Hey Democrats: Don't be Cleveland Browns

My liberal friends seem to have a faith of infallibility in the policies of the current Democratic administration. It is a far easier thing to blame the KKK and the racists for this loss that looking at what the democratic party did wrong. Trump won with less votes that what McCain and Romney received and it only means that a lot of the Obama coalition stayed home or switched to Trump (some McCain/Romney republicans seem to have stayed home too). 
I don't believe that there is a racist majority in America; nor is there a large racist plurality. Whether it is the folks who are left behind by the new economy or those with unaffordable healthcare, a lot of people weren't helped by the government policies in the past couple of decades and chose to blame the party who has been in power for the past decade. The Clinton campaign just couldn't offer anything for them. They mostly focused on why one shouldn't vote for the Donald. Trump focused on why they should vote for him with promises to change things: empty as those promises may end up being, he was the only one peddling hope and change. 

If you can't open your eyes to how these people are affected by government policies (some can be squarely blamed on you, some maybe not), you will not learn how to earn their votes back. You can keep blaming the Comey or a 3rd Party. Or yo u can recognize that this was an outright rejection of the establishment: both of the Democrats and Republicans; at least the Republicans have less to worry about with the control of White House for four years and both houses of the Congress for at least two. If you're looking at these voters with the racist narrative, the only option you have is to fight them; recognizing that these are non-deplorable good folks some of who voted for Obama in the past but are now lost is the first step of figuring out how to bring them back. Also look at the democrats who stayed home and figure out how you failed to inspire them. Now, was the Klan all for Trump, sure, but they are not as influential as the millions of good men and women who supported the Trump movement. 

What didn't help Hillary is that she was running one of the most opaque campaigns in recent memory - save for Trump campaign, which didn't matter for him - refusal to do press conferences, no traveling press escort or anything that deviated from the scripted message that the campaign wanted to present. The media didn't make a big deal about it, but it denied the voters to get a close look at her. In this age that demands 24/7 accessibility, transparency and authenticity, she fell flat; she wasn't trusted because many folks didn't know much about different aspects of her. Trump may have refused to divulge a lot of things - tax returns or health records - but being a loose cannon to the point of alienating a lot of people, he maintained the aura of authenticity. 

Now, the Trump administration will take charge in earnest in a couple of months - notwithstanding the crazy-pot theories spread by left on how he can be stopped, much like the ones the right used to trade in during the Obama years - and no one can really predict how it is going to go down. Trump doesn't have a proclivity to follow any defined ideology or pattern. For one thing, he is definitely not going to spread theocracy as some in the right would hope. Even the policies on immigration that he is saying he would do is far less severe than what other countries like Australia currently practice. Even with Republican control of both houses of the Congress, there are enough checks and balances left to control what he could do - Democrats still have the tool of filibuster after all. 

This is probably a blessing in disguise for the democratic party. After all, the best growth in its popularity came during the eight years of George W Bush presidency that culminated in it claiming a full filibuster proof control of Congress and previously unthinkable election of the first black president. As they used "Blame Dubya First" as a strategy to widespread success, "Blame Trump First" would probably prove to be equally successful. As in sports leagues, rebuilding years usually lead you to great success eventually. Unless you are Philadelphia 76ers or Cleveland Browns.

Thinking of Trump Election

The wildest presidential election in recent history is over and a charismatic businessman has taken on two national parties and has reached one of the most powerful positions in the world. Some thoughts:

The Donald has proven that the best way for an outsider to become a president is not to do a third party/independent bid but rather to hijack one of the major parties on the way to power. In this process, he took on two of the biggest and most powerful political dynasties in the last generation in Bush family and Clintons and prevailed. Anyone who claims to have foreseen this is lying. They will write songs about this election (maybe movies, since that's the new norm).

Listening to his victory speech, I take him on his word that he wants to be the president for all Americans. I hope he would listen to those who haven't supported him - from both parties - in trying to unify our great country. You want to do the job so well we will be proud of you as the president: go ahead.

If he is actually planning to build the wall that he said he would build, I hope that he remembers his promise to build a "big beautiful door" in it.

I hope that he runs the country like a CEO, assembling a team of the "best people" to do every job as promised.

