This Day in History

Forty-five years today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered a speech on the steps of the State Capitol in Montgomery, AL after the successful completion of the march from Selma, AL to Montgomery. Officially titled as "Our God Is Marching On!", the brilliant address is more commonly known as the "How Long? Not Long." speech. Here is an excerpt from the most famous portion of the speech:

"I know you're asking today, 'How long will it take?'. Somebody’s asking, 'How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding and drive bright eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?'. Somebody’s asking, 'When will wounded justice, lying prostrate on the streets of Selma and Birmingham and communities all over the South, be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?'. Somebody’s asking, 'When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, plucked from weary souls with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long will justice be crucified and truth bear it?'.

I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long because truth crushed to earth will rise again.

How long? Not long because no lie can live forever.

How long? Not long because you shall reap what you sow."

To read a full transcript of the speech, you can click on the following link: http://www.mlkonline.net/ourgod.html. This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAYITODNvlM) will allow you to view a video of a longer version of the above excerpt.

Quote of the Day

In honor of the United States House of Representatives recently passing the new health care bill, I felt the following quote was appropriate:

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during a speech on May 5, 1966 at the Second National Convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights

Upon Further Review, Part I

I am sure supporters of Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell and Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli feel my and other individuals' criticism that both men are unopposed to discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace is either unwarranted or exaggerated. (Anyone can see that it's neither by reading a January executive directive from McDonnell and a recent statement issued by Cuccinelli.) But in case that isn't enough proof, let's take a closer look at other questionable aspects of the gentlemen's backgrounds:

McDonnell
To fulfill the requirements for the degrees of Master of Arts in Public Policy and Juris Doctor in Law from Regent University (as a reminder, this educational institution was founded by Pat Robertson), McDonnell wrote a thesis titled "The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade" in 1989. Here are just some of the excerpts from that thesis:

• "Today, the U.S. Census Bureau defines family as 'two or more people related by blood, marriage or adoption and residing under the same roof". Such a definition, while accurate in its sterile terms of defining logistics and membership, fails to include the convenantal bond of commitment at the core of family life." Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), etc. all supposedly had that "convenantal bond of commitment" while they were cheating on their wives. How did that work out for them?
• The Family Protection Act of 1981 refused to acknowledge "homosexuality and abortion as acceptable behaviors and actions".
• "A dynamic new trend of working women and feminists...is ultimately detrimental to the family."
• "The model programs and consensus surveys favored by Republicans largely reflect values that are wholesome and good for individuals and families and should be taught in homes, schools, churches and businesses across the nation." Can someone explain to me then why conservatives complained so much when President Obama delivered his speech earlier this year to the nation's schoolchildren?
• "With a character education program, the federal government would not just encourage the development of good character but would assume to authority to define what it is." Sounds a lot like big government to me.
• "Democrats are likely to redefine family in a way that labels what was once deviant as acceptable."
• "For Democrats, family policy encompasses such concepts as the creation of national health insurance, increased minimum wage, guaranteed minimum income...and mandatory parental leave." The horror!
• "Every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators."
• "Fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals or single parent unwed mothers."
• "The giftedness of the Republican philosophy is that it embraces the talents and worth of all peoples, while Democrats seek to shepherd a nation of powerless incompetents." Unless, of course, certain groups within "all peoples" include homosexuals and single parent unwed mothers.

Cuccinelli
1. During an interview with "The Virginian-Pilot" in October 2009, Cuccinelli refused to commit to a non-discrimination policy against gays and lesbians: "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think, in a natural law based country, it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents, to put it politely (I need my thesaurus to be polite), behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society."

2. On last year's campaign trail, Cuccinelli plays the role of an alarmist regarding the federal government: "We're gonna have our seventh child on Monday, if he's not born before. And, for the very concerns you state, we're actually considering – as I'm sure many of you here didn't get a Social Security number when you were born, they do it now – we're considering not doing that. And a lot of people are considering that now because it is being used to track you."

