Who is Barack OBama

WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones. 

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the

shower. Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

every time he sees an American flag. He also ends

every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE

FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly

mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep. A

tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.Every

weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters

HUNTING. 

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He

has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He

occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which

is almost never because he is STRONG. Barack Obama

has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his

stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while

doing sit-ups.

There's only one artist on Barack Obama's

iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY. 

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American. Barack Obama goes to church

every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He

goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT

NOW. Barack Obama's new airplane includes a

conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL. Barack

Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a

BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM

AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and

RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

Christopher Beam

is a Slate political reporter.

Article URL:

http://www.slate.com/id/2193798/Copyright 2008

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

McCain on Women's Issues

John McCain has a solid track record of voting against women at every opportunity.

Gordon

McCain Opposed Equal Pay Bill for Women, Said They 'Need Education and Training' Instead. McCain skipped a vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would ensure women have the opportunity to recover back pay for discrimination once they discover it. If he had been there to vote, he said he would have voted against it and that women "need education and training" rather than an equal pay bill. The bill addressed a recent Supreme Court decision that said Steelworker Lilly Ledbetter could not recover back pay for 19 years of discrimination at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. because she had not discovered the unequal pay until she retired. The bill would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to allow employees to file charges of pay discrimination within 180 days of the last received paycheck affected by the discrimination. [Source: aflcio.org; H.R. 2831, Vote 110, 4/23/08; Associated Press, 4/28/08] McCain Voted to Gut the Family and Medical Leave Act. In 1993, before finally voting for the Family and Medical Leave Act, McCain voted to jeopardize leave for millions of workers by gutting the bill. He voted to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act unless the federal government certified that compliance would not increase business expenses or provide financial assistance to businesses to cover any related costs. [Source: aflcio.org S.Amdt. 16, S. 5, Vote 7, 2/4/93; H.R. 1, Vote 11, 2/4/93] Source for the following information: Planned Parenthood  McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies. In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based. McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies. McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program. In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control. McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control. In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control. McCain opposes comprehensive sex education. In an interview aboard the "Straight Talk Express," McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported "the president's policy" on sex education. McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception. "Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives. McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule." In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country. McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade. In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned." In May 2007, he reiterated his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade during an appearance on Meet the Press stating, "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record."

Obama on G/B/L/T Issues

This is a great article from the Advocate which Larry sent me this morning.

From advocate.com

April 10, 2008

By Kerry Eleveld

Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama has been weathering a small storm lately in the LGBT community for being too tight-lipped with gay and lesbian news media.

Unlike his rival Hillary Clinton, who's given interviews to Logo and several local papers since appearing on the cover of The Advocate last fall, the Illinois senator has talked only once, to The Advocate, to address the Donnie McClurkin controversy. But last week his campaign offered our magazine an exclusive sit-down in Chicago with the man who may well become the next president of the United States.

To some extent, it symbolizes the brilliance of a protracted primary contest where candidates continually pivot and adjust in order to engage ever more voters. Had the race stopped cold in the snows of New Hampshire, gays and lesbians would have been left with one interview of record for each Democratic candidate in total. But in a wide-ranging interview this Monday, Obama discussed "don't ask, don't tell," the Reverend Wright, and why LGBT folks should lead on marriage equality, not politicians. Some may call the chat a shrewd political move by the Obama camp ahead of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. We call it access. 

The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You’ve done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Senator Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got a limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community; when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family. 

So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven’t done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on… I promise you, the African-American press says the same thing.

And Spanish-language?

And Spanish-language [outlets] had the same gripe. Just generally, we have generally tried to speak to broader audiences. That’s all that is. 

I think the underlying fear of the gay community is that if you get into office, will LGBT folks be last on the priority list?

I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box -- that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans. 

If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community -- what can you reasonably get done?

I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.

You think it’s transgender-inclusive?

I think that’s going to be tough, and I’ve said this before. I have been clear about my interest in including gender identity in legislation, but I’ve also been honest with the groups that I’ve met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress. We’ve got some Democrats who are willing to vote for a noninclusive bill, but we lose them on an inclusive bill, and we just may not be able to generate the votes. I don’t know. And obviously, my goal would be to get the strongest possible bill -- that’s what I’ll be working for. 