I hope that he puts an end to the war mongering interventionist neocon foreign policy that the current administration has been peddling and stops trying to provoke Russia into a Nuclear War. Keep your promise of improving relations with Russia by talking to Putin and getting along with him. Talk to North Korea as you said you will. We don't have to go around the world toppling governments and creating fertile recruiting grounds for terrorist groups.

I hope that he will fix healthcare costs. One thing nobody is talking about is that since Nov 1st, Open Enrollment started and millions of Americans looked at it and decided that it is not affordable. I wonder how many of those folks were previous supporters of Affordable Care Act and chose to vote for Trump solely because they suddenly didn't believe in it anymore.

About free trade, I hope that he doesn't start a bout of protectionist policies that let the government pick winners and losers. Review and rework "free trade deals" to make them truly free trade. But Tariffs only make consumers suffer and is essentially an income redistribution from the general population to the specific companies whose lobbyists manage to get these tariffs enacted.

Please do enact your vision of reforming the entire regulatory code to get rid of every wasteful and unnecessary regulation. An outsider like you who isn't beholden to any special interests is the best person to do it.

I also hope you abolish designated hitter.

As for the Democratic party, look at where it went wrong. You need to build a bench that is longer than dynastic retreads from previous administrations or old socialists who has little traction outside the circle of his small but ardent supporters. Having won the culture wars of the past couple of decades, it appears like you have nothing left fighting for; at least nothing that inspires its "Obama Coalition" to come out and vote. I already see a call from Michael Moore to obstruct and block everything that Trump wants to do; this is exactly the wrong thing to do: take each policy at its merits.

On the other side, the GOP shouldn't think that everything is rosy on your side: this ain't your victory. Donald J Trump isn't one of you even though he won under your label. You need to develop a coherent idea about what you stand for.

Anyway, now it is Trump time. Congratulations on becoming the President elect. There are grave structural issues that our country faces that require strong actions. Maybe a politician will never have the gall to make some of these tough decisions; a businessman maybe just what the doctor ordered. America is already great. Feel free to make it even greater. Please lay off your fascist, autocratic impulses. Let freedom ring.

Living in the New, Splintered America

For those of you who were old enough to worry about the “mighty” Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s, you all lost sleep about nothing. News broke about the story of an ex-KGB analyst turned professor Igor Panarin predicting that the United States will fall apart in 2010. If this is the best that a KGB analyst and current US-Russia relations expert can come up with, they never stood a chance against the US or against anybody, for that matter. And of course, this theory currently has a huge following in Russia, so we can kiss goodbye any fear of Putin being able to turn Russia back to the old Soviet glory.

I don’t want to undermine the wishful thinking of an old dog, but there are gaping holes in his understanding of America. The very map of how he says the United States are going to be split up illustrates that he fails to show even a layman's knowledge of our great nation. Let’s examine his theory and see how likely these are and what could be the consequences.

Read on...

Digg

Three State Solution to Middle East - Bolton

John R Bolton writes in the Washington Post about a three state solution for middle east that is more sensible than any of the solutions that have been offered so far.

He writes,

Let's start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a "three-state" approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today's conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. "International observers" or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces.

This is exactly what could be termed as a genius solution. Both Egypt and Jordan being Arab nations, the control from them would not cause any ethnic or religious side effects that could face if Israel is involved. The fact that Gaza belonged to the Egyptian territory before being taken away by Israel adds strength to the theory. Also, Egypt being a fairly strong and stable nation, can easily establish the necessary peace and democracy that the Gaza strip sorely lack currently. And once Egyptian border forces are in place, it is fair to expect that the rocket attacks from the strip would stop relieving Israel's complaints. Even though they are rivals, Egypt and Israel have kept away from tearing each other apart for decades now. Once they leave each other alone and once the Egyptian forces control the strip and makes sure that it conforms, there should not be any future issue.

On the other side on the West Bank, it is much calmer already compared to Gaza. However, being part of Jordan, a very reasonable Arab nation would do miracles in the tensions that invariably occur when Israel and Palestinians are involved. Already, Jordan is one of the nations that cause the least trouble to Israel.

The biggest winner of the situation would be humanity. The conditions in the Gaza strip has been pretty bad of late at least partly due to the Israeli embargo. Once it becomes part of Egypt, economic growth in the strip would lead to much more prosperity and success of humanity. The same holds true on the West Bank.

