WASHINGTON JUDGE LAWS THE LAW DOWN TO ANTI-GAY FLOURIST

A Washington state judge has ruled that florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, broke state law when she refused to provide flowers for the wedding of Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. Stutzman, represented by anti-LGBT legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), had been sued by the same-sex couples and the state’s attorney general for breaking both the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the state’s Consumer Protection Act. She counter-sued, seeking the right to engage in such discrimination based on her religious beliefs.

Though Stutzman has become a darling of the religious right for asserting her Southern Baptist beliefs about same-sex marriage, her arguments about religious freedom fell flat in court. Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom concluded in his decision that “to accept any [of] the Defendants’ arguments would be to disregard well-settled law.”

In fact, the case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”

ADF argued in the case, as it continues to argue in the wake of the ruling that Stutzman’s religious beliefs should be catered to so long as Ingersoll and Freed could still find flowers elsewhere. ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner explained in a press release, “The two men had no problem getting the flowers they wanted. They received several offers for free flowers, and the marketplace gives them plenty of options.” Ekstrom pointed out that a rule where discriminating businesses simply refer customers to non-discriminating businesses “would, of course, defeat the purpose of combating discrimination, and would allow discrimination in public accommodations based on all protected classes, including race.” Religious justifications for racial discrimination have certainly been proffered before. “There is no slope, much less a slippery one,” Ekstrom wrote, “where ‘race’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are in the same sentence of the statute, separate by only three terms: ‘creed, color, national origin…'”

Ekstrom also rejected ADF’s arguments that a distinction could be made between the couple’s sexual orientation and the act of getting married. “The United States Supreme Court has long held that discrimination based on conduct associated with a protected characteristic constitutes discrimination on the basis of that characteristic,” he noted, referencing in particular the case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, a university student group claimed it wasn't discriminating against gay members, only against those who engaged in or supported same-sex intimacy. The Supreme Court did not find the distinction compelling.

The non-discrimination law in no way violates any constitutional principles, Ekstrom concluded, because, “For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even when the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”

Following the ruling, Stutzman claimed, “The government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should. I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment.” Damages and fines in the case have not yet been determined.

The decision follows a near-identical ruling in Oregon last month against a bakery that refused a cake to a same-sex couples. The string of losses in similar cases follows back to an Iowa wedding venue, aVermont reception venue, a Colorado bakery, and a New Mexico photographer who all similarly tried to refuse services related to a same-sex commitment ceremony. All of those states have laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but there are still 29 states that have no such laws.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS GOVERNOR IS A SPECIAL KIND OF STUPID

 SAM BROWNBACK

In 2007, the state of Kansas was forbidden from firing state employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity under an executive order signed by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

On Tuesday, the state’s sitting governor, Sam Brownback , abruptly rescinded this order. Before any state officials take Brownback’s action as a license to purge gay or trans workers, however, they should familiarize themselves with the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decisions applying it in gay rights cases. If Kansas actually fires someone for being gay or trans, they are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a federal lawsuit.

The Constitution forbids states from denying any person “the equal protection of the laws.” In the gay rights context, the Supreme Court explained most recently in its 2013 decision striking down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), “the Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.'”

The Court’s precedents also establish that discrimination by a state official is no less offensive to the Constitution than discrimination by an act of Congress, so if a Kansas state official fires a state employee simply because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, they violate the Constitution — regardless of whether a state has an executive order in place banning the practice. Mere anti-gay animus, divorced from another, legitimate justification for the state official’s action, cannot justify discrimination.

Yet, while the Court’s precedents indicate that state-sponsored discrimination against gay workers is unconstitutional, LGBT Kansans should be aware of two caveats to this conclusion. The first is that, while the arc of the Supreme Court’s gay rights jurisprudence has bent towards justice in recent years, gay Americans are still caught in an odd kind of constitutional limbo that creates some uncertainty regarding the scope of their rights.

Although the word “discrimination” carries negative connotations, most forms of discrimination are entirely constitutional — and rightfully so. The government may legitimately prefer job applicants who performed well in college to those with low GPAs. Or it can discriminate against people who did not graduate from law school when hiring lawyers. Or it can choose to only throw people who committed crimes into prison while treating the rest of the population differently.

No sensible legal regime bans all forms of discrimination, rather, the Constitution bars what is often described as “invidious” discrimination — discrimination against groups that have historically be subject to discrimination due to a trait that bears little relation to their “ability to perform or contribute to society.” This is why race and gender discrimination are typically forbidden by the Constitution. It is also why many courts recognize that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is largely impermissible.

The Supreme Court, however, has not yet gone so far as to hold that discrimination against gay people is subject to “heightened scrutiny” — although several lower courts have done so. This oversight creates enough uncertainty regarding the scope of gay rights under the Constitution that a minority of federal judges ruled against marriage equality even after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. If Kansas fires an employee because they are gay, and that employee sues, the fate of that lawsuit could hinge upon whether the case is heard by a judge who is inclined to construe the Supreme Court’s gay rights cases narrowly.

The second caveat is that, while the Supreme Court handed down a number of decisions protecting gay rights, they’ve had much less to say about the rights of transgender Americans. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that “a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity,” it is an open question whether the conservative Roberts Court will reach the same conclusion. Kansas is also located in the Tenth Circuit, and there is also no guarantee that Tenth Circuit judges will agree with the Eleventh Circuit.