3. When asked truly eloquent questions about President Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States, Cuccinelli delivered the following comments:

Q: "What can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing?"
A: "It'll get tested in my view when someone - he signs a law and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it's not a law because someone qualified to be President didn't sign it."

Q: "How can we get proof?"
A: "Well, that's a good question. Not one I've thought a lot about because it hasn't been part of my campaign. But, I mean, someone is going to have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in place B, wherever that is. You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility."

4. In February of this year, Cuccinelli filed a request for the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to reconvene its proceedings regarding the negative effect of greenhouse gases on public health. According to Cuccinelli, the EPA's findings will supposedly have "far reaching consequences for the citizens of Virginia and the nation".

Northern Exposure of the Day

"They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan." -- Sarah Palin on October 5, 2008 at a fundraising event in San Francisco.

Aside from their role in building schools, Palin delivered another one of her geographical errors while praising U.S. soldiers for "fighting terrorism and protecting us and our democratic values". At least she got that part right.

Disgrace of the Week

Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell issued Executive Directive 1 yesterday afternoon to address discrimination towards homosexuals. In fact, the edict states that "Discrimination based on factors, such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, discrimination against enumerated classes of persons set forth in the Virginia Human Rights Act or discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited."

McDonnell was forced to establish these standards of conduct following an offensive letter that Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli delivered to the presidents, rectors and visitors of the state's public colleges and universities. This communication from Cuccinelli declared that the State of Virginia should "prohibit a college or university from including 'sexual orientation', 'gender identity', 'gender expression' or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy".

While McDonnell is being applauded for his actions, it is important to examine this excerpt from Executive Order No. 6, which McDonnell signed just last month: "This order is in furtherance of the stated policy enacted by the General Assembly and specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities. The policy permits appropriate employment preferences for veterans and specifically prohibits discrimination against veterans as contemplated by state and federal law." Do you see what is missing? No mention of sexual orientation whatsoever.

Another interesting aspect of this situation is that McDonnell's executive order from February "supersedes and rescinds Executive Order N0. 6, Equal Opportunity, issued by former Gov. Timothy Kaine on January 14, 2006". The 2006 pronouncement from Kaine "specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, age, political affiliation or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities. The policy permits appropriate employment preferences for veterans and specifically prohibits discrimination against veterans."

As a graduate of Regent University (the educational institution founded by Pat Robertson), we should not be surprised by McDonnell's aversion to civil rights for non-discrimination. However, during a gubernatorial debate from October of last year, McDonnell delivered this response when asked if he would renew the executive order preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation: "I'm supportive of the, completely supportive of the policies of non-discrimination."

Northern Exposure of the Day

In case you forgot, Palin was caught clearly peeking at her left hand during a question and answer session at February's National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN, with the phrases "Energy", "Budget cuts" (with the word budget crossed out), "Tax" and "Lift American spirits" written on her palm. At a fundraiser on Friday for the Ohio Right to Life organization, Sarah Palin attacked the media for criticizing her for using her hand as a cheat sheet at last month's convention.

Along with stating her disbelief in the fact that "some in the media got all wigged out" about her cheat sheet, Palin also claimed those same members of the media were unable to "argue the content of the words". Content? Here is a portion of her answer at the point when she started looking at her palm: "It would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that, you know, they have to be afraid of what the media would say about them if they were to proclaim their reliance on our creator." Wow, that sure is some hard hitting political content.

In defense of her seventh grade actions, Palin attempts to paraphrase Isaiah 49:16 in her speech: "If it was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it's good enough for me, for us. He says, in that passage, he says 'I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you' and I'm like, 'Okay, I'm in good company.'" Unfortunately for Palin, the actual Bible verse is "Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me", which alludes to the Jewish custom of enthusiastically puncturing hands with a representation of the individual's city and temple.

The most frustrating aspect of this whole storyline is that Palin described her cheat sheet as "a poor man's version of a teleprompter" on an episode of "Hannity" on FOX News. (This is clearly another pathetic shot by the Republicans at President Obama's use of a teleprompter for some of his speeches.) However, as you can see from the right hand side of the image above, Queen Hypocrisy herself used a teleprompter during her completely overrated address at the Republican National Convention. (And trust me, there are plenty more where that came from.)

Northern Exposure of the Day

"Canada needs to dismantle its public health care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit." -- Sarah Palin on November 24, 2009.

Despite comments like the one above, Palin relayed the following story during a speech in Calgary on Saturday night: "My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not -- this was in the '60s -- we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse. And I think, isn't that kind of ironic now? Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada."

Ironic indeed. While it is obvious that Skagway is a very small town, I am slightly confused why Palin's family, despite her brother suffering from a burn, had to travel the approximate 109 miles to Whitehorse for medical treatment. This is especially due to the fact that Skagway is only eighteen miles from Haines, AK. And while Haines is not a major city either, its population in 1970 (one year after Palin and her family left Skagway) was close to 1,100. Are you telling me that there wasn't any medical treatment available between those two towns? But that's neither here nor there. What is disconcerting is that Palin seems to continue her practice of altering her stories and background to fit her audience. In May 2007, "The Skagway News" reported a different tale: "Her brother burned his foot badly jumping through a fire and her mother had to take him down to Juneau on the ferry to the hospital." And in case you were wondering, Palin only has one brother and Juneau is approximately ninety-six miles from Skagway.

Northern Exposure of the Day

"I don’t think it will be the day after day after day of ethics violation charges that are frivolous, that are ridiculous. I think, on a national level, your Department of Law there in the White House would look at this, the things we have been charged with, and automatically throw them out, not make somebody hire their own personal attorney to get out there and fight." -- Sarah Palin on July 7, 2009, discussing if she could avoid ethics allegations as the President of the United States.

Palin declared that the ethics violations charges she received (and the time and money the state devoted to the investigations) while Governor of Alaska are supposedly one of the reasons she resigned from her position. And yes, you read the above quote correctly. She said "Department of Law".

Mr. Goose, Meet Mr. Gander

Republicans are complaining about the Democrats' possible use of the perfectly legal reconciliation process in order to avoid filibusters against President Obama's health care reform bill. As a matter of fact, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) whined in an op-ed piece in "The Washington Post" from earlier this week, claiming the Democrats, in order "to circumvent bipartisan opposition", are considering reconciliation "to ram through the Senate a multitrillion dollar health care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can't afford".

First and foremost, the health care reform bill has been estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to cost less than $1 trillion, not multitrillion dollars as Hatch maintains. Not only that but the legislation has already been passed in the Senate by a supermajority under the standard rules. Reconciliation is only being discussed as an expedited way to amend the bill, thereby avoiding an expected filibuster by the Republicans. With that being said, along with the excerpts above, Hatch also offered these comments to obviously tug at the heartstrings of the right: "This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship." This certainly sounds a lot different than the Hatch from April 2001 who, while on FOX News, discussed the Republicans' first use of the reconciliation process in the Bush presidency: "I think we can do a reconciliation bill that'll have an overwhelming number of Senators and Congresspeople voting for this $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion tax cut." In fact, aside from the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act to which Hatch was referring, the Republican led Congress during the Bush administration utilized the reconciliation process for the following legislation:

• Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (criticized for primarily providing tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals)
• Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (this legislation, dubbed the Nursing Home Bankruptcy Act by its opponents, passed the Senate with the tie breaking vote cast by Mr. Cheney)
• Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax cuts in this bill would increase budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and $340 billion by 2008)

And let's not forget that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) uttered similar statements last year when the Democrats were considering the reconciliation process in order to pass President Obama's budget plan. (However, Gregg certainly went over the top with his remarks by declaring "You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.") But as is the case with Hatch, Gregg sang a different tune when he was debating the passing of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in 2005 with the help of reconciliation: "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so." and "If you have fifty-one votes for your position, you win."

Religious Zealotry Is Fun For Everybody, Part II

In my previous posting, I commented on State Del. Robert Marshall (R-VA) and his recent press conference regarding the state funding received by the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood. And while Marshall continued to unsuccessfully justify his offensive remarks towards disabled children, additional elements of this story have surfaced.

Marshall has claimed that Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500,000 annually from the State of Virginia. However, he was (not surprisingly) unable to provide any evidence for that number when asked to do so. Craig Markva, the Director of Communication at the Department of Medical Assistance Services, stated that the $35,006 Planned Parenthood received in the 2009 fiscal year was strictly from Medicaid re-imbursements. And according to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in January, the Department of Health was engaged in a contract with Planned Parenthood to provide HIV prevention services in juvenile detention centers, for which Planned Parenthood received more than $28,000 during the 2009 fiscal year. Maybe it's just me but there seems to be a rather large gap between $63,000 and $500,000.

Of course, the pro-life nutjobs would lead you to believe that Planned Parenthood is performing abortion after abortion behind closed doors, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. But every rational individual realizes that it is not the case. In fact, the organization provides a number of different services, including general health care (cholesterol screening, flu vaccinations, etc.), HIV testing, hepatitis vaccinations, men's health (infertility screenings, prostate and testicular cancer screenings, etc.) and women's health (breast exams, cervical cancer screenings, etc.)

Aside from Marshall, another issue proving to be just as annoying to Planned Parenthood are pro-choice bills currently in both the Senate and House of Delegates within the General Assembly. Sponsored by the organization itself, this legislation advocates a speciality license plate with the slogan "Trust Women. Respect Choice." and would counteract the "Choose Life” license plate approved by the General Assembly last year. State Del. Todd Gilbert (R-VA) amended the House version of the bill last month, directing a portion of the revenue from the new license plate to the Virginia Pregnant Women Support Fund managed by the State of Virginia. (Gilbert proposed the amendment because apparently he and his XY chromosomes disagree with the actions of Planned Parenthood: "I don’t know if we’ve ever had a plate that had a message that was inconsistent…with the mission of the sponsoring organization. They consistently do not trust women to make informed choices.")

Now back to what Gilbert proposed. The Department of Motor Vehicles has reported that at least 1,899 of the "Choose Life" license plates have been purchased since 2009, channeling $13,485 to Heartbeat International, a non-profit Christian organization which funds anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers worldwide. Therefore, if the "Choose Life" license plate is directing funds to organizations such as Heartbeat International, then why should the new license plate be responsible for that as well? By the way, up until it was recently reported by "The Washington Post", one pregnancy center, the Mattingly Test Center in Ashburn, VA, was listed as a certified clinic (in other words, in good standing and eligible for funding) on Heartbeat International's web site. This is despite the fact that the Mattingly Test Center is a two-story brick residence with no signs indicating a clinic even exists, no record as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with the Internal Revenue Service and no registry as a corporation with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Is it possible that the clinic was listed on the web site for Heartbeat International because it is owned by Linda Mattingly, who is a former Vice President at Care Net, a Virginia based anti-abortion organization similar to Heartbeat International? Kristin Hansen, the Vice President of Communications at Care Net, amazingly claimed that the Mattingly Test Center is "not an entity we are aware of" and its designation as a certified clinic must have been an "inadvertent mistake" by Care Net. And if that wasn't enough, Peggy Hartshorn, the President of Heartbeat International, attempted to avoid the subject, stating the emphasis placed be placed on "the incredible work" that pregnancy centers provide. Hartshorn also contended that officials at Heartbeat International will closely examine pregnancy centers in Virginia as the state funding becomes available. I, of course, would have assumed that was already occurring but I guess not when nepotism comes into play.

Last but not least, representatives from Planned Parenthood have insisted that the revenue earned from the new license plate will not be appropriated for abortions but instead for preventative services, such as cancer and HIV screenings. Gilbert's response? "Well, it certainly frees up other money that they can use for abortion services." This is obviously a complete stretch. That's like saying the funds Heartbeat International receives from the sale of the "Choose Life" license plates are distributed to fake pregnancy centers owned by former executives at similar organizations. Then again, maybe it wasn't a stretch.