PRUDEN: Only 26 days left for Bush-bashing

Wesley Pruden writes in Washington Times about the looming crisis that the liberals are about to face.

With only 26 days left to harangue, mock and bash President Bush, some of our colleagues in the media aren't wasting a day. Bashing ex-presidents, except for the ex-presidents with shrill prominent wives, isn't nearly as much fun as bashing while he's still the real thing.

There's method in the gladness at the New York Times, which relieved itself at the beginning of Christmas week with an umpity-thousand word accusation - beginning on Page One and continuing across several acres of newsprint inside - that George W. Bush invented the meltdown of the subprime housing market, which in turn has led to the collapse of Detroit and all kinds of bad things for Atchison, Topeka and maybe even Santa Fe.

There is only for so much more time can they blame Bush for everything is that has gone wrong in the country. After that they will have to own up responsibility for what is happening. They have escaped from that by blaming Bush for everything for almost a decade. Reality will hit them, and hit them hard.

Rick Warren Was A Good Pick

Yesterday I spoke why I thought that it was a good idea. Now Aymar Jean Christian writes in Splice Today in the same lines.

I'm not going to defend Rick Warren; well, not too much. I am going to defend Barack Obama, at the risk of looking like a hack to my friends and colleagues.

There are many reasons why the controversy over Obama's selection of Warren to perform the inaugural invocation is stupid. I plan to list every single one of them.

First, the invocation is ceremonial. It's publicity, theater, a show; to the cynical, it's marketing. It isn't policy. It won't change anyone's life. So, as a sometimes-angry gay, I'm going to take a deep breath and calm down....

Second, as publicity, it's not half bad. Since 2004 Obama has talked about ending the blue state/red state divide. Are people really surprised by this? The hoopla over Warren shows that message needs to be restated, because the divide persists. People in the media must have no idea how popular Warren is....

Third. Okay, so Rick Warren opposes gay marriage—who cares? Most people do. Rick Warren is pro-life and in many other ways a social conservative. So what? A lot of people are...

Obama is doing his job. He's saying to the country: I want to be the president of all of you, not just the ones who agree with me. This is the mistake Hillary Clinton—and a lot of Boomers—made when she ran healthcare reform in 1992. It was "us" versus "them."....

Fourth, any attempt to imply an Obama policy shift from the Warren selection is pure hypocrisy from the left, who argued against Rev. Wright as a relevant campaign topic...

The best part I liked was that, this proves that Obama is not Bush. A left wing Bush, I mean. After eight years of extreme polarization in the political discourse, and eight years of triangulation before that, I'd rather see some engagement between the poles.

A liberal Case for Rick Warren - Cynthia Tucker

Cynthia Tucker writes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

[A]s a member of the Christian left, I would still bow my head for a prayer led by the Rev. Warren (assuming he doesn’t disparage any group in the process). There are some important issues on which we agree, after all: Christ’s ministry emphasized an obligation to help the needy; Christians ought to be good stewards of the planet; and, most important, God’s love is for all.

Gay-rights activists are outraged that Warren has been invited to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration, a platform which, they believe, legitimizes Warren’s discriminatory views. Some even seem to think that Obama agrees with Warren’s offensive rhetoric about same-sex marriage.

That’s ironic. Gay-marriage advocates have adopted the same overwrought logic that many conservatives applied to Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, retired pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. How could Obama listen to Wright’s offensive rants all those years unless he agreed with them, they asked.

Among Obama’s several admirable qualities is his ability to sit and converse — debating, but also listening — with those with whom he strongly disagrees. That’s why he stands a better-than-even chance of tamping down the harsh partisanship that has dominated domestic politics for the past 15 years. He won’t silence partisans determined to see only differences, but he can forge coalitions of interest with those looking to cooperate where they can.

I could not have agreed more. I have always believed in him when Obama said he will bring people together from the right and the left. Where did the liberals think that much promised meeting shall take place? In the left field? I am glad that as much as a liberal he is, Obama is refraining from the Rush Limbaugh politics of demonizing the opposing views.

The true unity of the nation could only come from first learning to respect each other and work to find common grounds. Liberals were complaining about the right being mean all the time. Now it is the turn of the left. I'm glad that Obama is turning out to be much better every day.