Perhaps because of these two uncertainties, state-based LGBT rights groups in Kansas remain quite alarmed about what could happen to state employees who no longer enjoy the protection of Sebelius’s executive order. Equality Kansas, for example, tweeted out an admonition to reporters asking to speak to LGBT state employees — “To reporters asking us for LGBT KS State employees for you to interview: NO. They talk today, they’re fired tomorrow. Think about it. Thanks.”


Congratulations Sam, you are today's worst person in the world, enjoy asshat!


[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

“HOMOSEXUALITY MORE DANGEROUS THAN TERRORISM”

WING NUT SALLY KERN OF OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma is currently one of the most conservative states to have marriage equality (Alabama just got a two-week delay in holding that title). Same-sex couples are carefully beginning to exercise their new right, like Tracy Curtis and Kathryn Frazier, whose anxiety over every wedding invitation was thoughtfully profiled by the Washington Post this weekend. But conservative lawmakers have expressed their interest in circumventing that freedom to marry in several creative ways.

State Rep. Sally Kern is leading that charge. She infamously insists that homosexuality is “more dangerous” than terrorism, and has attempted to make a martyr of herself over the backlash for saying so. Last week, she filed three separate bills designed to circumvent equality for the LGBT community by either licensing discrimination or outright promoting harm.

Her first bill, HB 1597, specifically empowers businesses to refuse service to the LGBT community. Unlike the slew of bills in other states that use “religious freedom” language to create a carve-out for anti-LGBT discrimination, Kern’s bill explicitly identifies LGBT people: “No business entity shall be required to provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges related to any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association.” This bill may be the most blatant “license to discriminate” of any legislation recently proffered by conservative lawmakers across the country.

While several states are considering following the lead of California and New Jersey in banning ex-gay therapy for minors — so that the harmful, ineffective treatment cannot be forced upon them by unaccepting parents — Kern takes the opposite approach. HB 1598 would create the “Freedom to Obtain Conversion Therapy Act,” insisting, “The people of this state have the right to seek and obtain counseling or conversion therapy from a mental health provider in order to control or end any unwanted sexual attraction, and no state agency shall infringe upon that right.” This includes minors, as the bill specifically empowers parents to obtain ex-gay therapy for their children “without interference by the state.”

Lastly, Kern wants to try to prevent couples like Tracy and Kathryn from getting married even though federal courts have guaranteed them that right. Her third bill, HB 1599 (the so-called “Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act”), borrows directly from similar legislation proposed in Texas to prevent government employees from receiving a salary if they issue a same-sex marriage license. “No taxpayer funds or governmental salaries shall be paid for any activity that includes the licensing or support of same-sex marriage,” the bill declares. Not only would clerks lose their salary, pension, and benefits, but any judge who issued a same-sex marriage license “shall be removed from office.”

Kern is not alone in trying to block marriage equality at the clerk level. State Rep. Todd Russ has proposed a bill (HB 1125) that would no longer allow clerks or judges to even officiate marriages anymore. If couples do not have a formal ceremony with a religious leader, they would have to file an affidavit of common law marriage instead, and they would never actually receive a marriage certificate. Russ, himself a credentialed Assemblies of God minister, told The Oklahoman that though he joins many Oklahomans in opposing same-sex marriage, “the Supreme Court stuck it down our throats,” but “marriages are not supposed to be a government thing anyway.”

It’s unclear whether lawmakers are willing to get behind these bills that clearly target the LGBT community for harm, discrimination, and unequal access to government services, nor whether they would be upheld in a federal court. Republicans do enjoy supermajorities in both the Oklahoma House and Senate, so passage cannot be ruled out.

Congratulations Sally Kern, you are today's dual award winner. The coveted asshat and worst person in the world are yours today. 

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

ERICK ERICKSON BEING ERICK ERICKSON

ERICK ERICKSON

RedState.com editor and Fox News contributor Erick Erickson opened his radio show Wednesday with the disclaimer that he would be “lighting the ships on fire on the seashore and burning the bridge down behind me.” He proceeded to compare the firing of Atlanta’s anti-gay fire chief to the violent shooting that took place this week at French magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 journalists.

“A publisher published something that offended,” Erickson wrote in an accompanying blog post, “So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar.”

He went on to clarify, “It is not because the ideas are bad, but because the ideas offend a group that can destroy and tear down.” Finally revealing that he was talking about Atlanta and not France, Erickson concluded, “The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender… And the terrorists won in Atlanta.”


Listen to his full segment (via Jeremy Hooper):




When Mayor Kasim Reed announced the firing of Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran on Tuesday, he made it clear that it was not because of his religious beliefs, but for his poor judgment in distributing his self-published book that condemned homosexuality. Atlanta has sexual orientation nondiscrimination protections and Cochran was fostering an unwelcoming working environment that did not represent the city’s values. Moreover, while Cochran was suspended for a month to investigate complaints about how he distributed his book, he openly promised to continue engaging in such actions, which Reed felt seriously undermined his “judgment.”

But Erickson and other conservatives have made a martyr of Cochran. “He has been fired for being a Christian,” Erickson concluded, dismissing Reed’s statements to the contrary. “The fire chief wasn’t passing the book around, except to people who asked for it,” Erickson claimed to know via “inside sources” in Atlanta’s City Hall.

Last week, Erickson criticized the notion that a transgender teenager’s suicide after her family rejected her identity epitomized a form of social genocide against LGBT people, suggesting that such a claim was offensive to Holocaust survivors, though no such comparison was made.

But Erickson defended the comparison he was openly making between Cochran’s firing and the death of 12 journalists:

“We gotta talk about what happened in France, but I just think it is worth pointing out that one group destroys the livelihood of those who dare to mock or dissent, and the other took their lives, but both are doing it to drive debate from the public square… to shut them up and shut them down, segment them away from society.”

