Saturday, January 07, 2012

I am somewhat bothered by Governor Romney's statement about religious bigotry regarding abortion.

...The debate prompted (click title to entry - thank you) by the childern minister's views on white adopters and black children is misleading and unhelpful (Inter-racial adoption should be promoted – minister, G2, , 3 November). European and UK legislation requires adoption agencies to take into account a child's ethnicity, culture, religion and language. Adoption agencies have long recognised the importance of promoting and supporting a child's identity in all its aspects when a child is placed for adoption. For most children from minority ethnic backgrounds, successful placements have been made with families which have reflected the child's background – and that achievement should be celebrated. But the profiles of children have changed over the past 10 years, as has the demography of certain ethnic groups in the population, affecting the chances of them being successfully placed for adoption....

He speaks too quickly and in bias to his own point of view.  The article above is from the Guardian, a British paper.

I didn't know Catholic Charities didn't offer adoptions in Massachusetts because they will not adopt into same sex relationships.  Quite surprised, actually.  

See, the State of Massachusetts legislated very simple language about adoption that did not discriminate.  The law has definitions as all good laws do.  The definitions below in very simple terms defines the parents of adopted children.

Adoptive Parent.  (click here) An individual who has been approved by the licensee to adopt a child.

Adoptive Parent Applicant.  An individual who has applied to be an adoptive parent

No forced Catholic Charities to close its doors.  That was not the goal of any law, but, due to the religious affiliation of the organization it 'self-determined' to stop those services to perspective parents.  So. let's get that much straight.

This is a country where all people are considered to be equal.  I think that is a Constitutional provision.

With that comes the question as to where do religious organizations fall when laws are clear and decisive and what legitimate problems will they cause if they are noted to be exempt from the state laws.

If Catholics are allowed special provisions to allow discrimination based in 'faith' then will other agencies be allowed special provisions based in race?  When exemptions are provided to religious organization to conduct a PUBLIC SERVICE, should there not be a clear understanding that THE PUBLIC applies to all the people and not just the religious people.  

Then there is the idea that the church conducts legislation without being elected.  If there are exceptions to the rule for religious organization, what other organizations get exceptions and how can a state legislature make exceptions if they were elected to office to treat all people equally.

If same sex couples cannot adopt, then why would a SINGLE PARENT of a single gender be allowed to adopt?  What if the adoptive parents complete there adoption and either the husband or wife dies for some reason, does that mean that is no longer a family and they have to give the child back?

The questions that arise for exceptions to any law can become bizarre and burdensome.  I am quite surprised that Governor Romney could not discern the problem with exclusive language in a State law, one especially sensitive law concerning children.

I think Gingrick brought up this fact, but, Romney expanded the discussion.  Gingrick blamed the media for bias and religious bigotry.  He might think that through once more actually.  The decision of Catholic Charities did receive newsprint.  It was no secret.

Is the Catholic Church a private club?  Can it conduct business in a closed manner that would allow it to only service Catholics?  If it were a private club whereby they only had contact and services for Catholics I could envision Catholics giving children to adoption for other Catholics to adopt.  But, the religion is not a private club.  They minister to the pubic and IN THE USA that means all the people.  

This is the same problem the Catholic Church runs into in criticizing their flock that serve in office for allowing abortion.  The Catholic Church DOES NOT 'GET IT.'  They have congregations in a free country, where every person has equal rights under the law.  The Catholic Church never 'got it.'  They never 'got it' because Freedom of Speech allows them to say anything they want to without retribution, so they over step their authority and try to impose religious doctrine into the public rhelm. 

The Catholic Church owns this problem, not the people of the USA.  Their very competent services to adoptive parents are dearly missed, but, if they insist on carrying out their religious doctrine to over ride state law, they are not seeking a democracy to live in, they are seeking a theocracy.  That is not allowed in the USA.  Someone needs to clue them in and maybe, just maybe, they will finally 'get it.'  

Not all children are born to Catholics.  Not all adoptive parents are Catholic.  Not all adoptive parents want white children and if I understand children for adoption the ONLY quality they are seeking is LOVE.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, a Supreme Court Judge has a 'special demand' before they can recuse themselves.

It would seem as though the calls from the political left and right for two Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves regarding the Affordable Care Act is such that Chief Justice Roberts needed to speak about the fact neither Justice would be asked to recuse themselves.

From the right and left, (click here) Washington is awash in demands that two Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from this spring’s review of the health law....
Below is a paragraph from the 2011 report.
...Although a Justice’s process for considering recusal is similar to that of the lower court judges, the Justice must consider an important factor that is not present in the lower courts. Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another. If an appeals court or district court judge withdraws from a case, there is another federal judge who can serve in that recused judge’s place. But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership.  A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.  Rather, each Justice has an obligation to the Court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case....

While I believe it is highly unlikely the decision regarding The Affordable Care Act will result in any recusals by the simple fact 'opinions' should be as broadly based as possible to bring insight, it is more than sad to realize a report of the Federal Judiciary is relying on a 1920 precedent to begin the approach to Supreme Court Recusal.  Here as in most modern day dilemmas regarding ethics and legal standing these precedent occurred before computers and especially before a powerful plutocracy dominates American life.  While precedent is always helpful, the dynamics of such can only be a guide post to the modern era we now live.

In 1920, American baseball fans were jolted by allegations that Chicago White Sox players had participated in a scheme to fix the outcome of the 1919 World Series.  The team owners responded to the infamous “Black Sox Scandal” by selecting a federal district judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to serve as Commissioner of Baseball and restore confidence in the sport....

...Judge Landis resolved his situation by resigning his judicial commission in 1922 to focus all his efforts on the national past-time.  The controversy, however, prompted organized efforts to develop more guidance for judges.  That same year, the American Bar Association asked the Nation’s new Chief Justice, former President William Howard Taft, to chair a Commission on Judicial Ethics. 