Bushoe Attack Game

There have been many online games that have popped up after a reporter threw shoes at George W Bush in Iraq. Here is a good one

A 'Fiscally Conservative' Stimulus Plan

It is universally accepted that some kind of a stimulus is due to revive the American economy, so let me suggest a genius new plan that kills a lot of ducks in a single shot. The idea comes from an old Lee Falk comic where there is a whole air-conditioned city enclosed in a glass roof about a mile high. No, I am not talking about air conditioning America, but rather a new device of spreading democracy and freedom across the world.

It starts with Cuba. Fifty years of embargo has clearly not worked with Cuba since a Castro is still ruling the island. As Barack Obama himself has said it is time to stop doing the same things over and over again and somehow expect a different result. So, I suggest this far superior mode of sanctions.

Read On...

Digg

Nebraska Law Should Stand

Daniel Polansky writes about the Nebraska Safe Haven Law in Splice Today

The whole story is chock-full of the kind of details that make comment almost superfluous. “Tysheema Brown drove from Georgia to leave her teenage son at an Omaha hospital.” My Lord, that’s an uncomfortable car ride. Wow. That’s 22 hours in an enclosed space with a woman who is planning to disown you. She continues, “Do not judge me as a parent. I love my son and my son knows that... There is just no help. There hasn't been any help.” Look, Ms. Brown, we let you legally abandon your child. I don't know what else you think the public owes you—gas money? An iTrip? Also, did you really need to give a quote? You didn't win the Super Bowl, you failed at the most fundamental task a human being can have. Slinking away in shame is the appropriate action here, to the extent that there could be an appropriate action after having given up your son to the ministrations of the state of Nebraska at the tender age of 15.

Honestly, I think world would have been a better place with the law intact. If some parent wants to get rid of their children, it could mean only two things:

1. The children will be better off away from those crappy parents.
2. The parents should not be burdened with such crappy children who deserves to be in juvenile system or something.

Dropping one's children off is a hard enough decision and I would not barr anyone who does that when they are that desperate. So even if what he says is true, the kids are better off without those parents anyway.

Mumbai was not India's 9/11

I was coasting through the long weekend on Friday morning, going through the daily dose of reading with the muted TV on CNN when I noticed the word “Cricket” on the screen. This grabbed my attention since this sport is unheard of in this part of the world and I realized that CNN was breaking the news about a series of attacks in Mumbai at various locations and was showing a feed from a local Indian news channel.

As appalled as I was about these attacks, I was also surprised by the unprecedented level of coverage of the events by the news channels—fueled, no doubt, by the large number of Americans involved and the fact that most of their regular reporters were on vacation. Now that the reporters and analysts are back on air, they have gone on to suggest that this is the test that Al Qaeda has sent to Barack Obama, as predicted by Joe Biden. Also, I have heard some one mentioning that the terrorists went after the Americans in Mumbai because they could not get them here in America. All I have to say is: Sorry, it is not always about America. This was an attack against India and targeting American, British and Israeli citizens was just a ploy to garner worldwide attention and further the embarrassment of India.

Read On...

Digg

Politics Avalanche made it to RealClearPolitics

There is good news.

My Bidding adieu to Bush article, yes, the previous one, made it to the RealClearPolitics website on Friday.

Check it out here (Bush Wasn't So Bad)

Bidding adieu to Bush - in a kinder tone.

As George W. Bush is leaving the White House, people are already saying he’s among the worst—if not the worst—presidents that the country has seen. History may indeed choose to make the same verdict, but for now let me give a kinder assessment of his eight-year reign. There are four areas in which he was inaccurately blamed for everything that went wrong—the Iraq war, the economy, the energy crisis and the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina. And there were places where he truly made a positive impact.

Read On...

Digg

America is a melting pot, not a dumping ground

The first issue in the Missouri ballot for Nov. 4 asks this: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated whether conducted in person or by communication equipment including conference calls, video conferences, or Internet chat or message board?”

This has become a controversy with plenty of heat going around from both sides. I should analyze the whole thing and should come up with a conclusion:

Legally requiring immigrants to learn English isn’t unfair; it promotes upward mobility and assimilation.

Read on...

Digg

I came to you as a democrat and you did not vote for me.

Who decides which side the God is on?

