on his show? Perhaps it's because conservative humor, as one commentator wrote on TalkingPointsMemo.com, "can be described as enjoying putting people down and hurting them."

Well, surprise, surprise, Colbert is no more a conservative than Keith Olbermann...at least, it was a surprise for stupid Laura Ingraham. Watch the follies, and enjoy:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Laura Ingraham
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Boycott Target!

I'm done with Target. My SO and I must spend a couple of hundred bucks there a month; the store is very near to us, and the prices are damn good. But after I read this, I'm through with that company:

Target earlier this month donated $150,000 to MN Forward, a pro-business group backing Rep. Tom Emmer, the conservative Republican-endorsed gubernatorial candidate.

That led to a week of bruising reaction from Target employees and gay-rights activists that included a nationwide e-mail campaign and petition claiming 15,000 signatures.

On Tuesday, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel defended the donation, saying it was driven by economic, not social, issues.

He highlighted the company's domestic partner benefits, sponsorship of Twin Cities Pride and support of the Out & Equal Workplace Summit.

"Let me be very clear," Steinhafel wrote in a note to employees at headquarters. "Target's support of the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."

So Target supports a candidate who:

• wants to abolish the minimum wage for waitpersons, believing that "some servers make over $100,00 a year;"
• is anti-gay rights and a rabid homophobe;
• supports Arizona's racist immigration law;
• believes that the courts should go easy on drunk drivers, probably because Emmer himself has two DWIs on his record;
• was co-author "of a proposed state constitutional amendment that would, to borrow the words of Nigel Tufnel, turn the Tenth Amendment all the way up to 11, with Minnesota preemptively nullifying all federal laws unless a state supermajority consents to them;"
•  is just plain stupid;
• and who, just last fall, "proposed another state constitutional amendment that would prohibit any individual or employer mandate to carry health insurance in the state of Minnesota, if one were to eventually pass at the federal or state level (as it did eventually pass at the federal level)."

And oh, yeah: Target CEO Gregg W. Steinhafel personally donated $10,000 to Michelle Bachman's campaign! If that alone isn't reason enough to stop shopping at Target, the donation to MN Forward certainly is.

The Human Rights Campaign and MoveOn.org have both started a boycott against Target (and BestBuy), and I'm with them. I will not have my dollars go towards supporting such far-right, hypocritical, anti-middle-class, homophobic, odious, prejudiced, and just plain stupid candidates as Emmer and Bachman. Bye-bye, Target: too bad you lost your sense of community, fairness, and morality in the urge to increase your profits.

I hope Bullseye bites Steinhafel in the ass.

Now You Know

Disillusioned with Obama? Thinking about staying home this November, because the Democrats couldn't clean up eight-to-thirty years of greed, mismanagement, lies, and lust for power in eighteen months? Well, our own Michelle Bachmann (R-Crazytown) finally told the truth about what will happen if the GOP regains power in the midterm elections:

Three Fingers of Politics via DailyKos and Mother Jones:

“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”

[...]“This is the year – this is it,” Bachmann continued. “All of our chips are on November. If we don’t get it back and then starve the beast – the House, we have the power of the purse – so we can starve ObamaCare. We don’t have to fund any of these programs and that’s exactly what we need to do – defund all of this nonsense and then unwind it.”

Do we really want health care rolled back, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act repealed, secret deals with energy companies setting our energy policy again, Blackwater (or Xe, or whatever name they're trying to hide under this week) in charge of the Border Patrol, John Boner (sorry, that's closer to how his name is actually pronounced in the original German than that crap he says!) as Speaker, and Pres. Obama arrested as an illegal alien and impeached? Are we really that eager to see the federal government in gridlock once again?

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly sees an even more dire situation, should the GOP win back the House this fall:

To be sure, it was farcical on the Hill in the mid- to late-'90s. Rep. Dan Burton (R) of Indiana and his House committee on administrative oversight launched pointless investigations into every wild-eyed Clinton-related accusation unhinged activists could manufacture.

