Displaying 1,261 To 1,290 Of 5,146 Comments Coalition of Church and State: Rick Santorum The Santorums had a late second trimester abortion to save Karen Santorum’s life. It was no different from what hundreds of other women face with a malformed fetus – and yes, they did try to save it (as others do), but no, they had to induce delivery to SAVE HER LIFE even though they legislatively decided not to permit it for other women. She wrote about it – I read the article at the time – in Family Circle Magazine in 1997. The difference between her and other women? She was physically healthy and able to deliver even as it was to certain fetal death since the fetus was 20 weeks along. But they both said if it had been another method and her life was on the line, they’d have done ANYTHING to keep Karen alive. But other women? No. http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188 Here you can read the entire story of the utter hypocrisy of the Santorums. As Catholics they should know that Catholic hospitals routinely abort tubal pregnancies and make other exceptions for the life and health of the mother. But that’s only for THEM, the Santorums, not for anyone else. When your religious morality comes down to: “it’s all about me”, you are dealing with someone so perverted as to be sickly dangerous. If you hate the federal government and hate other people’s fee will, what the HELL are you doing running for President? » Posted By choicelady On January 4, 2012 @ 2:29 pm Santa Wish Lists from Top Political Figures Beautifully tailored, AdLib. Santa will be putting you on as a wish consultant. This is definitely your forte, both definining these wishes and then responding. You are guaranteed a lifetime gig at the North Pole, I’m sure! Thank you for a lovely laugh and REAL insight into the scary minds of the GOP. And for reminding us there IS an adult in the room who will leave Santa milk and cookies but NOT ask for anything back. What a mensch! » Posted By choicelady On December 24, 2011 @ 6:28 pm Oh – WELL said, AdLib. Well said indeed! » Posted By choicelady On December 24, 2011 @ 6:25 pm Of course not! It’s the Koch’s style, not yours, AdLib! » Posted By choicelady On December 24, 2011 @ 6:23 pm Clearly “Johnnie” is merely a pseudonym adopted by one or both Koch brothers. Their imprint is alllll over this letter! You’ve outed them, Sue. Good job. » Posted By choicelady On December 24, 2011 @ 6:22 pm That seems to be the truth. And at 8 am to Andy, a homeless friend we help a lot who came looking for a little cash and for a church to attend this morning, may the local politicos remember your needs. We fight for and try to provide “Safe Ground” for at least winter shelter complete with dinner and breakfast. Several churches open their doors at night to provide these basics, but we can’t help everyone – there are nearly 2000 Andys here in the capital of the richest state in the richest nation on earth. Saying that helping them by having a small tent city with sanitation and controlled fires will create “problems” is the Grinchiest attitude of all. Andy deserves NOT to freeze just because he’s poor and developmentally disabled. He has a heart so warm and a smile so bright he makes the world a better place just for his presence. City council members can’t say the same. May we remember those for whom a manger would be paradise – they are part of us, too. » Posted By choicelady On December 25, 2011 @ 9:49 am Children – no fighting! You’re both on the same team, so shake hands and be friends!!! Whoever is the GOP nominee will suck no matter who it is. We share that insight and value. What could be more sweet than that? » Posted By choicelady On December 20, 2011 @ 7:09 pm I gave it 10! I think there is no need to address the Bush cuts for the wealthy – they expire next year unless actively renewed which is not currently on the table. NOT talking about them is fine. So I’m not sure how that influences the Boehner outcome? Right now it’s about preserving payroll tax cuts for ordinary people. The GOP votes were THERE, but Boehner caved to the Baggers and no vote was taken. This then is on him, the Tea Party, and the GOP in general. We and the Dems and everyone have to lay blame – Baggers screw the working families. That has to be the mantra – and people DO hear it even if pundits say no one is listening. Oh yeah – they ARE. They know who’s pushing the extension and who is refusing it. Let’s take this one step at a time – if Keystone approval time lines are escalated, it’s DOA. If that’s what it takes to get Boehner to the table, then let’s escalate. But I think nothing will induce this House to do one damn thing for ordinary people. So overall the best reaction from the White House is – “IT’S ALL THE GOP’S FAULT YOU LOST YOUR TAX CUT!!!” and pound that message from now through November 2012. » Posted By choicelady On December 20, 2011 @ 7:07 pm Thank you KES – sorry I attributed it to Cher, though she provided the medium! I looked at a number of George’s performances on You Tube – what an amazing young man! » Posted By choicelady On December 17, 2011 @ 2:34 pm You get half a cookie (you pick the kind) since yes it does reaffirm AUMF, but NOT the 2002 version. That itself has been amended and changed, in part due to SCOTUS (who’da thunk they’d do something right – as in “correct”?) It’s not your Mr. Bush’s bill anymore, not your Mr. Bush’s ideology. Take a look at The People’s View story on some of it http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/rest-of-what-senator-levin-said.html There have been some other posts, but