Bleu Rhino Ravings

Wait . . . Obama picked Rick Warren to do the invocation at his inauguration? Really?! Wow.

So, now that we’re past the amazing imagery of the first black man being elected president, I’ve been watching him steadily become Bill Clinton (who I sorta despised when he was in the White House).  Clinton gave us DOMA, DADT, NAFTA, Workfare, Three Strikes, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, the Omnibus Crime Bill (which expanded the death penalty), Rubin/Summers-style Banking Deregulation, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).

Is Obama going to be much better for his base?

For the peaceniks among us, he’s kept the Bush administration’s choice for Defense Secretary and is hiring a Secretary of State who promised to “obliterate Iran” if they attacked Israel.  It’s an open question whether or not Black people will get anything out of a president who only seemed to speak of race when it was a PROBLEM for him.  What will happen for Hispanic “America” with my former governor, an “immigration hawk“, as the head of the Department of Homeland Security?  Oh, and the gays.  Sigh, the poor gays.  It seems that every day we get someone new in this administration (president-elect obama, vp-elect biden, secretary of state clinton, secretary of commerce richardson, secretary of defense gates, secretary of hhs daschle) who is against gay marriage.  I’m not expecting to see much bully-pulpit talk about it from this white house.  Throw in last week’s news that Mr. Change isn’t even going to consider changing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy until 2010, and I don’t see much more than lots of symbolic change embodied in the president-elect himself . . but not evident in policy so much.

In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile said the following words: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

The biblical condemnation of “such marriages” led to the expulsion of a newlywed couple (ironically named “Loving”) from the state of Virginia because it was illegal for them to be married there.  But let’s remember how this newlywed couple even wound up in front of a judge in the first place.  The police in their town raided their home, found them in bed together (which was the police’s intent), and charged them with having sex (yes, in the “hallowed”, “can’t be defiled”, “sanctified” privacy of their own bed).  When they pointed to the marriage license they received in DC, the police charged them for an even more worse “crime”: BEING MARRIED.  They could have gotten five years, but instead had to leave Virginia.

Why?  Because Judge Bazile and the people of Virginia hated Blacks?  That’s not what Judge Bazile would say.  He’d say that some of his friends were Black and they agreed with his decision.  He’d argue that he had nothing against Blacks as long as they didn’t act “too” black.  He’d probably say that Blacks still had the rights to vote, to work, and to go to school; what other special rights did they need?  But when it came to whom Blacks could fall in love with and build a life? That “decision” was to be as limited as the choice to use a water fountain or bathroom: keep your hands off what GOD INTENDED ONLY FOR WHITE PEOPLE.  His rationale for this wasn’t “racist” in his mind.  His rationale was spiritual and in keeping with what God intended, as evidenced by how God did things in the Bible.

So, what?  I’m not in one of those “un-Godly” interracial relationships; my husband/wife shares my race.  It’s not MY problem.  Hell, I’m not for interracial marriages anyway and would have probably agreed with Judge Bazile too.  Ok, I hear you, but the problem is that your support of Judge Bazile’s position on the right to marry emboldens other people to take even more dramatic steps (out of hatred, not some feigned religious necessity) to curtail other rights.  If people could argue that something as wonderful as “falling in love with someone” [of a different race] is UNNATURAL AND UNGODLY, you wouldn’t have to go very far to use the same rationale for broader public policies constraining people’s access to housing, employment, educational institutions, hotels and restaurants, and voting booths.  Of course, we know that that’s EXACTLY what people did.  They used the B-I-B-L-E’s eight or nine unapologetic prescriptions for slave behavior, the story of Noah’s “black” son Ham, Cain’s mark (black skin?), and the Tower of Babel story that Judge Bazile used as evidence of God’s stamp of approval for . . . not even FIFTY YEARS AGO . . . constraining our rights to live like the majority of Americans did.  And the rationale? Blackophobia? Noooooo, it’s not that.  We need to take away people’s rights and opportunities because “the Bible tells us so.”

Years ago, because “the Bible told them to,” people passed laws that would have made it illegal for our next President’s parents to have been married if they’d lived in one of TWENTY-TWO STATES in 1961.   In 2008’s historic election, Black people in historic numbers came out in droves to pass a law making it illegal for single people to adopt or even foster-parent children in Arkansas.