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

IMPEACH MARK HERRING

Says radical tea bagger Bob Marshall.

Virginia Del. Bob Marshall is a longtime opponent of LGBT equality, and he’s now calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Mark Herring , primarily for his refusal to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Marshall filed the resolutions seeking an inquiry for Herring’s impeachment last week, but in a new email to supporters, he outlined his reasons for doing so. “Removing all standards against same sex or sodomy ‘marriage,’” he explained, is “to the detriment of children and the well-being of society.”

According to Marshall, “Mark Herring’s actions constitute a radical structural alteration in our representative form of government.” In addition to objections that Herring has chosen not to defend the state’s marriage ban, a decision that is not unprecedented, Marshall also claims he “usurped legislative authority” by inviting undocumented immigrants (DREAMers) to pay in-state tuition rates at Virginia state school.

Marshall’s attacks include something that Herring did not actually even do. According to the email alert, Herring publicly announced that he is allowing same-sex couples to file joint tax returns, but Herring has made no such announcement. Just before leaving office, Herring’s predecessor Ken Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion specifically banning recognition of same-sex couples’ marital status for income tax returns. The opinion illuminates a conflict between Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and state law requiring that taxes be collected at the state level in the same way that they are at the federal level, which would require recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages. Though Gov. Terry McAuliffe is investigating reversing this precedent, Herring has not issued a contradicting opinion of his own.

In the email, Marshall also extended a threat to impeach judges who might overturn bans on same-sex marriage. Rulings based on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection “make no sense,” he argued, because when that Amendment was ratified, “sodomy was a felony in nearly every state.”

A long reputation of anti-gay comments precedes Marshall’s impeachment attempts. In 2012, he opposed the appointment of openly gay Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland because “sodomy is not a civil right.” In a 2011 letter attacking Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley  for supporting marriage equality, Marshall compared homosexuality to pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality. He believes that homosexuality is a “disordered behavior” and after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he tried to ban “active homosexuals” from joining the Virginia National Guard.

As of publication, Marshall’s public petition to rally support for Herring’s impeachment has garnered 110 signatures, one of the most recent of which was from “FuckYou Bob.”

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

'God Almighty Is A Hater' Too

Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday blasted "gay activists" for forcing out Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich after it was discovered that he backed the California Proposition 8 effort that stripped LGBT people of their marriage rights.

"Here this man at Mozilla, Eich, had given $1,000 about six or seven years ago -- $1,000 -- to a proposition," Robertson explained. "And somebody came around and said, 'Will you contribute?' And he said, 'Here's a grand, get off my back.' I mean, that's probably all that it amounted to." 

"But instead of that, he's being forced out by gay activists, who said that was hate speech to say that the union between a man and a woman is marriage -- that's hate speech."

The TV preacher continued: "Well then, the Bible then is full of hate. If that the way it is, then God almighty is a hater. If that's the way they want to define it. And I, of course, don't agree."

Robertson said that this is the reason that the Internal Revenue Service should not force non-profit groups to disclose donors.





NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

FRED PHELPS NOW LEARNING WHAT GOD TRULY HATES

THE DISGUSTING POS NAMED FRED PHELPS

BREAKING: Hell welcomes its newest resident.

Wednesday night, anti-gay, military gravesite protester, and Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps passed away at the age of 84. His church’s rallying cry of “God Hates Fags” has long drawn the ire of people everywhere - all across the spectrum - his death only served to underscore this worldly unity of hate for this asshat.

Yes, Fred Phelps was the lowest form of human excrement to ever troll this earth.

The truth is, Fred Phelps made a lot of people angry. Not only the families of AIDS patients, but gay men and American soldiers alike - celebrities whose funerals he relentlessly picketed along with a few dozen members of his Westboro Baptist Church. As journalist Donna Minkowitz chronicled almost twenty years ago in Poz magazine, “harassing bereaved families is Phelps’s specialty.” “I love to use words that send them off the edge emotionally,” he told her, “There’s nothing better than that.”

Phelps’s early victims included not just AIDS advocates like Nicholas Rango (1993) and Randy Shilts (1994) and gay men of modest fame like composer Kevin Oldham (1993), but also anonymously harassed individuals like Kenneth Scott, a Topeka graduate student who died in 1992. Scott’s sister Sue Mee told Minkowitz, “When Kenny died, they came to the funeral with a sign that said ‘Fags=Death’ with a big smiley face,” and that years later, Scott’s family would still receive phone calls from random individuals asking, “Is this the house where fags live?”

Later, Phelps would broaden his grotesque trolling to include the funerals of slain US soldiers, whom he reckoned God had killed as punishment for America’s sexual immorality.

Phelps ranted on about God’s hate for fags, for America, for Muslims, for Catholics, gun massacre victims and US troops. If American exceptionalism is in some way an attempt to imbue the profane - Phelps merely reversed polarities, swapping in eternal damnation. To discuss Phelps as if he were a morally vexing and profound evil - is to kind for this disgusting prick, dignifying him with a complexity he lacked. His hatred was banal, his existence, a waste of human flesh.

May his judgment be harsh, and may his nasty soul burn in hell for eternity. Good riddance asshat, this world is much better with you gone.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

MAYBE THEY ARE GETTING THE MESSAGE?