If you want to say any candidate is against God, remember Matt. 7: 1-5, which starts with these words: “Judge not, that you be not judged.”


Read on...

Digg

I'm voting for Bob Barr, to be included in the debates, that is.

The presidential debates are coming. After going through numerous debates from both parties,especially democrats , it is only conceivable that the debates would see some action. However, should we leave the debates only to the big boys or should we let the firebrand third party candidates in for the debates? I already see some efforts in this matter: St Joesph Telegraph. However, let me explore the case for including former congressman Bob Barr and possibly the old warrior Ralph Nader into these debates.

Firstly, The Commission on Presidential Debates, a private, non-profit corporation, only allow candidates who poll above 15% nationally to be included in the presidential debates. This adds a serious dent to the commission's claim to be non-partisan. They are siding with the big guys who nevertheless treat the third party candidates as a thorn in their sides. A better way would be to include everyone that have made themselves into the ballot in at least 15% of the states, let us keep the number at 8 to round it off.

Practically, a lot of people, the so called independents who roam the aisle and choose which side to vote at the last moment, make that decision based on the presidential debates to see where the candidates stand on the issues, what plans they have up their sleeves to send the country in the right direction and also to see the integrity and strength that they display in the debates. This means that the third party candidates, being marginal in terms of visibility to the nation will have no chance to get their ideas across to the multitudes. Who knows what the people would decide once they see all the ideas being showcased in a nationally televised presidential debate? It is absolutely the spirit of democracy. So are you saying that people do not think outside the box? Well, about that later.

At least the people of America are polling in a majority to get the third party candidates to be included in the debates. I am quoting straight from the Zogby International's website.

UTICA, New York - More than half of likely voters nationwide - 55% - want Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr to participate in presidential debates this fall, while nearly half - 46% - said they think Ralph Nader should be allowed into the on-stage fray, the latest Zogby Interactive polling shows.



The final argument for the third party candidates is that they will not be afraid to broach subjects that the democratic or republican party candidates would rather evade. They do not have to worry about offending any of their big money donors. They are also fearless of defeat and hence would be totally truthful and forceful in discussion about any matter. I can see Senators Obama and McCain trembling about the prospect of Bob Barr asking about how well their policies protect the constitution and whatever it stands for. Or Ralph Nader asking about how their policies do anything that helps America's middle class.

So in conclusion, we should all urge The Commission on Presidential Debates to include the third party or independent candidates in the debate and see democracy flourishes. This would enable the debates to actually reveal and cross examine the effectiveness and honesty of the policies of all the candidates. I would only help America. I do not see how it could hurt America.

Christians getting massacred in India as a part of religious cleansing

God and faith is in the heart, mind and souls of people; its in the morning sun-shine that they wake-up to, in the silence that they meditate in, in the tranquility of the evenings when they look towards the sky, in the thank-yous that comes from depth of their hearts... What can it be converted to? -- is it the name by which we call the same one God? Or is it the style of the rituals we do or the songs that we sing for the same one God?


While the intention of sharing this piece of news is certainly not to spread hatred or distrust between communities, it is important that we as humans and also as Indians realize the intensity and seriousness of such a carnage Whether it is a few political outfits sharpening weapons for next year's general elections, whether it is the ignorant black-sheeps of two religions getting over-zealous, the fact is that people are suffering. While they debate it out in the bright news studios, in the security of their mansions protected by followers or faithfuls, there seems to be no respite to the suffering of these people...these laymen out there at ground zero.

A defaced portrait of Jesus Christ hangs on the wall of a demolished house after a mob attack at Barakhama village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 30, 2008. Thousands of people, most of them Christians, have sought shelter in makeshift government camps in eastern India, driven from their homes by religious violence which has killed scores of people.

A Christian girl salvages belongings from her burnt home at Minia village, about 320 kilometers (200 miles) from the Bhubaneshwar, the capital of the eastern Indian state of Orissa, Saturday, Aug. 30, 2008.

A Christian man looks at his destroyed house after a mob attack in Barakhama village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 30, 2008.

A Christian girl whose face was burnt during the recent religious violence, sits in a shelter at Raikia village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 31, 2008.

Christians set up tent shelters at Raikia village, in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 31, 2008. Thousands of people, most of them Christians, have sought shelter in makeshift government camps in eastern India, driven from their homes by religious violence

Christians sit outside a shelter at Raikia village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 30, 2008.

A Christian woman cries outside her demolished house at Gatumah village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa

A Christian boy eats lunch under an umbrella inside a shelter at Raikia village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 30, 2008.

Christian villagers search the burnt remains of their household at Raikia bazaar of Kandhamal district in Orissa, India, Friday, Aug. 29, 2008. Thousands of Christian-run schools and colleges across India were closed Friday to protest recent Hindu mob attacks on churches and homes

Burnt vehicles are seen at Suleswar village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 31, 2008. Thousands of people, most of them Christians, have sought shelter in makeshift government camps in eastern India

Christians return for shelter after spending days in hiding in a forest at Naugram village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 30, 2008.

A vehicle burns inside a church in Nuagoan village in the Kandhamal district of the eastern Indian state of Orissa, August 25, 2008. REUTERS/Sanjib Mukherjee d.

A burnt doll is seen outside a Christian home at Suleswar village in the eastern Indian state of Orissa August 31, 2008

Christians and social activists protest against the recent communal violence in the eastern Indian state of Orissa, in New Delhi, India, Friday, Aug. 29, 2008. The protest by Christian institutions comes days after violence wracked eastern Orissa state where Christians have clashed with Hindu mobs targeting churches, businesses and homes

School children attend a prayer meeting to pay tributes to the victims of the recent clashes between Hindus and Christians in Orissa, in the northern Indian city of Shimla August 29, 2008. Hindu mobs ransacked a church and clashed with Christian villagers in eastern India on Thursday, police said

Citizens attend a protest against the killings of Christians in Orissa during a meeting in a Mumbai church August 29, 2008.

A Christian school teacher pleading to the VHP activists to spare him

All the Christians around the world should unite in protest against these atrocities. Spread the word.

A letter of support to Prof. Douglas W. Kmiec

Dear Prof. Kmiec,

Thank you for the courage that you have shown to support Barack Obama. Even though many of his policies violate the message of Jesus Christ, there are other aspects in which he has a superior claim of doing the Lord's work. Your decision has proved at least this much: No party in America has a monopoly on Jesus.

I hail from a predominantly Catholic community. The Church that I knew and its message contrasts a lot from what I have seen and heard in the Catholic church in the United States. Out there, the Church prominently preaches social morality. The one about being the keeper of your brother. The message in which God helps anyone who helps, not himself, but his neighbor. We hear the story about Jesus telling us on the judgment day that he came to us as a poor man and we neglected him.

However, the Catholic Church in the United States appears to be on a war for personal morality, even though not all aspects of it. The right of a woman to choose or gay rights are personal choices, that we do not have to judge. Nobody forces anyone to be gay. Nobody can force me to have an abortion at my family. Such laws or Supreme Court judgments do not really affect my life or do not make me sin. Let the Lord be the one who judge them.

My uncle, Arch Bishop of Guwahati, has remarked on many occasions during his visits to the United States that the Church in the US has lost its direction fighting against abortion and gay rights. The debate sadly pushes aside the real issues that face the society; the real action that needs to be taken by us as fellow Christians. The inequality and poverty should be the primary issues that we need to care about as a society. Abortion and gay rights, which are cases of individual morality should be left to each person.

So I'd love to see the Church giving Social morality, at least the same importance that it gives to individual morality. Also, looking at the Republican policies in the past decade has made me wonder how I can justify those actions. Cutting health-care to children in different states is definitely not pro-life. Waging an unnecessary war that results in thousands of deaths and trillions of tax payer money is not a Christian way of doing things. The so called conservatives, at least the neocons do not stand for my values as a Christian.

But, there is always a word of caution in all these issues when it comes to liberals. As much as I applauded your decision to support Obama, you and I, as Catholics, should hold him accountable for having our religious rights unscathed. The story about Boston Catholic charities not being able to exorcise our religious beliefs in case of adoption should be a dire warning. Even from a totally agnostic point of view, the end result, that is those charities closed down does not benefit the nation or the people.