In the 21st Century of the USA there are problems with 'power over the people' that cause gross distortions to the citizens of this country by a plutocratic principle alive within the Supreme Court.  I hardly find myself resolved regarding divided political loyalties among the Supreme Court Justices when such ancient precedent is called upon to inhibit legitimate concerns 'of the people' now faced with oppression of First Amendment Rights due to the disparity of wealth among citizens and corporations.  The USA's Justice System is supposed to be where all social and political pressures are nullified to bring about 'justice,' but, considering the poor outcomes of The Citizen United decision the quality of 'leveling the playing field' is absent.  It is my opinion, not The Courts opinion, there is profound loss of justice for the citizen invoked by one person majorities that side with Commerce vs Justice.
A citizen has the power to cast a vote and where corporations and currency are viewed to stand equally with citizens there is literally dual representations at the ballot box.  One for the actual vote of 'a superpac player' and one for those influencing that vote with heavy handed monetary pressure brought about through 'faux' rights established by Supreme Court precedent.  Money doesn't vote.  Corporations don't cast votes.  The influence by The Court is warped that causes democratic processes to be nullified by plutocratic influence.  I propose The Robert's Court is unable to discern what Democratized Freedom of Speech of a 'citizen vote' actually is in the digital age of power married to money.  
If a citizen has one vote, why does money and corporate officers and employees have more than one?  And why does 'unknown sources' of money become influential in sovereign elections.  I sincerely believe there is a compromise of the nation's sovereignty by the Citizens United decision.
...Roberts released his 16-page report (click title to entry - thank you) Saturday. It is his seventh since he was appointed as the nation's top justice in September 2005.

The chief justice uses most of his report to address the issue of judicial recusal, in hopes of dispelling "some common misconceptions."

Though Roberts does not cite specific cases or names, he could be addressing partisan urgings that Kagan and Thomas not hear the health care lawsuit....

The pride of the USA has a strong hand on where the national defense is most impacted.

There is no doubt the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense has a united understanding of where the challenges to our national security exist.

I am confident retired members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Chairmen knows all to well of military spending that was frivolous, unnecessary and DID NOT serve our country well.  There has been plenty of past spending legislated that never was a demand or requirement of any of our branches of service.

I would hope that with the cuts in spending, while keeping vital services, the frivolous spending would be the top priority of General Dempsey and his league of experts under his command.  I am quite confident President Obama would be more than happy to entertain these cuts while providing sound fiscal policy in return that will keep the military robust and engaged in all areas necessary.  It is time to do the 'hard stuff' and own up to exploitative political legislature of the past and the better dynamics of the future.

The USA has the largest military and largest military budget in the world.  It is time to reassess how legislative politics and our 'readiness' don't necessary match reality and the problems of the country.  

Tricare does need to be looked at, but, only while realizing how financially challenged military families can be.  It is bold of me to say, but, perhaps First Lady Michelle Obama can work with military wives to better understand the family needs of our military and how best to provide their healthcare.  No military child should ever be faced with any health issue that cannot be addressed.  The peace of mind of our soldiers, of their families at home, has to be a comfort and not a distraction to their careers.

Perhaps, General Dempsey can commission a study to provide vastly needed insight as to how the country can meld an effective military with its political and legislative systems and how best to support our troops and their families.  It would be nice to know there is efficiency in all areas of the military and all needs are being met.

Thank you.

Shrinking the military was the choice of the Republicans.

They would not compromise with the Super-Committee and that is a fact. The Democrats have been trying to bend over backwards without destroying entitlements to the citizen whom paid for them for their lifetime.

The Republicans will not increase taxes on the wealthy and the defense budget was cut $750 billion over ten years. They are going to scream bloody murder and there are those within the Pentagon that have sacred cows and of course, according to them, the USA is going to be in danger no matter what fiscal difficulty the USA may have.

I would like the Pentagon to cut their retirements and health care while expecting the same of the citizens that pay their salaries.

The Defense Department has sacred cows throughout the country. Both Democrats and Republicans are going to running home to their constituents to raise hatred of the President, but, they need to be reminded of the priorities of a nation returning its economy from fiscal collapse of other Republican sacred cows which required bailouts.

I am confident the military will find a way to protect us all while downsizing a HUGE fiscal burden on the USA that simply acts as the global police. The military refuses to rework itself in a way that is realistic and yet secure for the country. The military believes the fiscal challenges of the country is a national security issue. That is a fact. But, they and the Republicans don't seem to realize that means cutting the defense spending as well as domestic spending.


The President and First Lady and every Democrat elected to office will be under attack for trimming the military budget. Perhaps the real villains to Wall Streets 'fiscal pain' should be sought in the Republican House of Representatives and the Senate.

Cutting the military budget is going to receive growing resistance and more so than legislating tax reform and/or taxes on the wealthy. I found really interesting 50% of broadband is utilized by the top 1% in the USA. Very interesting.

And, of course, every Republican nominee would never cut the military or raise taxes on the wealthy, but, they will gut Medicare and Social Security and hand over trillions to Wall Street to invest rather than secure the elderly's future.

It's an election year and the First Lady is fair game, ONCE AGAIN !

Michele Obama (click title to entry - thank you) was privately fuming, not only at the president’s team, but also at her husband....

I don't believe Michelle was jealous of Rahm. But, she is an attorney and no different than Hillary Clinton she was very loyal to her understanding of the needs of her husband.  Power is a difficult thing to manage and evidently when it comes to understanding powerful women the 'gossip driven' press is not good at it!

It would be helpful if the Mayor of Chicago and First Lady Michelle Obama would get together for an appearance and perhaps an interview to dispel the rumors of Michelle being The First Lady from Hell.