The third thing I believe I can get done is in dealing with federal employees, making sure that their benefits, that their ability to transfer health or pension benefits the same way that opposite-sex couples do, is something that I’m interested in making happen and I think can be done with some opposition, some turbulence, but I think we can get that done.

And finally, an area that I’m very interested in is making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union. I think as more states sign civil union bills into law the federal government should be helping to usher in a time when there’s full equality in terms of what that means for federal benefits.

I assume you’re talking about the Defense of Marriage Act.

Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.

Do you think it’s possible to get full repeal of DOMA? As you know, Senator Clinton is only looking at repealing the plank of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned unions. 

I don’t know. But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I’d like to see us lead here too.

Back to “don’t ask, don’t tell” real quick -- you’ve said before you don’t think that’s a heavy lift. Of course, it would be if you had Joint Chiefs who were against repeal. Is that something you’ll look at?

I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy -- ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology. 

Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

I don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom."

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating. And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.

Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country. 

But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?

True enough.

As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?

Well, it starts with my mom, who just always instilled in me a belief that everybody’s of equal worth and a strong sense of empathy -- that you try to see people through their eyes, stand in their shoes. So I think that applies to how I see all people. 

Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues. 

Did you have a chance to ask him about being gay?

I’m sure we did, but as I said, he was really comfortable in his own skin, and the relationship was a strong friendship and I never felt as if I had to get over any mental hurdles to be close to him or to learn from him. He’s probably somebody who had a strong influence.

How old were you then?

Eighteen … 19. It does remind me, though, I remember in my first two years of college that was when I first saw students who were self-identified as gay and lesbian come out and start organizing around gay issues, so that would have been in 1979 and ’80. I think what’s encouraging is just to see how much progress has been made in such a relatively short period of time.

Just draw that thought out a little bit in terms of comparing it to the African-American civil rights movement.

You always want to be careful comparing groups that have been discriminated against because each group’s experiences are different. I think that the transition toward fuller acceptance of the LGBT community has happened without some of the tumult and violence that accompanied the civil rights movement. But we still have a long ways to go, and I think that it also obviously varies geographically. I think in urban communities, you can’t say there’s full equality, but in terms of the LGBT community daily round they’re not as likely to experience certainly the discrimination that they experienced 25 years ago.

Whereas, in the African-American community, you can still see some fairly overt racism. On the other hand, in rural communities, I think attitudes are slower to change.

There’s plenty of homophobia to go around, but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community. Is there a…

I don’t think it’s worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities.

Do you think there’s a specific prescriptive, which is not to say that there’s more homophobia in the African-American community. But is there a different answer to…

Well, I think what’s important is to have some of that church leadership speak up and change its attitudes, because I think a lot of its members are taking cues from that leadership.

Do you have any regrets about the South Carolina tour? People there are still sort of mystified that you gave Donnie McClurkin the chance to get up onstage and do this, and he did go on sort of an antigay rant there.

I tell you what -- my campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible and to go into as many places as possible, and sometimes that creates discomfort or turbulence. This goes back to your first question. If you’re segmenting your base into neat categories and constituency groups and you never try to bring them together and you just speak to them individually -- so I keep the African-Americans neatly over here and the church folks neatly over there and the LGBT community neatly over there -- then these kinds of issues don’t arise.

The flip side of it is, you never create the opportunity for people to have a conversation and to lift some of these issues up and to talk about them and to struggle with them, and our campaign is built around the idea that we should all be talking. And that creates some discomfort because people discover, gosh, within the Democratic Party or within Barack Obama’s campaign or within whatever sets of constituencies there are going to be some different points of view that might even be offensive to some folks. That’s not unique to this issue. I mean, ironically, my biggest … the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues. I mean he’s one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS.

And so nobody is going to be perfectly aligned with my views. So what I hope is that people take me for who I am, for what I’ve said, and for what I’ve displayed in terms of my commitment to these issues, but understanding that there’s going to be a range of constituencies that I’m reaching out to and working on issues that we have in common, even though I may differ with them on other issues. And that’s true, also, by the way … well, I think that’s going to be true so long as I’m reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base.  

Alzheimer's Update

On the first of May, my neurologist discontinued the Aricept and started me on the newest drug: the Exelon Patch.  Unlike the Aricept, I don't have side effects and can take the maximum dosage whereas with the Aricept I could only take the lowest dose due to the awful side effects.

I'm being considered for a research trial and will know more when I see my doctor and research team in August.

I had quite a scare this morning.  I woke up feeling dizzy, nauseated and terribly weak.  I went back to bed, slept a couple of hours and got back up and was no better. Larry wanted to take me to the ER and I refused.  After several more hours I gradually feelt better and was wondering what had caused it.

Then it hit me.  We went to Integrity's pot luck dinner last night and I had a glass of wonderful Sangria which my pal Bruce from St. Mark's had made.  I forgot about the patch!  I will never have a glass of wine again when on any medication that effects the brain. Dumb!

2008 West Palm Beach Alzheimer's Conference

On June 5th and 6th, Alzheimer's Community Care had their annual conference.  It was a great event and has become so popular nationally through the year that Dr. Todd, our keynote speaker from the Broward Neurological and Memory Center announced that it is the largest Alzheimer's event in the U.S.

The speaker were great, the people we met and got to talk were wonderful.  Sometimes Larry and me went to breakaway sessions together, other times we split up and went to sessions we had individual interests in. It was great to see my neurologist and give my nurse care manager Jo Ellen a hug. She's such a wonderful person and I could kick myself for not asking Larry to take a picture of us together.

We both attended both research presentations on the two days and learned alot. One thing we learned that was breath taking is that it looks like the vaccine will be out in five years or less.

The picture about is one I took of Larry on a break. We were outside on the upper terrace of the West Palm Beach Convention Center looking over to the Kravis Center of the Performing Arts in beautiful West Palm.

Obama Nomination Party

The night of the Montana and South Dakota primaries, Palm Beach Obama supporters gathered at Abbey Road restaurant in Palm Beach Gardens, hoping that Senator Obama would have enough pledged and super delegates to put him over the top.

When the headlines came on the multiple televisions in the room, the crowd roared and the news media arrived a few minutes later.  Channel 5 interviewed Larry which aired on and off throughout the next day.

It was a great event and we also got to meet the 3 fulltime staffers from Obama headquarters assigned to work full time in Palm Beach County.

Obama's Fort Lauderdale Rally

It's been six weeks since I've posted a blog entry. May was a busy month of working on the Obama campaign. It culminated on May 23rd when Senator Obama came to the Fort Lauderdale for a rally at the BankAtlantic Center. 

I got off work at noon that Friday, came home, changed into my Obama tee shirt and cap, got Larry and our neighbor Carmen and off we went to Sunrise for the rally.

What impressed us was how organized it was. Everything went like clockwork. After clearing TSA we got into the stadium kind of looking around to what section ramp we were going to go up when a young man approached us and said that we've been selected for seating behind Senator Obama. He let us make a bathroom stop and then escorted us to our seats. 

One of the things done differently at the Obama rally which I never saw done at Kerry rallies, was that hundreds of Obama volunteers were getting names and email addresses of people not signed up to volunteer and getting folks registered to vote. They went through every row in that arena.

The Cuban reggae band was fantastic and everybody clapped to the music. 

My congressman, Rep. Robert Wexler served as MC and gave a wonderful speech. 

As the time got nearer for Obama to arrive, people had their cameras fixed on the entrance where the speakers had come thru. 

But then, out of nowhere, Obama is walking the circumference of the arena walking toward the stage and the crowd went wild.

It was a great event. Afterward, we went to the Wilton Manors area of FTL to eat dinner at the Old Florida Fishhouse which was fantastic.

Retirement Party in Punta Gorda

Top: brother Ted and sister-in-law, ReLinda

Middle: My niece Lisa and me

Bottom: My great niece, Claire and her dad, Jim

After many years of service to the Charlotte County Sheriff's Dep't, my brother and siste-in-law retired.  

The party was held Saturday night at the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge in Port Charlotte, FL, right across Charlotte Harbor from their home in Punta Gorda.

It was a great parrot head party with all kinds of food.

On Sunday morning, I went to church at the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Punta Gorda then to Ted and ReLinda's for a cookout with friends and family. 

I drove back home to West Palm Beach Monday morning.

I had a great time and it was nice being with my family. Lisa and Jim and Claire flew down from Portland, OR for the occasion and we had a great time.

We all wish ReLinda and Ted a fun and happy retirement.

Sir Ian McKellen Comes to the Aid of Bishop Robinson

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that Sir Ian McKellen is coming to the aid of Bishop Robinson. It'll be a hoot and a Lambeth to be remembered for many years. Although banned from the conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Robinson is going over anyway. Last I heard, the Archbishop has no control over ones freedom to travel.