HATING FOR REPUBLICAN JESUS

On January 31, the Mississippi Senate unanimously passed SB 2681, a bill that adds “In God We Trust” to the state seal. It also contained language just like that in Arizona’s freshly-vetoed bill that would allow people to use religious beliefs as a defense in civil cases — thereby instituting the same “license to discriminate” that prompted a national backlash in Arizona. The bill passed under the radar, without any discussion about whether it was anti-LGBT, but thanks to pressure from the ACLU, the bill is receiving a significant rewrite.

Late Wednesday night, the Mississippi House Civil Subcommittee voted to strike all of the problematic language that would have protected discrimination. Instead, the bill will resemble the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) that 18 other states have. These laws, along with their federal counterpart, help protect individuals’ religious practices from government intrusion without allowing them to be imposed on others.

Mississippi is only the latest state to scrap, stall, or defeat a “license to discriminate” measure disguised as “religious liberty.” In addition to the veto in Arizona, bills were defeated this week in Ohio, Indiana, and Georgia and last week in Kansas, Maine, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Idaho. Missouri is currently the only state where such a bill is still on the table.





NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

VIRGINIA MOVES INTO 21ST CENTURY.......MAYBE

Ruling by U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen sets the stage for a possible Supreme Court showdown, though cases from Utah and Oklahoma also are headed that way.

So at least theoretically, Virginia is for lovers - and marriage:

A federal judge in Virginia has struck down the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage, joining a growing list of state and federal courts that have granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry following two landmark Supreme Court rulings in June.

U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling had been expected since the case was heard in her Norfolk courtroom last week. Also as expected, she blocked it from taking immediate effect until appeals are heard. As a result, gay marriages in Virginia cannot begin yet.

"Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships," Wright Allen said. "Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference."

Her decision follows similar rulings in Oklahoma and Utah, even more conservative states, where federal judges recently struck down gay marriage bans. Those cases are scheduled to be heard a week apart by a federal appeals court panel in April; the Virginia case now joins them in a race toward the Supreme Court.

And in recent days, Nevada state officials decided they could no longer defend the state's same-sex marriage ban, and a judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must recognize gay marriages from other states.





NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

RAPING WIFE OK IF SHE IS IN A NIGHTIE

RIGHT WING NUT JOB DICK BLACK

Rep. Frank Wolf is retiring from Congress, leaving his Northern Virginia congressional seat open in a competitive race. At least two teapublicans, state Senator Dick Black and Delegate Barbara Comstock, are vying for their party’s nomination.

Black has a controversial record on rape, women’s health, slavery, and LGBT rights, as discussed by Mother Jones Wednesday. Comstock stands for ultra-conservative policies, too, particularly when it comes to restricting abortion and women’s health.

Those views complicate the GOP’s effort to moderate their policies and appeal to minority, gay, and women voters and resemble the positions of Ken Cuccinelli, the party’s failed gubernatorial candidate:

Abortion is like slavery and the Holocaust: According to Black, contraception is “baby pesticide” and a “toxic method of eliminating a child” (even though contraception prevents abortions). In addition to saying abortion is worse than slavery, Black has compared abortion clinics to Nazi concentration camps. Without making such stark comparisons, Comstock drew comparisons between abortion, infanticide, and execution in a 2008 NBC interview.

Denying abortion even if it puts the mother at risk: Comstock answered simply that the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade should be overturned to deny abortions even if the mother’s health is threatened. She insisted that the woman be forced to carry to term, even if late-term pregnancy complications put lives in danger.

Allowing guns in bars: Comstock’s record on guns has earned her an “A” NRA rating. Her voting record on guns include allowing firearms inside bars that serve alcohol. The bill passed the legislature, making Virginia one of at least six states permitting loaded guns in some of the most dangerous circumstances.

Spousal rape and military rape is fine: Mother Jones pointed out that Black defended spousal rape, saying he “did not know how on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape, when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth, there’s no injury, there’s no separation or anything.” After that comment, Black only clarified he was not “taking a position for or against marital rape.” Before that, Black — a former military prosecutor — dismissed rape in the military “as predictable as human nature.” “Think of yourself at 25,” he said. “Wouldn't you love to have a group of 19-year-old girls under your control, day in, day out?”

Same-sex couples pose danger to the public In Virginia’s state Senate, Black promoted a slew of bills discriminating against gay men and women. On gay people serving in the military, Black has said “It’s a question of whether we will force soldiers to bond with homosexuals in the showers and the barracks, knowing that doing so will result in sexual bullying, male rape and forcible sodomy.” He has proposed a bill to ban same-sex couples from adopting children, using the reasoning that they are more likely to be violent and suicidal. He has attempted to ban same-sex couples from applying for public home loans. Black has even said public discussion of gay relationships puts children at risk of contracting HIV. Polygamy, he says, is “more natural” than being gay.

The candidates are far to the right of where the district leans politically. Wolf held his seat for 17 terms, but the “increasingly purple” district is seen as competitive for either party. Though it went 50-49 for Mitt Romney in a state that voted for President Obama in 2012, the district was 51-48 for Obama in 2008.

Dick Black, you are today's worst person in the world!

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

UTAH JUDGE GETS IT RIGHT

MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Who'd a thunk it?


United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, was not the clearest opinion the justices have ever produced. Although that opinion was firmly rooted in the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Americans, it contained just enough states’ rights language to give anti-gay lawmakers in the states some hopes that marriage discrimination could remain alive in conservative enclaves throughout the country. If a Utah federal judge’s opinion that was released Friday is upheld on appeal, however, there will no longer be any doubt that marriage equality belongs to all Americans.