I’ve SO lost the thread, I can’t grab them off the front of my brow. Will try to recall what I read and where. But lots has changed since 2002. This ain’t Bush’s America anymore – THANK GOD!!! » Posted By choicelady On December 17, 2011 @ 2:25 pm Hah! Take THAT, stupid GOP!!! Didn’t notice the barrel of the gun you were holding was U-shaped, didja? » Posted By choicelady On December 17, 2011 @ 11:50 am Oh wow – how utterly beautiful. Thank you Ludwig. Thank you George. Thank you Cher! » Posted By choicelady On December 16, 2011 @ 1:14 pm agrippa – Exactly. This entire measure REAFFIRMS existing law as it is written statutorily, as the Supreme Court has mandated, as it has long been applied with focus on people’s civil rights. Nothing at ALL has changed. This is what makes me furious – the naysayers are acting as if something DID change, and it did not. There was a very dangerous version earlier (same bill number in the Senate, related horrible bill in the House) but it was the work of Dems in the Senate to make sure that never EVER passed, and they did NOT pass it. They passed S.1867 with excellent amendments keeping things as they have been with all civil rights intact. » Posted By choicelady On December 16, 2011 @ 1:10 pm You are accurate. They are expressly forbidden from applying any of this to US citizens or legal resident aliens. It’s not Congress (Dianne Feinstein et al.) or Obama who are nitpicking – it’s critics. 1032 (b) expressly forbids applying this section to the two groups cited. Period. NO ambiguity. » Posted By choicelady On December 16, 2011 @ 1:06 pm Morning Cher and thank you for all the great stories. I especially appreciate the affirmation that section 1032 of DDA does protect citizens and lawful residents and maintains habeus corpus. Not sure where the writer gets to the “awfulness” of the bill – these provisos pertain to people who desire to or have killed other people IF they represent Al Qae’da, surely not a group deserving sympathy? It’s not about your local stickup artist but real terrorists. Anyway, good story overall. LOVE the feline and canine literary treats! And one more upbeat thing: Happy Beethoven’s Birthday! » Posted By choicelady On December 16, 2011 @ 7:10 am Yes – the Dittoheads always have outnumbered even Orally. One hopes that is the sum total of same. Keep your eyes open for stories about how the atheists are stealing Christmas at Travis AFB. It’s not remotely true, and there is solid Christian support for moving the Nativity scene two blocks to the chapel, but that’s the spin from FOX. With these sorts of stupid, fact-less hyped-up stories, we crank up the Lowe’s decision NOT to fund Muslim in America, scary stories about Sharia law (which is totally distinct from that of individual nations, for good or for ill) and on and on and on. With the rabid fearmongering about civil liberties being decimated in the US, this just fans BOTH sides. But I stand firmly on the Y2K hype about the Black Helicopters – it never comes under Dems while the loss of Constitutional rights always come under GOP rule. Progressives have to get over it so that sanity can rule again. There’s enough wackiness on the other side, thanks! » Posted By choicelady On December 15, 2011 @ 1:23 pm Cher – reply above instead. I sure hope you’re right and that the beasts in our jungle are few in number. But when RACHEL weighs in and gets old information and then spreads it, it’s worrisome. Bito-thanks for watching DiFi and reporting. I’m at work and don’t have access. Maybe just maybe some of this will change the meme. I’m getting too old (and bald) for much more of this hype! » Posted By choicelady On December 15, 2011 @ 12:54 pm Hi Cher – I know, I was watching with my bald head and mouth hanging open. (Bad visuals, that…) I could NOT believe what he said – none of it addressing the CURRENT version of the bill which is what Obama wanted and GOT. What is going ON in this nation? Mother Jones (or maybe the Nation) had a long, long article on domestic human rights abuses of US citizens. They excoriated this administration – and every single example (and there were lots) was from PRE 2009. Every ONE. How does Obama get to be responsible for Bush’s illegal actions? If no one in the progressive world is willing to be careful but only hair-on-fire, then once again people will not vote or will vote Ron Paul or something else, and we can kiss democracy goodbye in the lifetime of most of us. Dreadful! » Posted By choicelady On December 15, 2011 @ 12:30 pm Well, knock ME over with a feather – I told her snotty staffer she needed to address this concern, and he said he’d pass that along, and, well, I guess he did. Who knew he was listening? Last night I saw a man from ACLU who insisted no such provision was in the bill. How can someone of that caliber promote such untruths? I freely admit there are a couple of versions of the bill still on the “Thomas” site – but the directions say to take the last listed one as the current version. If I can, why can’t he? I’m about bald from tearing out my hair in absolute frustration. » Posted By choicelady On December 15, 2011 @ 11:42 am As one can plainly read, it specifically EXEMPTS citizens and lawfully present resident aliens – the latter protected by the Constitution anyway as are all aliens. The amendment being discussed as having failed was replaced by the one Dianne Feinstein got passed that is what is here. It passed by 99-1 That was amendment 1456, the dissenting vote was (surprise!) Kyl of Arizona. If they are looking at her earlier amendment but not this, they screwed