Gordon

 

Sir Ian McKellen becomes bishop for a day

By 

Richard Eden

Last Updated: 2:43am BST 07/04/2008

Bishop for a day Never one to shy away from controversy, Sir Ian McKellen is secretly plotting to launch a campaign to shame the Anglican Church over its refusal to give equal rights to homosexual clergy. In an act of solidarity with the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Church's first openly homosexual bishop, the celebrated actor intends to read out a sermon written by the prelate, who has been barred from the landmark Lambeth Conference this summer that is seeking to prevent a schism over the issue.Standing alongside the bishop, who will remain silent throughout, the star of The Lord of the Rings will deliver a broadside against the Church's attitude to homosexuals with the kind of passion and force normally reserved for his performances on the stage.

 Rev Gene Robinson, the Church's first openly homosexual bishop, the celebrated actor intends to read out a sermon written by the prelate, who has been barred from the landmark Lambeth Conference this summer that is seeking to prevent a schism over the issue. Standing alongside the bishop, who will remain silent throughout, the star of The Lord of the Rings will deliver a broadside against the Church's attitude to homosexuals with the kind of passion and force normally reserved for his performances on the stage."

Is Wright Right About Racism?

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/is-wright-right-about-racism.ht http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/is-wright-right-about-racism.h tml>  Is Wright Right About Racism? By David Sirota Creators Syndicate, 3/28/08 Since the 1960s, bigotry has undergone an aesthetic makeover. Today, the most pernicious racists do not wear pointy hoods, scream epithets and anonymously burn crosses from behind masks. They don starched suits, recite sententious bromides and stage political lynchings before television cameras. For proof, behold the mob stalking Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright has long delivered fiery (and occasionally outrageous) sermons, to little fanfare. Now, though, a gang of thugs is inflicting a guilt-by-association blow to Obama by excoriating his spiritual adviser for three specific declarations. Sean Hannity, Fox News' own George Wallace, turned a fire hose on Wright for his church's focus. " is all about the black community," Hannity thundered, claiming that means Wright supports "a black-separatist agenda." Pat Buchanan billy-clubbed Wright for saying, "God damn America." The MSNBC commentator, who avoided the draft, implied that Wright, a former Marine, lacks sufficient loyalty to country. Out of context, Wright's exclamation was admittedly offensive. But remember: It punctuated a speech about segregation. Buchanan, nonetheless, unleashed, deriding "black hustlers" and insisting descendants of those "brought from Africa in slave ships" owe whites a thank you. "Where is the gratitude?" he asked. Fox's Charles Krauthammer berated Wright for saying the 9/11 attacks were "chickens coming home to roost." Krauthammer labeled the pronouncement "vitriolic divisiveness" despite our government acknowledging the concept of "blowback" or retaliation Wright was referencing. The CIA knows that when it supports foreign dictatorships, there can be blowback from radicals. While blowback is often immoral and undeserved, its existence is undisputed. Yet, Krauthammer alleged that Wright takes "satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents." In promoting the Wright "controversy," most media outlets joined this mob and embraced "colorblind racism," says Duke University's Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of "Racism Without Racists." It is polite pinstriped prejudice shrouding bigotry in feigned outrage against extremism the operative word being "feigned." After all, John McCain solicited the endorsement of John Hagee the pastor who called the Catholic Church "a great whore." Similarly, according to Mother Jones magazine, Hillary Clinton belongs to the "Fellowship" a secretive group "dedicated to 'spiritual war' on behalf of Christ." She is also friendly with Billy Graham, the reverend caught on tape spewing anti-Semitism. But while Wright's supposed "extremism" blankets the news, McCain and Clinton's relationships with real extremists receive scant attention. Why is it "controversial" for one pastor to address the black community, racism and blowback, but OK for another pastor to slander an entire religion? Why is it news that one candidate knows a sometimes-impolitic clergyman, but not news that his opponent associates with an anti-Semite? Does the double standard prove the dominant culture despises a black man confronting taboos, but accepts whites spewing hate? Does the very reaction to Wright show he's right about racism? Clinton seems to think so. Her aides have been calling the states they believe Obama will lose their political "firewall." That's campaign-speak for "race wall" one built with bricks like Pennsylvania and Indiana. These aren't the near-purely white states where racial politics is often muted (and Obama won). They are the slightly diverse states where racial politics simmers and where the black vote is too small to offset a motivated racist vote. This race wall is now being fortified. ABC News reports that Clinton's campaign is "pushing the Wright story" ahead of the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. The crass tactic is designed to motivate the racist vote by reminding whites of Obama's connection to the African-American community. Put another way, Clinton's message has become simply: Obama Is Black. Wright probably expected this brouhaha. He says our government is "controlled by rich white people" and our culture afflicted by racism. Though these statements are also deemed distasteful by the Establishment, they are truisms. You can see their veracity in the collected portraits of white millionaires commonly called the congressional photo directory. Or, just turn on your television and watch the mob continue stoking the Wright "controversy."