“The Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government,” Judge Robert Shelby concludes in his opinion striking down Utah’s ban on marriage equality — and this right applies to everyone. The same Constitution, Shelby explains “protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of sexual identity.”

Although Shelby largely relies on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, he also made sharp nods towards the promise of equality. “Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples,” he explains, Utah’s “Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition.”

Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

Beyond Judge Shelby’s conclusion that marriage is a question of constitutional rights, not one of states’ rights — as he explains, “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict” — Shelby’s opinion appears designed to tear down whatever intellectual infrastructure remains supporting marriage discrimination.

The leading argument advanced by supporters of discrimination in same-sex marriage cases is that marriage is necessarily tied to procreation, so same-sex couples can be excluded because they cannot produce biological offspring. Yet, as Shelby points out, the ability to procreate is not “a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view.

” Such an argument does not simply “demean the dignity” of same-sex couples, it also degenerates “the many opposite-sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children.” Indeed, under Utah’s argument for maintaining marriage discrimination, “a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate.”

Additionally, opponents of marriage equality who cheered Justice Antonin Scalia’s sharply worded dissent in Lawrence v. Texas — another landmark gay rights opinion — may come to regret Scalia’s words after reading Judge Shelby’s opinion. Scalia wrote in Lawrence that “today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” Shelby’s opinion proclaims that Scalia was right.

It should be noted, however, that Shelby’s opinion is significantly less sweeping that Thursday’s marriage equality decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The New Mexico court unanimously held that “because same-gender couples (whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, hereinafter ‘LGBT’) are a discrete group which has been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, and which has inadequate political power to protect itself from such treatment, the classification at issue must withstand intermediate scrutiny to be constitutional.” Thus, under the New Mexico decision, any anti-LGBT law will be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny — and the New Mexico court explicitly included transgender individuals within the scope of its holding. Shelby’s opinion, by contrast, is largely focused on the right to marry.

Nevertheless, Shelby’s opinion is broad enough to extend the blessings of full marriage equality to all same-sex couples if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, it will need to be reviewed by the conservative-leaning United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. So it will probably be quite a while before this case reaches the nation’s highest Court.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

RANDY FORBES: NO BRAINS, NO HEART, NO COURAGE

Rep. Randy Forbes (Virginia Talibangelical) is apparently urging the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) not to support any gay candidates — specifically because they’re gay. This would impact the races of Richard Tisei, who is once again running for Congress in Massachusetts after having narrowly lost in 2012, and Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego City Councilman running in California.

The NRCC helped fund Tisei’s 2012 campaign and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) even traveled to Boston to help him fundraise. Many senior House Republicans have given to both Tisei and DeMaio in their current campaigns, but their support of gay candidates seems not have fazed Forbes’ abstinence on the matter:

Last Wednesday, Forbes told POLITICO he thinks “GOP leaders can do whatever they want to do,” in terms of giving money to gay candidates. 

He said he is more concerned about members being asked to contribute to the campaigns. The NRCC is partially funded by collecting tens of millions of dollars from House Republicans, who pay dues to the organization.

When asked if he would withhold political contributions to the NRCC if they backed DeMaio, Forbes said, “I’m not going to be hypothetical on what we would or wouldn’t do at this particular point in time because you’ve got a lot of scenarios. I don’t think we’ve had primaries and nominations to nominate people. So I don’t want to prejudge.”

Because the NRCC does not involve itself in primary elections, this would only happen should DeMaio win the nomination. NRCC Chairman Greg Walden told Politico that the committee will not make decisions based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Forbes has received a score of 0 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, having not supported a single LGBT equality measure. He is vying to be the next chair of the House Armed Services Committee, but in 2012, he attacked the Pentagon for allowing military service members to wear their uniforms when marching in San Diego’s pride parade, calling the decision “an outrageous and blatantly political determination issued solely to advance this Administration’s social agenda.” On that committee, he has also supported efforts to enshrine anti-gay discrimination within the military. His website still boasts his opposition to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” expressing his concern that the repeal might imply “official military support for the normalization of homosexual behavior.” In October, Forbes was supposed to be the featured speaker at a luncheon hosted by the American Family Association, an anti-gay hate group, at the Values Voter Summit, but for unknown reasons, he didn’t show.





Forbes is one of the co-sponsors of the so-called “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” which would provide a license to discriminate against same-sex couples for all businesses with a religious affiliation. Unsurprisingly, he has previously refused to implement nondiscrimination protections for gay employees in his own Congressional office. He also supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage throughout the entire country. In 2007, he opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on the House floor, arguing that protecting gay people from being fired for their identities could somehow “destroy the institution of marriage.”

So much for the "GOP Autopsy". Forbes is just another bloviated outdated blowhard, with a hate for everything not past white.

If Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz found herself surrounded by men with no heart, no brains and no courage, she would be with the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Randy Forbes you are NFTOS' asshat of the week, congratulations!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

GOP GOING MORE ANTI-GAY

Rachel Maddow explains how marriage equality is spreading in America, and how the American Taliban goes full bore anti-gay.

VIDEO COURTESY OF MSNBC








NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

SILVER BULLET SOLUTION FOR BATTLING HOMOSEXUALITY

Rick Scarborough Vision America Gospel of Hate

Christian conservative activist Rick Scarborough seems to have finally found the silver-bullet solution for battling homosexuality in America: Sue the gay away! During an interview with fellow traveler Peter LaBarbera, Scarborough suggested the possibility of suing homosexuality in the same way lawyers took up a case against large tobacco companies.