In the same vein, I am delighted at Obama's decision to make use of religious groups in making progress with the society. However, like the case of Catholic Adoption agencies, there is a trap hidden in his own words. While it is acceptable that these religious groups do not discriminate against their benefactors, he has asked the groups not to discriminate in hiring processes too. How would a Catholic charity be Catholic if its workers are Jewish or Atheists? Inasmuch as a Pro-Choice organization would want to hire someone who shares their ideas, even a Catholic organization, or any religious bodies for that matter, would want to hire people that share its values. We should fight to keep Obama accountable in this aspect.

Keeping in mind all these, I am appalled to hear that you were denied communion by a priest for endorsing Obama. Such bigotry is not part of Jesus Christ's message. Such hate is not professed by bible as I know it.

So, I wish to congratulate you for your stance and would love to see you continue to champion the Catholic values, be it demanding for government policies with an emphasis on social morality or fighting for religious freedom in the public square.

Thank You,

Politics Avalanche

Update: Prof. Kmiec actually responded with a message of agreement. He alerted us that the love of our homosexual neighbors in California ought not be turned around as a discrimination against the church. I applaud that. As much as they have the right for unions, it should not be held against a judge or a clerk or a priest who would not want to perform ceremony due to religious beliefs.

Blame Dubya First

The new mantra for liberals is "Blame Dubya First!". Combined with a low popularity of the president, it is extremely fashionable to blame the president for everything that goes wrong. Blame Bush for the dandruff and for the dog that chases you during your morning run. I just hit my thumb with a hammer and I swore : "Damn you Bush!"

However, with the pain long gone, let me inspect the rationality of blaming the President for the various problems, perceived or real, that the country is facing. I have chosen four areas: Iraq war, energy crisis, sagging economy and mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina.

I am not an ardent supporter of wars. Not even Iraq war. But to hold the President as the sole scapegoat for whatever shortcomings of the Iraq war is delusional. The Senate and the House, both Republicans and Democrats supported the war. The same people who are blaming Bush for the failures in Iraq were spineless to oppose it before it started. Now that it is fashionable to oppose war, majority of them are against it. Blaming Bush is the way they are refusing to own up their responsibility. Why were they afraid to oppose back then? Because the polls said that the majority of Americans wanted it. They did not have guts to take a moral stand when it was unpopular. Democrats were screaming for Bush to stop Saddam and his WMD. The same people would flip again if the war in Iraq suddenly becomes very popular with the American public. This morality of convenience also makes them forget about the achievements of the war. Back then there was no question about the need of liberating a country from a tyrant who was oppressing all opposition brutally. Now that Saddam is dead and gone, people are forgetting, conveniently, about the positive effects of the invasion. If there is a mess in Iraq, we have to deal with it and let the process complete itself. We cannot just cut and run.

Everybody is bashing bush for the high gas prices. They fail to recognize two things. One: the current high prices are the result of market forces that are beyond the control of the American president. The global supply of oil is almost constant and the consumption is getting higher by the day. This results in an imbalance in the supply-demand equilibrium and the market readjusts by the way of higher prices. This brings to account the second accusation. It is his energy policy that created this mess which could have been avoided. Highly unlikely. Energy policy cannot alter the way a nation consumes energy in a few years. If any flaw in the American energy policy was responsible for the crisis, then the flaw existed for decades. So the blame should be borne by the previous administrations, including Bush Sr, Clinton, Reagan and beyond. However, whether they could have predicted the changes in the global economy that results in the higher oil prices is yet another question. Blaming bush is escapism. Again, let's consider some of the short term measures that can ease the prices a bit. The White House has repeatedly asked/begged Congress to pass legislation that allow drilling in Alaska, which has more oil than Saudi Arabia; allow offshore drilling in the Gulf Coast and California and to allow more nuclear plants to be built. Answers to all of the above from the Democrats and many Republicans is a staunch NO! The technology has evolved so much in the past decade and anyone who is for protecting the environment should add limits/provisions to ensure that in the bill. A blind opposition to any of these is downright moronic.

The main factor behind the economic downturn is the mortgage crisis and the resulting credit crunch. These are the results of decades of indiscipline and over inflation of house prices. Everyone said the house prices will continue to rise perpetually. This led to widespread fiscal irresponsibility by home owners and the lenders. George W Bush did not force these folks to buy bigger houses than they could afford by lying about their income. He did not force the hordes of people to ignore the contracts while signing Adjustable Rate Mortgages and then again use any available inflated equity to buy Plasma TVs. There is only one policy that could have saved thousands from home-foreclosures. There is only one action that could have stopped the credit crunch from happening. It is called personal responsibility.