United Church of Christ Leader Responds to Pastor Wright

I'm not going to post the Rev. Dr. Wright's words here because it would be redundant since we've seen the video countless times. But what I wanted to share is the thoughts of the leader of the United Church of Christ. 

Note that this statement was released the day before Senator's Obama's speech in response to the way Dr. Wright had been portrayed by the media.

This is a powerful message and well worth the read.

BTW, somebody sent me an email with the following expression which applies to Dr. Wright's situation:  

 A pastor's job is to comfort the afflicted 

and to afflict the comfortable.

Written by staff reports

March 17, 2008

The Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, released the following statement on March 17 on the rhetoric of preaching, in light of recent news coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Chicago's Trinity UCC.

What Kind of Prophet? Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. and Trinity United Church of Christ

The Rev. John H. Thomas General Minister and President United Church of Christ

Over the weekend members of our church and others have been subjected to the relentless airing of two or three brief video clips of sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ for thirty-six years and, for over half of those years, pastor of Senator Barack Obama and his family.  These video clips, and news stories about them, have been served up with frenzied and heated commentary by media personalities expressing shock that such language and sentiments could be uttered from the pulpit.  

One is tempted to ask whether these commentators ever listen to the overcharged rhetoric of their own opinion shows.  Even more to the point is to wonder whether they have a working knowledge of the history of preaching in the United States from the unrelentingly grim language of New England election day sermons to the fiery rhetoric of the Black church prophetic tradition.  Maybe they prefer the false prophets with their happy homilies in Jeremiah who say to the people:  "You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place."  To which God responds, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them.  They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. . . .  By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed," (Jeremiah 14.14-15).   The Biblical Jeremiah was coarse and provocative.  Faithfulness, not respectability was the order of the day then.  And now?

What's really going on here?  First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright.  Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention.  It is to wound a presidential candidate.  In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized.  You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this.  Will Clinton's United Methodist Church be next?  Or McCain's Episcopal Church?  Wouldn't we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?   

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips.  But what was his real crime?  He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States.  This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance.  Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered.  Where is the real obscenity here?  True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel.  Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept.  But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past, that Martin Luther King's harmonious multi-racial vision, articulated in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and then struck down by an assassin's bullet in Memphis in 1968, has somehow been resurrected and now reigns throughout the land.  Significant progress has been made.  A black man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States.  A black woman serves as Secretary of State.  The accomplishments are profound.  But on the gritty streets of Chicago's south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development.  Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be?  Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly?  How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.

The gospel narrative of Palm Sunday's entrance into Jerusalem concludes with the overturning of the money changers' tables in the Temple courtyard.  Here wealth and power and greed were challenged for the way the poor were oppressed to the point of exclusion from a share in the religious practices of the Temple.  Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens.  More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all.  Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis.  Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh? 

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons?  In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity.  For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit.  Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright's rhetoric or his politics.  Not every member will rise to shout "Amen!"  But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith.  For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance.  And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.   

Bush Vetos Waterboarding Ban

This is so un-American and so sleazy. America's reputation in the world continues to take a dive as America becomes guilty of the same method of torture we executed Japanese POW's our country is using.

The Washington Post   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030800304.html?hpid=topnews

Bush Announces Veto of Waterboarding Ban

By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, March 8, 2008; 1:47 PM

President Bush vetoed Saturday legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, saying it "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror."

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Congress approved an intelligence authorization bill that contains the waterboarding provision on slim majorities, far short of the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto.

Bush's long-expected veto reignites the Washington debate over the proper limits of U.S. interrogation policies and whether the CIA has engaged in torture by subjecting prisoners to severe tactics, including waterboarding, a type of simulated drowning.