[...]Over the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency, Burton's committee unilaterally issued 1,052 subpoenas -- that's not a typo -- to investigate baseless allegations of misconduct. That translates to an average of a politically-inspired subpoena every other day for six consecutive years, including weekends, holidays, and congressional recesses.

A Republican House majority in the next Congress would likely take this even further. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has already made clear that he intends to make Burton look like a meek, submissive toady, leaving "corporate America" alone, so he can attack the White House relentlessly.

For that matter, let's also not forget that some Republicans, including two members of Congress, have raised the specter of presidential impeachment once there's a GOP majority. One of them is Bachmann -- who thinks "all" Republicans should do in the next Congress is launch witch hunts.

As Paul Krugman noted recently, "[W]e'll be having hearings over accusations of corruption on the part of Michelle Obama's hairdresser, janitors at the Treasury, and Larry Summers's doctor's dog."

Is this serious enough to you? We cannot afford to lose a single seat in the Congress this fall.--not one. Look at how "60 is the new 59" became the law of the land in the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Look at how much opposition Pres. Obama has faced even when his party controlled both chambers of Congress, and then think about how things might go for his presidency - and our lives - if the Repugs control even the House, much less the Senate, after the midterms.

brooklynbadboy at DailyKos has it right:

In a rare moment of honesty, Michelle Bachmann illustrates the real agenda of the GOP. They are going to do all of the things their nutcase base is calling for. They are going to focus on one thing and one thing only: turning the federal government into the soundbyte factory for Fox News.

Breitbart will be brought in for testimony on civil rights. Tancredo will be given a large platform for discussion about changing demographics. Orly Taitz will be brought in to provide perspective on the Constitution. Name your conspiracy. Every single nutcase teabagger fantasy will be placed front and center on the legislative calendar.

Is this what you really want? Is this the kind of country that you'd like to live in? Or do you want to see the promise of Barack Obama's election to the presidency come into full bloom? This country and this planet cannot endure the return to power of the Republican Party. We have to hold on, we have to elect more and better Democrats (Nebraska, are you listening?), and we have to fight in this election even harder than we did two years ago.

There really is no other choice.

Ooooh, Scary Black People!

Rachel Maddow blasted the Fox/Neocon/Tea Party cabal last night, in a twelve-minute tour de force that left the "something for nothing crowd" - as Keith Olbermann (who also had his own "Special Comment" on the subject last night) calls them - a smoking, blasted ruin. Recounting the history of the fear tactics used by wingnuts for the last forty-fifty years, Rachel showed them for the racist, anti-American demons that they are. Here she is:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Make no mistake, these are the real sowers of hatred and racism in our country. These are the tactics they've successfully used for almost fifty years. It's way past time that we stopped being fooled by these bastards.

That Infamous Clip

Why did anyone believe Andrew Breitbart? About anything?! If he told me it was raining, I'd look out the window first. This is the same guy whose "creative" editing skills killed ACORN. Why does he have any credibility? And why did Sec. Vilsack fire Ms. Sherrod without a full and complete airing of the facts?

DailyKos:

If you're not familiar with the Shirley Sherrod story....Until Monday, Sherrod was the rural development director for the US Department of Agriculture in Georgia. Andrew Breitbart released a heavily edited video purporting to show Sherrod saying that 24 years ago she refused to help a farmer because he was white. It turns out that Breitbart twisted Sherrod's words; Sherrod was actually telling a story designed to illustrate why all forms of racism are wrong and describing how she overcame racism in her life. Indeed, she not only helped the farmer, but according to the farmer's wife, Sherrod saved the farm.
Despite the fact that Sherrod did nothing wrong -- in fact, did everything right -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack fired her after Breitbart's video was released. As you can see in Ben Smith's article, the White House is trying to simultaneously support Vilsack's position and deny responsibility for it. Obviously, Vilsack fired her out of the misguided belief that Breitbart had turned her into a political liability. But not only is that immoral, it's stupid; the backlash against the unjustified dismissal of Shirley Sherrod will dwarf whatever teabagging nonsense Breitbart could have drummed up.

Obama needs to reinstate Shirley Sherrod. Now. He can claim it's Vilsack's decision if he wants, but do it, and do it now.