Another blame that George W Bush has borne singlehandedly is that he is behind everything evil that happened with the Hurricane Katrina. Bush did not create the hurricane. It is a natural phenomenon. He did not make it more severe. There have been far worse hurricanes in the past. He did not designed or built the levees that were broken. Again, the Office of the President of the United States of America has nothing to do with the Hurricane Contingency plans for the area. They are formulated by the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. The plan was put in action by the state effectively. It gave plenty of warnings and asked for mandatory evacuation from the area. It is not Dubya's fault that one in five people in New Orleans refused to leave. They were amply warned. It is not his fault that there were many people in New Orleans who had no cars or were sick. I've never read anywhere that the duties of the president includes making sure that every citizen is healthy, owns a car and shows common sense. Well, some of these are failings, but you cannot blame Bush alone for that. He rushed all the help that he could as fast as he can. You cannot expect him to go down there and start airlifting people out of rooftops all by himself. The convoys of food and other stuff takes time to organize and to reach a flooded area.

I am not claiming that George W Bush is the finest president that America has ever seen. But he is not the monster that the liberals portray him to be. To counter their claims, these facts are out there to be seen by anyone who cares to look. But as I have read in the internet, "If the sun were to explode, the Liberals would spend their last few minutes blaming it on Bush."

Assault on the First Amendment rights of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas

Here is another blatant assault on the first amendment. The court has thrown out the State's abduction of (yes abduction) of over 460 children from Yearning for Zion, the compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community.

I am not writing this to support any evil doers. If there were any under-aged or forceful marriages, any statutory rapes or other abuse on minors, the culprits should be tried and punished. If any of the adults in the community have committed such crimes or knowingly aided them, they all should be prosecuted to the maximum extend as allowed by law. The right of religious freedom won't protect them and first amendment does not excuse such crimes.

However, the lawyers of Child Protective Services have finally admitted that 15 of the 31 "child" mothers placed in foster care were actually adults. One is 27. A 14-year-old removed as a child mother apparently has no children. The state had raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hot line saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband, but that girl has not been found at the ranch during the raid. Police traced the calls to 33-year-old Colorado Springs woman named Rozita Swinton. Swinton had earlier been arrested for making a false report, and accused of posing as "Jennifer," 16, who called 911 to report that her father had locked her in a basement for days. She is also accused of posing as other aliases.

That being said, in this case the Texas government officials jumped into this mess with the best of intentions. They forgot or ignored the legal procedure while earnestly trying to save another child from molestation. This lead to flagrant errors in evidence and identities of the parties involved. Even now the authorities cannot clearly find the ages, names and relationships of the 'children' taken away from the ranch. DNA tests of hundreds of people are taking weeks to process when many children are away from their parents despite of the lack of proof of any wrong doing.

The court ruling says in its third paragraph that "Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children is an extreme measure. It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of the children involved. However, it is a step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children, and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary."

The court talks about the following facts that were undisputed by the Department of Child Protective Services. The only danger to the male children or the female children who had not reached puberty identified by the Department was the Department's assertion that the "pervasive belief system" of the FLDS community groomed the males to be perpetrators of sexual abuse later in life and taught the girls to submit to sexual abuse after reaching puberty;There was no evidence that the male children, or the female children who had not reached puberty, were victims of sexual or other physical abuse or in danger of being victims of sexual or other physical abuse. Also, there was no evidence that any of the female children other than the five identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen were victims or potential victims of sexual or other physical abuse. Additionally, the Department conceded at the hearing that teenage pregnancy, by itself, is not a reason to remove children from their home and parents, but took the position that immediate removal was necessary in this case because "there is a mind-set that even the young girls report that they will marry at whatever age, and that it's the highest blessing they can have to have children."

It may sound outrageous when you hear about girls are married by guys who are old enough to be their dad. But keep in mind, a horror story alone is not a legal basis for removing hundreds of children form their parents. The Texas Court of appeals, Third District, at Austin is clearly right in pointing out that a good intention would not substitute legal procedures for proving that a child is in imminent danger.