“The whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have talked about this a little bit,” the Tea Party Unity committee member reminded his colleague. “Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer. And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that.”

LaBarbera, the president of Americans for Truth, agreed. “I think that’s great. I would love to see it.” He added that perhaps if anti-gay groups can win such a lawsuit against homosexuality, the money could be put into PSAs depicting the alleged pitfalls of homosexual behavior.

“We always wanted to see one of the kid in high school who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay, then he comes down with HIV,” LaBarbera asserted. “But we never really got the client for that.”

LaBarbera also lamented the lack of stories about “ex-gays” on Fox News. “We need to work on our conservative, alternate media and say, ‘look, don’t do the pro-gay thing, why don’t you rather step out and support these ex-gays?’ We should encourage Fox News to tell their stories,” he said. “Fox is now telling the stories of black conservatives because the other media is not doing that, we should all get on Fox and say, ‘come on, tell these stories, these wonderful stories of happy men and women who have left the homosexual lifestyle.’”

Let's also sue abstinence-only education, since sex without protection is far more likely to lead to the spread of STDs than sex with protection.

Do they realize that homosexuality is not a corporation? I'm assuming not, since they seem dumber than a box of rocks. Maybe we can begin a class action lawsuit against tea party assholes!

Congratulations Rick Scarborough, you are today's asshat of the day!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

GROVER NORQUIST VISIBLY SHAKEN

GROVER LOOKING A LITTLE ILL AT THIS MOMENT IN THE SHOW

CAUTION BLOG CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT:

Last nights Real Time, Dan Savage told Bill Maher about his reactions to this year’s monumental Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, the most laugh-out-loud awful anti-gay arguments, and one of his favorite ways to troll Christian conservatives. He also explained to Maher how gay male couples are most likely to be promiscuous, while lesbian couples are most likely to be monogamous, leading him to conclude that the problem with monogamy is simply “dick.”


VIDEO COURTESY OF HBO AND MEDIAITE

Savage said how whenever he has people come up to him and tell him that gay people cannot biologically produce a child, he just tells them “Anything is possible for God,” and “I’m gonna keep inseminating my husband and keep my fingers crossed.” The camera jumped to a one shot of conservative guest Grover Norquist looking visibly uncomfortable, leading Maher to quip that Savage should move on so as not to induce any actual vomiting.

The look on the bastards face, that being Norquist was priceless!

Maher also found it amusing that Savage’s son came out to him as straight, joking how kids always want to rebel against their parents. Savage used this to slam the religious claim that kids adopt their parents’ sexuality, because 1) he had straight siblings and his parents weren’t particularly shitty just to him, and 2) gay people are born to straight couples all the time. That’s kind of how gay people come into the world.

Its funny if you think about it, that infertile couples can be together because God might grant them with a pregnancy, but homosexual couples can't because you need at least one penis and a womb to get pregnant. It's like humans have decided to limit God's power based on a random set of rules. How is it, that this all powerful OZ, I mean God, is incapable of futzing with those rules - seems very laughable to me. Apparently, OZ, I mean God can create man out of dirt, cause the infertile to bear children, cause a virgin to birth the Messiah, but when it comes to something like male pregnancy, He's flummoxed.

As Ellen DeGeneres says in the closing of all her TV shows, "anyway", its a great time had watching this most radical Talibangelical - Grover Norquist squirm in his seat.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

"Open Rebellion Against God’s Law."

Daryl Metcalfe 

Openly gay Pennsylvania state Representative Brian Sims (D) planned to speak on the legislature floor on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act — but he was blocked from talking by a GOP colleague who said his comments would be “open rebellion against God’s law.” Now, Sims is asking for a reprimand of his Republican colleague.



Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R), who is known for his inflammatory remarks, also blocked two of Sim’s colleagues who wanted to speak about DOMA, and openly admitted that his religious beliefs compelled him not to let Sims speak:

“I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God’s law,” said Metcalfe, R-Butler.

Other American Taliban members of the legislature reportedly apologized to Sims — who was the first lawmaker in the state to be elected while openly gay.

A reprimand vote in the legislature would be largely symbolic, but Sims believes it’s needed to show that Metcalfe’s colleagues have no confidence in “a guy who hates women, he hates gay people, he hates minorities and he hates immigrants,” as Sims puts it.

Earlier this week, Sims introduced a marriage equality bill that would give full equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples in Pennsylvania. While Metcalfe might be set in his opinions about LGBT couples, Sims is capable of moving his state’s legislature forward. As a recent study pointed out, “the presence of even a small number of openly gay legislators is associated significantly with the future passage of enhanced gay rights.”

I am both leery and weary of the Bible being used as a bludgeon by the American Taliban against our Constitution -- the separation of church and state is paramount in the US -- or so it should be -- and bringing one's religious beliefs into congress is insulting and unconstitutional.

Blocking someone from speaking because they violate one's religious ideology goes against the entire principle of keeping church separate from state, as outlined in the first amendment. What if one decided that a female lawmaker had no right to speak, citing 1 Corinthians 14:34?

One doesn't have to be Einstein to deduce that this has nothing to do with religion at all. Sims wanted to build support for legislation that would fly in the face of Metcalfe's bigotry, and Metcalfe is hiding behind the skirts of religion to justify his bigotry. This mentality of these troglodytes is offensive, hypocritical, and most of, not Christ like.