Wait.  Huhn?  I just KNEW you were going to start talking about that gay marriage thing in California.  While I’m hugely troubled by the fact that 70% of Black Californians came out and voted to help one Black man live out his dream while voting to kill the dreams of hundreds of other Black men and women, that’s the least of my concerns right now.  I don’t live in California and my state dealt with the gay marriage thing in the last election.

What has me depressed . . still . . is this Arkansas thing.  On January 30^th of this year, both a DEMOCRAT and a Republican senator in my state (Tennessee) filed bills that would prohibit “any individual who is cohabitating in a sexual relationship outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of this state from adopting a minor.”  Obviously, this law is intended to stop gay men and lesbian women from adopting kids . . . but you can’t say that . . . so the bill is written to include straight, but unmarried, couples.  BUT SINGLES CAN STILL ADOPT!  Why would a law that deems it bad policy to allow for TWO (unmarried) PARENTS still allow ONE person to adopt?  That seems contrary to the supposed Biblical value that two parents are always better than one.  Yet this bill says that one parent is better than two if the two live together but don’t have a marriage license.

Now, remember, just a little over 40 years ago a Black woman in TN couldn’t GET A MARRIAGE LICENSE if the man she wanted to marry had White parents because “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Sheniqua” . . . .

Anyway, I digress.  It’s pretty obvious then, that we’re not talking about principles of child rearing here or what’s TRULY in the best interest of the 10,000 children in foster care in Tennessee . . . a third of which are Black.  It’s about people’s irrational enmity towards gay men and lesbian women.  Which brings us back to last week.  The BLACK VOTERS of Arkansas–a state too close to mine for comfort politically–went even further than my state legislature tried to.  Like Tennessee, nearly a third of the children in Arkansas’ foster care system are black.  Black people turned out in droves to vote for Obama and then pulled the switch making it impossible for single people (gay or straight) to adopt OR EVEN BE FOSTER PARENTS for those 934 Black children.  Why did they do this?  Because they are planning to adopt them?  Because they are worried that straight people like our own cousin Cynthia might make crappy parents?  Of course not.  They did it for the same reason 70% of Blacks (far more than any other racial group) voted for 18,000 divorces in California last week . . . Black America is irrational in its hatred of gay people.

In spite of the fact that gays minister to us in multiple roles (not just the choir, I assure you) at our churches, Black America still believes that God hates niggers . . . i mean, fags.  In spite of the fact that gays work alongside us, live next door to us, serve us in restaurants and hotels, Black America believes the US would be better off if all gays vanished tomorrow.  In spite of the fact that gays are in all of our families, Black America votes to deny them the right to be happy as lovers, partners, and even parents.  In spite of our history of White religio-politicians getting race wrong (I Peter 2:18/Titus 2:9-10) and getting gender wrong (I Corinthians 14:34/Colossians 3:18) in ways that STILL limit the rights of Blacks and women, Black America marches right behind them now that they turn to address the issue of sexual orientation.

The Republican party fooled entirely too many of us (1.6 MILLION Black people) into voting for George Bush in 2004 AFTER he’d started the war, AFTER he made clear he was no “compassionate conservative”, and AFTER lowering taxes on his rich friends and giving the rest of us nothing. Really, MORE Black people voted for him in 2004 than voted for him in 2000.  Some of us argue that the SIXTEEN percent of Blacks who voted for Bush in Ohio (it was 9% in 2000) are to blame for the last four years.  Why’d they vote for him?  Because our Black pastors (TD Jakes, I’m looking at you!) got us all worked up over the dangers of gays having the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital, or come under their partner’s health insurance as they homeschool their kids, or be able to stay in their house if their partner died.  Again, it just seems our priorities are a little off.

So, I write this entirely too long diatribe to encourage you to think twice when ballot measures or politicians come before you, telling you that the scary “gay movement” is coming to destroy America and you, for God’s sake, need to stand up and be counted.  Many of us are familiar with the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller that ends with the line, “And then they came for me, but by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

I tend to think of this stuff even more basically: you’re either marching in Birmingham or you’re opening the faucets on the firehoses.

We were all shocked by, traumatized by, and (supposedly) awakened by the events at Virginia Tech nearly a month ago. While that national mourning was taking place, another national side conversation was taking place about the presence of guns in country and the number of people who die daily in Iraq (both innocent Iraqis and our soldiers). We flagellated ourselves over the violence in our society. We complained because our neighbors abroad just shrugged and said “there goes that U.S. culture of violence again.” We navel-gazed about the violence in movies, primetime television shows, and video games.

So, after the worst mass murder (with guns) in the United States that took place during one of the most poorly managed war in America’s history . . . with 3400 of our soldiers dead (nearly 10x the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan), an estimated 63000 Iraqi civilians dead, and over 23000 soldiers wounded by bombs AND GUNS . . . who gave the commencement speech at Virginia Tech on Friday? Vanderbilt alum and 2006 Nobel PEACE prize recipient, Mohammed Yunus? Nope. Gun-control advocates James and Sarah Brady? Nope. Someone connected to the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence? Nope. Maybe even their governor, Democrat Tim Kaine? Naw.

The commencement speaker at Virginia Tech was General John Abizaid, former Commander of the US Central Command. From 2003 to 2006, he was the Commander who oversaw most of the last four years of the Iraq war. Someone who has spent his entire life commanding people to kill other people (for national security, for democracy, for imperialism, for whatever reason) was the person asked to offer hope and consolation to a campus upended by someone who, for his own reasons, decided it was his right to kill 32 people one day in April ‘07? Really?! A WARRIOR? A person who less than a year ago said the following at a Harvard speech when he joked about why he was wearing fatigues instead of his dress greens: “I usually wear my green uniform, but there was so much blood on it, I had to come in this uniform.”? That’s the voice they chose?

Unbelievable.

So it seems that the Republican spin machine has found an interesting way to weasel out of the idea that King President Cheney Bush is going to “invade Iran”. I heard Terry Jeffrey of Human Events magazine this morning saying he doesn’t believe that we will “invade Iran” and then he proceeded to say that “we might bomb targeted locations in Iran where nuclear weapons materials are being stored”. Um, hello?! If North Korea decided it wanted to “bomb target locations in northern California where nuclear weapons materials are being stored”, we would call that an “invasion” and obliterate that country. Come on Terry. We know that all invasions of a country don’t involve foot soldiers stomping across a border and taking the capital. Bombing targeted locations in a country, arresting their diplomats in an embassy, “accidentally” bumping a country’s naval ships while trying to turn a destroyer would all look very much like acts of war.

We always hear about Barack’s statements against the war, but I’m not sure many of us have actually seen Obama’s statements for ourselves. Here is the link to a speech that Obama gave on October 26, 2002, almost 6 months before the war began and almost 2 years before his speech at the Democrat National Convention. Hope you find it helpful as you consider his perspective and potential to be the next President.

I didn’t watch the speech and, thanks to my little bro, I was able to listen to Mike Malloy trash it as it was going on. I wasn’t really listening because I pretty much didn’t expect to hear any “news” and I really can’t stand listening to him talk. I’m past being frustrated by his delusions, inability to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with those delusions (hell, he’s now fired the generals who think we shouldn’t increase troops at this point), and general approach to ruling (!) the country. I’m also tired of pundits saying “this is his last chance . . if this doesn’t work, he’s done” as if Bush might run for “King of the World” if the war goes well. So, right now, I don’t listen to anything Bush says because he’s going to do whatever he wants to do. For me, the new issue is the Democratic Congress (more the Senate, I guess) and their reticence to halt what Bush said last night. They’ll whine and talk things to death, ask him for rationales, and then (at the end of the day) accept whatever ridiculous rationale for increasing troops (only) 21.5k comes out of the White House, and enable this ridiculous gamble Bush is taking. Obama being excited that they got “three more” Republican Senators to side with the NON-BINDING (and with only “most” of the Democrats, still PARTISAN AND IGNORABLE) resolution is silly.

Temperatures are running 10-20 degrees higher than normal in places as a result of El Nino (happens every 5 years or so). There’s been no snow in Central Park which hasn’t happened in 130 years or so. So, New York (the center of the Devil’s plot to destroy America, right?) gets no snow and Colorado (where Focus on the Family and Ted Haggard are) has had their third giant, disastrous snow storm this season.  Maybe Colorado is the new Sodom and Gomorrah and God couldn’t find more than 10 righteous men there.

I’m really praying that Al Gore runs for president again in 2008. I hate that the Democrats are so ridiculous and that, yet again, the media is in control of the Democrat’s nomination process. In a recent poll, only 62% of Americans said they would vote for a woman President and 64% said they would vote for a Black one . . . and both sociologists and political scientists have shown consistently that people are more politically correct in polls than in voting booths by about 10%. That means almost half of the people in this country don’t think a black or woman can be president of the country.

Even if he runs for President (which I doubt), a two year black liberal senator from a northern state who has no real experience with foreign relations IS NOT GOING TO BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT! He is NOT Colin Powell. He is NOT Condoleeza Rice. I’m tired of hearing people use Colin’s name to suggest Obama could be a contender. Maybe he is like Colin Powell but in this way . . . Powell strung us along JUST LIKE THIS to sell a book. Maybe he just wants the second space slot? If this is really about trying to be Vice President, Hillary Rodham is not stupid. She isn’t going to pick a Black (they already have our vote) liberal (his record is more liberal than hers in spite of how the Repubs want to spin her) from her blue northern HOMEstate (the place that is most notable for giving us two other wildly successful black Presidential candidates: Jesse Jackson and Carol Mosely-Braun) as her running mate. People act like, with all of his talents, Obama won his Senate seat in a landslide against another popular Illinois politician. If Jack Ryan (the pre-Keyes Republican competition) wasn’t another hypocritical Republican, wasn’t getting a divorce from a TV star, and wasn’t replaced by the most ludicrous choice of a candidate ever . . . Obama either wouldn’t be Senator or wouldn’t have won by 70% and be the superstar he is today. And as some of you already heard me say, wait until people down here where I live realize what Obama’s middle name is (Hussein) and start joking about how they’re not going to vote for “Ba-l-ack Hussein O-s-ama”. So, I’m quite fed up with Obama-Rama because it uses up too much of the very limited political oxygen we have between now and the 2008 election season.

Hillary has the same problem. She’s not going to be President unless every Democrat and lots of female independentsvote against John McCain . . and that ain’t gonna happen. America isn’t ready to elect a woman as our President . . . only 14% of the US Senate is female, only 14% of all Boards of Directors members are female, only 20% of college presidents are female. America’s not rushing to promote women to leadership positions. And Hillary is NOT just any white woman. She’s carries the baggage of being Mrs. Bill Clinton. She’s loathed by Republicans for whatever reasons they don’t like her. She’s more conservative than some Democrats (and actors like Rush Limbaugh) want to pretend she is . . and Cucinich and others will point all of that out during the primaries . . . TRUST ME! And if evangelical/southern/conservative America can’t vote for Giuliani because he’s pro-choice or Romney because he’s a Mormon, what makes anyone think they’re going to cross over to vote for, from their perspective, someone who is the incarnation of Satan in female form? Yes, Hillary could run this country. Yes, Hillary has the experience and ability to wage a competitive candidacy for the Democratic nomination. But in the end? She’s NOT going to be the next President. Sorry.

And yet . . . the “liberal” media is raising both of their stocks; this has real ramifications. Evan Bayh . . a young, handsome, second term senator, former two term CONSERVATIVE governor, who ALSO has given a keynote address at a Democratic presidential convention (Bill Clinton’s 1996 one) dropped out most likely because people are giving all of their money to Obama’s silly and maybe even fake run for the Presidency. Are the Dems ever going to learn? Yea, I’m glad that America has gotten to a point where a white woman or a black man could be a serious candidate for President. But while America is ready to think about it, they are NOT ready to vote for either one. If nothing else, we should be a little worried that people on Fox News are excited about Obama’s candidacy. I hate that this current media Hillary/Obama coronation process might mean we won’t have another Bill Clinton (I REALLY can’t believe I said that!) rise up and beat McCain or Brownback. Remember, both Dean and Kerry were the media’s candidates. Aren’t we a little glad they didn’t win the primary or the election?

Please, Democrats, don’t let the “liberal” media choose your next presidential nominee for you.

Wondering if Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are thinking (behind closed doors . . . for now): “Those secular demon-possessed Democrats thought they had the final say on who will govern Gawd’s United States . . . . think that they can elect baby killers and fag lovers to run the Senate? But Gawd is still in control. He gave Tim Johnson a stroke so that the Senate stays in the hands of Gawd’s chosen people, The Republicans, so that Gawd’s man, George Bush, can continue to pursue Gawd’s agenda for this country”.

Come on . . you know you were thinking it.

Again, I ask . . . is Donald Rumsfeld serious? The Democrats are fascists? The Democrats are Chamberlainesque? WHAT?

So, don’t ask me why, but this morning I woke up with four new rules that pro-lifers (I’m one of these) should be responsible to uphold:

• From this point on, all pro-lifers should stop celebrating BIRTHdays, tack on nine months, and start celebrating their and their children’s CONCEIVEDays. As much as it pains me, I’ll accept December 2005’s Christmas gifts in lieu of August 2006’s “birth”day gifts. But that’s just this time.
• No state (I’m talking to you South Dakota and Mississippi) that passes laws barring all abortion is allowed to pass legislation restricting gays, singles, or atheists/agnostics from adopting the children that are born.
• Once Roe is overturned and your state has made abortion illegal, organizations and individuals who fought as advocates on behalf of the fetus must then turn their attention to raising millions of dollars to advocate (or better yet, pay) for comprehensive sex-education courses in schools, free access to contraception, the prenatal care of the childrens’ mothers, healthcare for the children, childcare so that these mothers can work to support said children, adequate housing for these children and their families, and Pell grants/student loans so these children can attend college or get some other post-secondary training.
• Any legislator (or in the case of states with ballot initiatives, voter) who votes to make abortion illegal should be required to personally see to it that any children put up for adoption by their parents are adopted by their 2nd year of life. If no one steps forward, that legislator or voter has to sacrifice something other than the hot air they’ve expended on this issue, put their money where their mouth is, and assume financial responsibility for at least one of these children.

Oh yeah, and I have also decided that I REALLY like Jim Wallis’ idea of calling ourselves “Red-Letter Christians” Sigh . . how did I become a liberal?!

I’m simply at a loss for words. This thing with the ports just bothers me to no end. Even if the President is wrong, his stubbornness causes him to FIGHT BACK when people (even his own people) say he’s wrong instead of BACKING DOWN. He’s got such a “you’re not the boss of me” attitude on EVERYTHING, that really stupid decisions made on the fly (or worse, after much deliberation by the individuals who would benefit from those decisions) have to be fought for by him, his spokespersons, and sycophants like Fred Barnes and others on what is now essentially the administration’s PR wing, Fox News. Far be it from me to try to sell other people’s books, but I encourage the 5 people who read my blog to check out Bruce Bartlett’s Impostor.

I just don’t understand the Dems. So now they’ve thrown Hackett (their best chance to win the Senate seat in Ohio) overboard so that some state representative can enter the race instead? Hello?! DEMOCRATIC VETERANS GET AUTOMATIC [READ: FREE] PRESS IN THIS UPCOMING ELECTION! It’s so pathetic. It really is. And they just pissed off parts of their homosexual base by abolishing the DNC’s Office of GLBT Outreach. Now, if George Bush had closed down that office in the White House, the Dems would be up in arms. So, Dean does the same thing to the DNC and thought that the gay community wouldn’t notice? Someone help me understand because I really don’t get it. This is the kind of stuff that makes people say “a pox on both their houses” and stay home during midterm elections. Oh well, three more years of King Cheney . . I mean Bush. Maybe that’ll learn ‘em. Hahaha. Who am I kidding?

Ok, Senators Kerry and Clinton, please just stop it right now. DO NOT try to filibuster Sam Alito. I know you don’t like him. I know his confirmation should give us “pause”. I know he’s not Sandra Day O’Connor. I know you want to be President. But you know what? If you try to filibuster his nomination, Karl Rove will be given yet another way to change the subject from the problems of the Republican party to you guys. Your filibuster isn’t going to stop him from being confirmed. It just delays the inevitable, but gives the Republicans and their pundit spinners access to the microphone and airwaves to bash you for two weeks instead of defend themselves and the President. For a change . . . STAY ON TASK AND MESSAGE!