up. Of course you would find it if you CALLED her office, but hey…that’s too much work. » Posted By choicelady On December 15, 2011 @ 10:22 am Me, too! Honored to be in your company, e’cat! Obviously we rock? » Posted By choicelady On December 14, 2011 @ 9:09 pm THAT, unemployment extension, is the crucial issue, isn’t it? And yes – where ARE they? I certainly have gotten alerts from Coalition on Human Needs about the House “extension” (minus 40 weeks) but not much. Bill McGibbon, a faith leader, is largely responsible for the hair-on-fire stuff about the pipeline. I’d climb on board IF it were not for the fact that we’ve been using tar sands oil for YEARS and that the pipeline safety issues are paramount for the WH. I have seen an alternative route proposed and heard that 5-mile shut-offs are about to be demanded thereby protecting the critical Ogallala acquifer. (I’m getting highlight, so I maybe mis-spelled that?)Anyway, what about all the thousands of miles of existing pipeline? Why is this the big ugly? And don’t get me started on fracking – there are good ways and bad ways and the EPA is monitoring drilling AND seismic issues. This is not your Cornelius Vanderbilt laissez-faire president, y’know. If the Left spend half as much time tilting at the Right as it does itself, we might get a lot more done! » Posted By choicelady On December 14, 2011 @ 3:33 pm I felt loads better even after DiFi’s snotty staffer blew me off – NOTHING has changed over the Supremes’ ruling on civil rights. Apparently some language had been proposed to be changed, and THAT is what the WH disliked. So I’m fine with their reaffirmation that we do NOT want a nation with the military in the streets. The People’s View story is very clear on that point citing a WH memo on the total unacceptability of such an event. I have a question I cannot answer – does anyone READ the bills they holler about? My former allies at the National Religious Campaign Against Torture have a person, my equivalent, who ought to have been able to read the language. So if they did, why are they still screaming this morning about losing all our civil liberties? The president of NRCAT worked for Levin – she should have been able to call him and get clarification, but obviously this did not happen. It’s Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling. The story just gets bigger and bigger and NO one gives it up. I may be cynical, but is this all about “send money to have us stop what isn’t going to happen anyway”???? Yuck. » Posted By choicelady On December 14, 2011 @ 3:26 pm You’re welcome, bito – I have a very full inbox here at work with hype and “end of civilization as we know it” screeds from REPUTABLE allies – ACLU, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Human Rights Watch, Tikkun – all screeching about this. I looked at the bill (hideously and lengthily reproduced above) and then called DiFi’s office where a snotty staffer acted as if I’d spit on his shoes when I insisted they needed to understand reputable groups were promulgating very dangerous info. Now – Obama never wanted eradication of protections for US citizens, there is NO eradication in the bill, so when he does NOT veto it, the hair-on-fire people will claim The Black Helicopters and Detention Camps are only moments away AND that Blackwater will be hunting down the OWS people and enslaving them. Left – meet Michelle Bachmann. I cannot get past this easily – it is too much. I cannot reply to everyone who has sent these, but these lies are so dangerous! » Posted By choicelady On December 14, 2011 @ 2:41 pm Please let us be clear on the Defense Authorization Act – Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 DO NOT IN ANY WAY PERMIT THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS OR LAWFULLY RESIDING ALIENS. Nothing in the language changes existing law which has been directed by the Supreme Court that such detention of citizens or aliens cannot occur. S 1867 reaffirms, and does not change, one single thing protecting the civil rights under the Constitution of us all. The hype comes from a very selective interpretation of a November 17 10-hour hearing in which Senator Carl Levin reaffirmed the protections but did raise the issue since there were RW Republicans (redundant, I know) who wanted changes – changes that were not made. Senator Dianne Feinstein put in an amendment to REAFFIRM existing law, clarifying the issue in Section 1032 (b) S.1867 Subtitle D–Detainee Matters SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2). SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined– (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. (c) Implementation Procedures- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date. #### I have been inundated with cries of alarm from human rights groups whose sources are unknown to me. I have talked with Feinstein’s office – there is NO change to existing law that keeps US citizens and lawfully present aliens immune from such actions. So let’s not give over to hype – I do NOT know where this is coming from, but as with the cries over the Supercommittee that “Obama is cutting Social Security to give tax breaks to the rich” it is absolutely NOT TRUE. For a really solid, detailed analysis, take a look at The People’s View entry on this issue. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/rest-of-what-senator-levin-said.html Then take another look at the relevant paragraphs above – the hype is just hype. Nothing else. And I, for one, have better issues to concern me, and I hope you all do, too. » Posted By choicelady On December 14, 2011 @ 2:04 pm Coalition of Church and State Revisited: Convincing The Public There have been SCOTUS decisions this year alone that shattered the wall of separation of church and state for the first time EVER. In Arizona a group directing TAX CREDITS to conservative private school students were permitted to continue doing that even though no other type of student, not even Catholics and Lutherans, got those credits. This is simply astounding violation of equality before the law, but the justices rationalized it as “merely” a credit rather than an outright grant, so – get over it. They said taxpayers had NO standing to appeal this. Their gifts to corporations in Citizens United, the Wal-Mart class action dismissal, etc. are part of the belief that there is embedded inequality in America with the “saved” being the Elect and therefore entitled to benefits the rest of us do not get. It’s not JUST preferential treatment of corporations – it is a religious belief that the rich are the Chosen. So it’s done them a world of good. It is to the courts that the final test of our laws goes. These decisions are dangerous and far reaching. Be on the lookout for more. » Posted By choicelady On December 30, 2011 @ 5:06 pm I SO agree! I know what you think, of course, and we are in complete agreement. Furthermore, not many in “our” world would try to lead you to Jesus (and I run from the few who do, too!) because the issue is to fight for justice no matter who you are, what you believe. The tendency among secular people seeking justice though is to forget our 200 years of history and lump everyone in the same pot. Jerry Falwell et al. have done grievous harm that way by dividing faith and secular activists. It wasn’t their goal, but I bet Jerry Baby is chortling in his grave that it IS a result. The progressive and mainline faith communities are NOT “Falwell Lite” but an entirely different type of people. It just gets difficult when people forget the role faith leaders played in seeking reform – it was REV. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – in every important movement since the nation was founded – and before that in Europe. The social justice tradition is ages old, and it has always been a critical ally of every important step forward humankind has made. Nothing has changed. And WE obey the secular laws that protect the separation of church and state, don’t abuse the non-profit tax codes, and consequently render us poor but mighty! Our sheer lack of money ought to brighten the day of even the most ardent non-believer! We aren’t the Right, and we can’t even pretend to be that rich. Sigh… » Posted By choicelady On December 30, 2011 @ 11:20 am Hold on now. I, a great friend of SueinCA, totally agree with her. That said, my entire job is mobilizing progressive Christians to speak in the public square. How do we differ from the religious right? First – we bother to have a 501-c-4 that is NOT tax deductible for donors. Second – we come FROM our values to speak about democracy. We do not seek to impose our views ON democracy. In this respect we are no different from the League of Women Voters. Progressive people of faith have attended and led every significant movement in America from abolition to ending child labor to women’s suffrage, labor rights, anti-war and pacifism, anti-imperialism, civil rights,GLBT inclusion and equality, and on and on and on. We also are front and center in speaking for the separation of church and state, and we are hunted, harassed, and threatened because of it. OK – we probably were also largely responsible for Prohibition, but everyone makes mistakes. This past election in CA we also pumped for the legalization of marijuana. We are quite capable of learning from the past. Mobilizing people in congregations to speak FROM views of inclusion, peace, justice, equity, and compassion is radically different from the Right that seeks world domination so that ONLY their views (drawn from the OLD Testament not the new) will prevail and others will have no voice at all. There is no “equality” between the faith groups on the “left” and those on the right. This is a radical departure between the two views in both goals and practice. So don’t tar with the same brush. The energies progressives bring to the public square speak on behalf of ALL people’s rights – even the Right’s rights where they are consistent with democracy – and are not a threat to our Constitution or equality. SueinCA knows that about us – she’s been a big supporter of ours and a beloved friend. She knows we “get it” and challenge those who do not. Most of what we value in our national history owes a great deal to the presence of wise and democratic people of faith. Now is not the time to throw us under the bus, too, just to get rid of the imperialists in our midst. » Posted By choicelady On December 30, 2011 @ 8:24 am ‘Twas The Newt Before Christmas – A Political Parody This morning NPR’s “Wait, Wait – Don’t Tell Me” had one panelist’s PERFECT comment: “This candidacy is like a horror film sequence. Just when you thought he was gone…HE’S BA-A-A-A-CK!!!!!!” Cue the slasher music. It’s all begun again! » Posted By choicelady On December 17, 2011 @ 11:47 am OMG – how absolutely marvelous, AdLib! And it SCANS, which most parodies do not. Delicious, pointed, and right on the money. Newt’s stash, of course. Thank you!!! » Posted By choicelady On December 13, 2011 @ 9:09 amComments Posted By choicelady
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] – ES)
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats