yes, its all quite disturbing

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.
ADVERTISEMENT

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

He said he supports the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by
President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals.

___

ANN COULTER'S BIG MOUTH!

Republican Election Fraud and the Firing of US Attorneys

The latest scandal rocking the Bush administration has its provenance in the issue of alleged "voter fraud." The original intention to fire 93 US attorneys and the eventual dismissal of seven of them was largely based on questions of political loyalty. The apparent litmus test for said loyalty was the willingness or lack thereof for prosecuting cases of so-called "voter fraud." Those who showed promise for prosecuting so-called "voter fraud" were considered "loyal" to the Bush Republican regime, and those who didn't, were not.

"Since the 2000 election ended in dispute in Florida," MSNBC reports, "Republicans at the national and local levels have repeatedly raised concerns about possible voter fraud, alleging that convicted felons and other ineligible voters have been permitted to cast ballots to the benefit of Democrats." Imagine that, the Republicans complaining about FRAUD in connection with VOTING! Now isn't that the most ironic idea you can imagine? Perhaps not as ironic as it might be, if one considers the administration's subtle shift in terminology.

One should note the White House and Justice emphasis on voter fraud, as opposed to election fraud. The distinction is not a minor one. Voter fraud places the blame for election scandals on so-called felonious and 'dead' voters whose votes are reputedly cast for Democrats. These felons and dead-men-voting are the old boogie men of Republican rhetoric regarding elections.

Election fraud, on the other hand, might include organizational, party-level, state-collusive manipulation and/or purging of voter rolls, the failure to count or the miscounting of ballots, the destruction of ballots, the failure to recount ballots when legally required to do so by state laws, the illegal use of election facilities for party purposes, the state-sanctioned targeting of precincts for faulty or inadequate amounts of equipment, and of course, the manipulation of electronic voting machine tabulations.

In short, election fraud includes the very serious and major problems that did account for the election thefts of 2000 as well as 2004. While voter fraud is a notorious boogie man-the alleged dead-man-voting that no one can locate on the ground.

What then could be the reason for the White House's and Justice's emphasis on voter fraud? Might it have been means by which to distract attention away from the systemic and well-documented election scandals of the past six years? Might it have been a form of retribution against Democrats for the well-founded accusations, lingering anger and outrage, and possible investigations regarding the last two presidential "elections" that resulted in utterly discredited results-the "elections" of GW Bush? Might the attempt to replace US Attorneys have been an attempt to refocus any possible future investigations toward VOTER as opposed to the well-known and utterly outrageous practices of ELECTION fraud undertaken by Republican party operatives during the Rove era?

These motives, probably combined, account for the move to dismiss these and more US attorneys, and also explain the intimate involvement of Rove (and probably Bush) in the firings.

Remember, Bush and his ilk are going down soon, but they want to leave a judicial legacy that will survive them for decades, if not half-centuries. This legacy will, they hope, include prosecutors who will turn a blind eye to the kind of systemic election fraud that Republicans routinely undertake, while shifting attention to the minor issue of dead-men-voting. Voter fraud is a red herring and the firing of the US attorneys is apiece with the vast rightwing conspiratorial practice of ELECTION FRAUD.

Dr. Rec, The Rec Report

Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D.



Permanent URL for this article:
http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_report_140307.html

NAACP seeks state apology over slavery

The Georgia NAACP on Wednesday called for Gov. Sonny Perdue to follow Virginia's lead and issue an apology for the state's role in slavery and Jim Crow.

Edward O. DuBose, president of the Georgia State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said an apology would be "an acknowledgement that a wrong took place."

"An apology will not improve education, but an apology will acknowledge that whites benefited from the slavery and the inhumane treatment of African-Americans," DuBose said during a news conference at the state Capitol.

Perdue's office did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday.

The proposal's chances in the Republican-led Legislature appeared uncertain Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams (R-Lyons) said, "I don't think I can apologize for something I haven't done. I don't agree with what my ancestors did. I believe what they felt and did was wrong, but I can't apologize for them. I can only apologize for me. While I am sorry for those past injustices, my efforts here have to be to make sure they don't ever occur again."

Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, a Republican who serves as president of the Senate, said through a spokewoman that he prefers to look ahead rather than dwell on the past.

"Of course, [Cagle] regrets the awful legacy of slavery, but he is focused on the future and providing hope and opportunity for every citizen regardless of the past," said spokeswoman Jaillene E. Hunter.

The NAACP request comes a little more than a week after Virginia legislators offered an expression of "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery. Lawmakers in Missouri and Tennessee also have begun discussing whether to issue apologies in their states.

The Virginia resolution was approved unanimously in the state House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans.

"We have noticed that the Commonwealth of Virginia took a bold step to apologize for slavery and the effects of Jim Crow," DuBose said.

The NAACP is hoping for Perdue's support for the resolution and that the General Assembly will approve before it adjourns in April, DuBose said.

"[Perdue] has a great opportunity to add to his legacy," DuBose said on the steps of the state Capitol, beneath a statue of segregationist politician Tom Watson.

But time is short. Georgia lawmakers are on a break until March 19, which will be the 27th day of the legislative session. Under legislative rules, by the 30th day (March 27) all bills must have passed at least one of the chambers.

State Rep. Al Williams (D-Midway), head of Georgia's Legislative Black Caucus, said it plans to introduce a resolution March 19. The caucus' power has eroded since Democrats lost control of state government, but Williams said he anticipates bipartisan support.

"It is long past due," said Williams. "An apology is the least we can do for the same reason Japan apologized to China for atrocities during World War II. There can be no healing until someone says 'sorry'."

Reps. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) and Earnest "Coach" Williams (D-Avondale Estates), both African-Americans, attended Wednesday's news conference and promised to push the resolution.

Georgia was founded in 1732 by James Oglethorpe as a slave-free colony and remained that way until 1751. But between 1775 and 1783, the era of the American Revolution, African slaves constituted nearly half of Georgia's colonial population.

According to the 1830 Georgia Census, of the half-million people in the state, there were only 79,000 more whites than slaves. By 1850, as the population grew to 900,000, close to 400,000 Georgians were slaves.

Slavery was abolished at the end of the Civil War in 1865, but Georgia maintained Jim Crow laws, a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination.

Violence accompanied Jim Crow. According to the Tuskegee University archives' records of lynchings between 1882 and 1964, Georgia recorded 531 lynchings over that time, second only to Mississippi's 581.

If Georgia issues an apology, DuBose and those who joined him Wednesday acknowledged that it would send only a symbolic message. Nationwide, critics have denounced such resolutions as a step toward reparations, financial settlements with the descendants of slaves.

"This opens up an honest dialogue," DuBose said.

Sonji Jacobs and Joni Zeccola contributed to this article.

justification?

More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war?

Republicans are saying:
Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.
Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.
"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.
"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."
This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.
The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."
The federal government's Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. According to the U.S. State Department website, the waiver program was established in 1986 with the objective of "eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel," stimulating America's tourism industry, and allowing the government to focus consular resources in other areas.
Cutler says the U.S. retains the Visa Waiver Program because the nation's travel, tourism, and hospitality industries want America's borders wide open. In other words, the former INS official contends, the nation's security is being compromised in the name of trade. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml

Prosecute or release Guantanamo detainees

Congress said what it meant and meant what it said in denying access to American courts for prisoners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If this ruling by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., stands, the U.S. government could hold several hundred "detainees" for the rest of their lives if it so desires.

That is contrary to fundamental American principles of justice. Congress should repeal the law on which this ruling is based. Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review in this case and reverse the decision. Some so-called enemy combatants have been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without the benefit of charges or trial. It is not clear which, if any, are guilty of any crime against the United States. They deserve swift justice before an impartial court, or they should be released.

The question of the legality of holding alleged enemies has been bruited about between the federal courts and Congress for nearly five years. Although the Bush administration initially insisted the courts had no jurisdiction over Guantanamo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The issue at the core is the writ of habeas corpus, which dates to early English law, giving a prisoner the right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The authors of the American Constitution said Congress could not suspend habeas corpus except when in "cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

On the eve of last November's elections, the Republican-led Congress, to its everlasting shame, passed legislation that pointedly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction in all Guantanamo cases, thus suspending habeas corpus for only the fifth time since 1789. In its ruling Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Congress could not have been more clear. Writing for the court, Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote, "It's almost as if [members of Congress] were slamming their fists on the table shouting 'When we say "all," we mean all - without exception!' "

While not disputing that conclusion, Judge Judith W. Rogers, writing in dissent, said Congress exceeded its authority. She is right, and her position likely will be supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. The question is whether habeas corpus covers prisoners held at Guantanamo: The administration says no because the base is technically outside the territory of the United States. The plaintiffs say yes because it is territory under U.S. jurisdiction. The court has suggested it takes the latter view, but the question has not been resolved.

Thus, while it is important that the Supreme Court reinstate the rights of so-called enemy combatants, the administration simply will relocate them to moot the point. That's why Congress should direct the administration to immediately review the status of all those held at Guantanamo, release those who present no threat and prosecute the rest under established rules of military tribunals. Then close this embarrassing symbol of injustice.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/OPINION03/702220358/-1/ENT06