I leave you again with my favorite quote that so aptly applies to the American Taliban and their Christianity:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~Mahatma Gandhi

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, you are today's worst person in the world!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Gays Are Now Human Beings In America, Cue Conservative Freak Out In 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Video Courtesy of MSNBC

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

The Supreme Court just handed down a 5-4 decision striking the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, “[t]he federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”


Video Courtesy of MSNBC

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

Shortly thereafter, the Court also handed down a 5-4 decision holding that supporters of California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to appeal District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision striking the marriage ban. The likely impact of this decision is that Walker’s injunction against Prop 8 will allow California to perform same-sex marriages once again — or at least that California’s top elected officials will be able to read Walker’s opinion this way — although there is some uncertainty whether Walker actually has the power to enjoin an entire state. For this reason, the status of Prop 8 is, for the moment, unclear.

Although Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case alludes to some questionable states rights views that he expressed during oral argument, the opinion is firmly rooted in the equal rights and equal dignity that same-sex couples share with straight ones. As the Court explains:

By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

At oral argument, Kennedy appeared ready to adopt a very radical view of states rights that would strip Congress’ power to enact DOMA, but which could also potentially endanger Medicare and other federal benefits programs by stripping away the federal government’s power to define who receives these benefits. Part III of Kennedy’s opinion nods sharply at Kennedy’s states’ rights views, but it also establishes that today’s opinion is rooted in equality, not in any new attempt to shrink federal power. As Kennedy writes, “it is unnecessary to decide whether [DOMA's] federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”

Instead, Kennedy’s opinion appears to adopt a compromise position Justice Elena Kagan floated at oral argument. “In determining whether a law is motivated by an improper animus or purpose,” Kennedy writes, “‘discrimination's of an unusual character’ especially require careful consideration.” The fact that DOMA departs from the usual federal practice of let states decide who is married “is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.”


Video Courtesy of MSNBC

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

Yet, while Kennedy’s allusions to states’ rights do not work a revolution in the scope of federal power, they do have very unfortunate implications for gay couples in places like Texas and Alabama. For the moment, at least, a majority of the Court was unwilling to strike a law restricting same-sex marriage without speaking at length about the traditionally broad role states have enjoyed in determining who is married. This will not necessarily prevent the federal government from recognizing such marriages throughout the nation and according many benefits to same-sex couples, but it does suggest that America has a little ways to go before Texas will have to afford gay couples the same dignity they enjoy in marriage equality states.

Not yet reading the dissenting opinions by the four justices, but I'm truly curious as to why Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito believe DOMA is constitutional..... I mean, aside from the fact they are douche bags. I keep looking for one defender of "traditional marriage" that isn't a monstrous hypocrite, moron or loon.

Nancy Pelosi was asked for a response to batshit crazy Michele Bachmann's statement regarding DOMA, Pelosi responded, "who cares". I think this sentiment can be applied to any statements made by the American Taliban.

Fear not conservatives, our Supreme Court still thinks racism is okay, so you haven't lost everything.......yet!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

BSA TO ALLOW GAY SCOUTS

FIRST SCOUT CHIEF EXECUTIVE JAMES E. WEST WITH PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT

I have tried to stay out of this conversation, as the BSA is close and dear to my heart. My families history is long and deeply entrenched in scouting.

I have sat back and watched the American Taliban and their likes destroy, mock, and pillage [verbally] what my family worked so hard to build. I am not sure how my kin-folk would react or vote to gays in scouting, I can only speak for myself. But I can assure you, I'd take a million LBGT over one tea bagger any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

I hearken back to the words of Christ, and a lesson that these so called "Christians" fail to heed:

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” – Jesus

This is my major problem with Christianity, Christians are so unlike their Christ!

I have more than my share of hate and discontent for the GOP - and I am not alone as 59% of this country has a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to the American Taliban.

The roughly 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) National Council voted 61-38 percent Thursday to end the ban on gay youth participating in the program, but reaffirmed their policy of mandatory discrimination against LGBT leaders and volunteers.

The move — suggested by the national leadership as an attempted compromise — represents a modest step forward, but still comes as a disappointment to the thousands of Eagle Scouts,1.8 million Change.org petition signers, and the 56 percent of Americans who want the BSA to end its anti-LGBT discrimination.

While the policy change will permit openly gay Scouts like Ryan Andresen to receive their Eagle Scout awards, it will still prevent openly lesbian parents like former Cub Scout Den Leader Jen Tyrrell from volunteering with their parent’s Scout units.

BSA President Wayne Perry wrote, in a USA Today op-ed Wednesday, that allowing LGBT leaders “would have conflicted with the majority of our partners, 70% of which are religious organizations, and would have disrupted our ability to deliver Scouting.” But in the same statement, he noted, the organization was “unaware of any major religious chartered organization that believes a youth member simply stating he or she is attracted to the same sex, but not engaging in sexual activity, should make him or her unwelcome in their congregation.”

This admission and the rule change seem to contradict the BSA’s long-standing rationale that “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” By finally admitting that being LGBT is not, itself, incompatible with being “morally straight” or “clean,” the justification for excluding adults purely on the basis of their sexual orientation seems to now be reduced to “some religious organizations prefer discrimination.”

The BSA’s Honorary President Barack Obama and former BSA national board member Mitt Romney agreed in their 2012 presidential campaign that the organization should stop discriminating based on sexual orientation — a view shared by corporate CEOs and more than 7,000 Eagle Scouts.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

IF YOU DON'T COUNT WHAT HE DID IN OFFICE, GEORGE W. BUSH WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT

G.W. BUSH GETS A LIBRARY?

The five living presidents will meet in Texas on Thursday to dedicate the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. And while Bush and his aides are using the occasion to soften the 43 president’s image and solidify his legacy, a recounting of Bush-era policies — from his deregulation of Wall Street to the invasion of Iraq — greatly undermine the new rosy narrative of the Bush years:

Authorized the use of torture:

Though the US Code bans torture, Bush personally issued a memorandum six days after the September 11th attacks instructing the CIA that it could use “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists. The methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and “stress positions.” A recently-released bipartisan committee concluded it was “indisputable” that these techniques constituted torture, and that the highest authorities in the country bore responsibility for the creation of a torture programs at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” around the world.

Politicized climate science:

Bush’s “do-nothing” approach to climate change prevented the U.S. from pursuing meaningful action. Though he claimed that global warming was a serious problem that was either a natural phenomenon or caused by humans, the administration routinely edited scientific reports to downplay the threat of climate change, censored CDC testimony that climate change was a public health threat, and promoted climate denying studies financed by Exxon Mobil. At the end of the Bush presidency, a top intelligence adviser warned the incoming president that climate change was a massive destabilizing national security threat that would lead to “Dust Bowl” conditions in the Southwest.


MADDOW BUSH LIBRARY




Ignored Afghanistan to launch a war in Iraq:

Rather than consolidating gains after the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush and his neoconservative allies pushed for removing Saddam Hussein from power, kicking off a war that led to one mistake after another. Ten years later, the war is estimated to have costt up to $6 trillion and resulted in the death of more than 100,000 Iraqis, 4,000 Americans and another 31,000 wounded. Meanwhile, Afghanistan saw a resurgence of the Taliban after Bush shifted resources to Iraq.


Botched the response to Hurricane Katrina:

Bush appointed Michael Brown — a man whose only real qualifications were political connections and a sting at the International Arabian Horse Association — to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2003 and he preceded to undo everything the Clinton Administration had done to make FEMA functional, botching the response to 2004′s Hurricane Frances so badly as to prompt calls for his firing. But Bush kept Brown on board and, as a detailed timeline of the response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrates, neither man took the storm seriously until it was too late. Bush, who famously said “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” midway through the crisis, thus presided over the most deaths due to a single natural disaster in the United States since 1900.


JON STEWART PART 1

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Defunded stem cell research:

At the turn of the century there was perhaps no greater hope for finding cures to illnesses ranging from Alzheimer’s to diabetes than ongoing stem cell research. But months after taking office, Bush eliminated all federal funding for any new research involving stem cells, citing a religious objection to the use of embryos — even though the embryos in question were byproducts from couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and would have been destroyed by IVF clinics regardless. Twice more during his presidency, Bush vetoed legislation that would have restored funding.


Required Muslim men to register with the government:

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush’s Attorney General, John Ashcroft, instituted an anti-terrorism program to register all male immigrants between 18 and 40 years old from 20 Arab and South Asian countries. Thousands of innocent men came forward to register, only to be rounded up for minor visa violations. Roughly 1,000 men and boys in the process of applying for permanent residence were arrested and confined in standing-room-only centers, enduring invasive strip searches and beatings by guards. Many were deported, while others were held for months after their immigration cases were resolved, without a shred of evidence they had any links to terrorism.


JON STEWART PART 2

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Reinstated the global gag rule:

On Bush’s first day in office he reinstated a rule that prevented any non-profit doing work overseas from using any of their own, private money to fund family planning services. This so-called “Global Gag Rule” posed a serious threat to international maternal health, but it also cut off funding for HIV/AIDS initiatives, child health programs, and water and sanitation efforts.

Supported anti-gay discrimination:

In 2004, President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would have banned same-sex couples from marrying in the U.S. Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Court had just ruled in favor of marriage equality, and Bush hoped to block the ruling from taking effect because “a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.” Though the FMA failed numerous times in Congress during Bush’s tenure, he exploited the issue of same-sex marriage to turn out conservative voters for the 2004 election. That year, 11 states added constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage.

Further deregulated Wall Street:

Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.

Widened income inequality:

The per-person benefits of Bush’s tax cuts accrued to the top one percent of Americans, as the rate for capital gains dropped to 15 percent. The CBO found that federal income taxes dropped far more as a percentage of the one percent’s income than for any other group after 2000.

Undermined worker protections:

Under Bush, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, whose mission is to protect safe working conditions, issued 86 percent fewer rules or regulations and pulled 22 items from its agenda of proposed safety and health rules. The office’s funding and staff were also consistently reduced. Meanwhile, funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with helping workers who claim discrimination against their employers, was similarly low and staffing fell even as the number of complaints increased, leading to a rising backlog of cases.

Ideological court appointments:

Bush filled the federal bench with ideologues, including two lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. These conservatives believe that corporations should be able to buy and sell elections, ruled against equal pay for equal work, and have sought to undermine a woman’s right to choose.

Presided over a dysfunctional executive branch:

A 2008 analysis by the Center for Public Integrity documented more than 125 executive branch failures over Bush’s two terms. These included government breakdowns on “education, energy, the environment, justice and security, the military and veterans affairs, health care, transportation, financial management, consumer and worker safety,” and others. “I think we’ll look back on this period as one of the most destructive periods in American public life . . . both in terms of policy and process,” Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution observed, noting “genuine distortion in the constitutional system, an exaggerated sense of presidential power and prerogative and acquiescence by a Republican Congress in the face of the first unified Republican government since Dwight Eisenhower.”

Barbara Bush said yesterday that she thinks there have been enough Bush's in the White House, while I couldn't agree more, why didn't she say this 2000?



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West