The issue also has potential ramifications for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and a longtime critic of coercive interrogation tactics who nonetheless backed the Bush administration in opposing the CIA waterboarding ban. The Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), both support the ban, though neither was present for last month's Senate vote for the bill that Bush is to veto.

"It is shameful that George Bush and John McCain lack the courage to ban torture," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

McCain has said that, while he opposes waterboarding, he agrees with the Bush administration that the CIA needs to be able to use tactics banned by the military but which fall short of torture or cruel treatment.

The legislation would have limited the CIA to 19 less-aggressive tactics outlined in a U.S. Army field manual on interrogations. Besides ruling out waterboarding, that restriction would effectively ban temperature extremes, extended forced standing and other harsh methods that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The president said in his radio address that the agency needs to use tougher methods than the U.S. military to wrest information from terrorism suspects.

"Limiting the CIA's interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual would be dangerous because the manual is publicly available and easily accessible on the Internet. . . . If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the Field Manual, we could lose vital information from senior al-Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives," Bush said.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has also spoken out against the Senate bill and defended the methods as lawful and effective.

"The US Army and CIA clearly have different missions, different capabilities and therefore different procedures," Hayden wrote in a message sent Saturday to CIA employees. "CIA's program, atightly controlled and carefully administered national option that goes beyond the Army Field Manual, has been a lawful and effective response to the national security demands that terrorism imposes."

Most of the Washington debate over the CIA interrogation program has focused on waterboarding, which was used on three al-Qaeda suspects held in secret prisons in 2002 and 2003. The tactic involves strapping a prisoner to a board with their head lower than their feet, placing cloth or cellophane over the face and pouring water on their head to make them fear they are drowning.

The practice as used by the CIA bears similarities to the methods of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and by the current dicatorship in Burma, according to congressional testimony and torture experts.

But as Bush emphasized in his remarks, the program also included other coercive tactics that are forbidden in the U.S. military and widely considered unlawful among human rights advocates.

The CIA has not specified all the tactics it wants to keep using but says it no longer uses waterboarding. Bush administration officials have not ruled out using waterboarding again.

Many Democrats and human-rights groups say coercive tactics are often counterproductive and that, regardless, constitute illegal torture under U.S. and international law. Frank Donaghue, chief executive officer of Physicians for Human Rights, said many of the agency's tactics may constitute war crimes.

"America must not be scared into thinking that these 'additional' tactics are anything other than what they are -- torture," Donaghue said in a statement Saturday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Bush has "compromised the moral leadership of our nation," and said the administration is ignoring the advice of military experts who oppose harsh techniques.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, suggested that those who support harsh methods simply lack experience and do not know what they are talking about. "If they think these methods work, they're woefully misinformed," Soyster said at a news briefing called in anticipation of the veto. "Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world."

In two separate forums earlier this week, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and Navy Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, commander of the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defended the efficacy of less-coercive, "rapport-building" interrogation tactics.

"We get so much dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner," Buzby told reporters in a conference call Thursday.

Staff writer Joby Warrick contributed to this report.

The Clinton Rules: From Andrew Sullivan's Blog

THE CLINTON RULES

The new meme is that politics has returned to normal and that this election will now be run by Clinton rules. Many are relieved by this. You could sense the palpable discomfort among many in Washington that their world might actually shift a little next year. But if elections are primarily about fear and mud, and who best operates in a street fight, Beltway comfort returns. This we know. This we understand. This we already have the language to describe. And, the feeling goes, the Clintons can win back the White House in this atmosphere. What she is doing to Obama she can try to do to McCain. Maybe Limbaugh will help her out again.

What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don't mean beating Obama because the Clintons' message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons' healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his "Muslim past", by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy ("shame on you, Barack Obama!") and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.

The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be.

He has a million little donors. He has brought many, many Republicans and Independents to the brink of re-thinking their relationship with the Democratic party. And he has won the majority of primaries and caucuses and has a majority of the delegates and popular vote. This has been a staggering achievement - one that has already made campaign history. If the Clintons, after having already enjoyed presidential power for eight long years, destroy this movement in order to preserve their own grip on privilege and influence in Democratic circles, it will be more than old-fashioned politics. It will be a generational moment - as formative as 1968. Killing it will be remembered for a very, very long time. And everyone will remember who did it - and why.

logspot.com/

St. Andrew's Episcopal Gospel Choir, Cincinnati, OH

While at the spring conference at Duncan Center last weekend, I stopped in the bookstore to check out the CD's.  I've got 1,300+ songs on my ipod. It's not like I don't have enough music to listen to.

But one CD caught my eye and I bought it. It's called, My House Must be Filled" and was done by a African American Episcopal Church in Cincinnati, St. Andrew's.

Wow! What a choir!  I have many black gospel choirs on my ipod, including all of the major mass choirs.  But this choir is the absolute best.

The soloists are fantastic and the choir is so good. They also provide beautifully done enunciation.

The sing the spirituals in the style Dr. Judy taught us about at the Absolam Jones celebration a couple of weeks ago.  The songs that are meant to be lamentations are sung in that manner and the ones that are praise are rocking and rolling.

I have never given every song on an entire rating, the ipod rating of 5. But truly, every song was supurb.

One song number 13,  "I don't feel No Ways Tired,"  touched my heart.  While the choir sings in the background, the rector is reading the Baptismal Sacrament from the Prayer Book and gives a sermon on carrying that Sacrament out into the world.

If my readers who aren't in Florida want to purchase one, it is available on the Washington National Cathedral website.  It's the particular CD isn't listed, just email them or call and they will he happy to sell you a copy. 

Episcopal Diocese of SE Florida Spring Conference

Top: The Rt. Rev. Michael Curry,  Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina

Bottom:  Bill Wrenn, Missioner for Stewardship & Evangelism, Diocese of NC

Our diocesean spring conference was held at Duncan Center Feb 29th & March 1, 2008.

The topic for this year's conference was "Creating a Spirit of Generosity."

It was great seeing old friends again and learning new ways at looking at the way churches 

do things. We were challenged to think outside of the box and become open to new ideas; 

ideas that seem strange to us who are set in our ways "because we've always done it that way."

Bill Wren talked some about the importance of a congregation being aware of their local social responsibilities.  He said, "We are a mission with the church. 

What is the reality ourside our church doors?  What are the changes taking place in our community?  What is my church going to do about it?"

Bishop Curry preached Friday afternoon and again on Saturday morning.  What a preacher!

And what a kind, good hearted bishop he is! 

Here are a few of the things Bishop Curry said that I jotted down:

"The best evangelism done is the witness of our love.:

"Read Hebrew 10.  Fear is dealt with by faith."

"The thing to remember is to keep the main thing the main thing."

And last, but not least, "Shepards don't make sheep.  Sheep make sheep."

Bishop Curry was well, to put it mildly, enthusiastic.  Many in attendance had never seen clergy

get so excited about the gospel that he shouts and runs the aisle. Bishop Curry did. He was wonderful and touched all of us.

It was a great conference and I'm glad I went. 

Easter 2008 Comes Early

Several folks have made comments about Easter being so early this year. Sombebody sent me this and I think it's worth sharing.

---------------------------------------------------

I've been doing some research, realizing how early Easter is this year. As you may have heard, Easter is always the 1st Sunday after the 1st full moon after the Spring Equinox (which is March 20). This dating of Easter is based on the lunar calendar that Hebrew people used to identify Passover, which is why it moves around on our Roman calendar. Found out a couple of things you might be interested in! Based on the above, Easter can actually be one day earlier (March 22) but that is pretty rare. This year is the earliest Easter any of us will ever see the rest of our lives! And only the most elderly of our population have ever seen it this early (95 years old or above!). And none of us have ever, or will ever, see it a day earlier!

Here are the facts: 

1)The next time Easter will be this early (March 23) will be the year 2228 (220 years from now). The last time it was this early was 1913 (so if you're 95 or older, you are the only ones that were around for that!). 

2) The next time it will be a day earlier, March 22, will be in the year 2285 (277 years from now). The last time it was on March 22 was 1818. So, no one alive today has or will ever see it any earlier than this year! 

Taking the Gay Lesbian Experience into the Church

 

From Ben Smith over at Politico, which is really a great blog   

Selling gay rights - Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

February 28, 2008 Read More: Barack Obama

Selling gay rights

Obama's rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes — race, gender, etc. — that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

So he took a different tack:

"Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

"I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

The moment reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a senior figure in the national gay rights movement, who noted that Obama's deference to some black Christian discomfort with homosexuality — his refusal to dump the "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from a tour — angered some gays and lesbians; but conversely, that his ability to sell gay rights in the black church is unique and appealing.