Pace: the final frontier, chapter 14 — Windfall for the wingnuts

When last we visited the constitutional clusterfuck that is the Pace (Fla.) school prayer issue, we learned that after securing a remarkably undeserved victory in federal district court, the crazed fundies who populate Santa Rosa County next planned to go after the consent decree itself -- the very agreement the county school district signed wherein they vowed to, you know, obey the U.S. Constitution and not have organized prayer in public schools. Leading this fight, as they did for the three Pace High School administrators cleared of wrongdoing, would be Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a legal organization (in the loosest sense of the term) made up of fundamentalist whackjobs who actually want nothing whatsoever to do with liberty. Instead, according to their website, they are focused on "restoring the culture one case at a time by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family," which naturally means intruding into our bedrooms, our classrooms, our bodies, and our very lives to push their special brand of Christianist uniformity. (Obviously their definition of "culture" differs from that of normal people.)

Well, thanks to all those good folks in Pace and elsewhere who ponied up over $73,000 for the administrators' defense, which cost barely more than $8,500*, Liberty Counsel will get the difference:

The Lay-Freeman Defense Fund, headed by Milton insurance agent Robert Smith, raised $73,388 for Lay and Freeman's defense against charges that they violated a court order to discontinue the practice of faculty-led religious activities at school events and on school property.

"From the outset, we told people who contributed that any money left over from the legal defense fund would be donated to Liberty Counsel," Smith said.

[...]

"We're certainly pleased with the donation," Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said on Thursday.

[...]

"There's a lot more activity we will do on this case," he said. "We expect to spend more to prepare for this trial that is coming up."

Liberty Counsel is representing Christian Educators Association International, which is seeking to change the agreement between the ACLU and the School District. A hearing is set for Dec. 2 at the federal courthouse in Pensacola.

Yeah, I'm sure you're pleased with the donation, Mat. Just in time to do more of your nefarious, freedom-hating work, like trying to push Christianist prayer back into public schools or encouraging your deluded followers to pray for a liberal (see logo at right). What a bunch of sick fucks.

But you've definitely got one thing going for you on December 2, Mat: home-court advantage. It's clear the political and personal pressure your followers put on the federal court in Pensacola -- not the law -- won you the earlier decision ... and you're probably going to turn the screws again. So much for freedom.

---

* Curiously, the article says $8,908 went to Pensacola attorney Barry Beroset, but according to the same article, $73,388 was raised and $64,840 was donated to Liberty Counsel -- a difference of $8,548. Not sure where the discrepancy comes from ... or whether it really matters. Just an observation ...

Remember "states' rights?" Republicans in Florida do

Students of American history learn that while slavery per sé may not have been a root cause of the Civil War, certainly the dispute over states' rights was a key factor ... and one of those "rights" over which the states fought was slavery. Well, the wingnuts never really have let go of the states' rights argument, which they've applied to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, education issues, gay rights .... and now, the debate over health care reform.

Two Florida legislators have introduced a bill that purportedly would keep the state's employers from having to follow any federal health care system:

Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, and Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, are behind the Florida Health Care Freedom Act. Twenty-four House members, including Peter Nehr, R-Tarpon Springs, are co-sponsors.

Legal scholars question whether such an amendment would have the desired effect, and backers acknowledge the challenge. But they see the measure as consistent with a larger campaign to combat expansion of federal power.

"This amendment draws a line in the sand about socialized medicine," Baker told a crowd of about 60 people at Tucson's Southwest Grill in Clearwater [Sept. 15].

Unlike some public discussions of Obama's plan to revamp health care, the tone of Tuesday's gathering remained civil, though it was certainly spirited. Those gathered overwhelmingly supported the amendment.

"Do you really want to put your life, your health care, into the hands of some weenie up in Washington?" asked Steven F. Burden, a 53-year-old software engineer from Lutz.

Under Obama's proposal, large businesses — those with more than 50 employees — would be required to provide insurance for their employees or pay a fee, and individuals would be required to purchase health insurance. Tax credits would be available to help cover the cost for individuals. Those unable to afford insurance could get hardship waivers.

The proposed amendment seeks to nullify these provisions by barring employers and individuals from being compelled by law to "participate in any health care system."

I guess the idiots who support this proposal, like the above-quoted Mr. Burden (how's that for an appropriate name for someone opposed to health care reform?) would rather have their life and health care in the hands of "some weenie" in an insurance company -- you know, like it is now. Said idiots also are completely ignorant about the law -- again, how is it that people who don't understand the law keep getting elected to make our laws? -- because they obviously fail to understand that, under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, any state legislation in this area would be superseded by federal law. In other words, the bill proposed by Baker and Plakon can have no effect -- by definition. If there's no health care reform, their bill is moot, and if there is, the bill is "preempted" by the federal scheme of legislation.

Hold on, though ... Carey Baker? Where have I heard that name before?

Oh, yeah! Baker is the gun nut who wants to be Agriculture Commissioner ... so he can oversee the gun permitting process! I knew I remembered him from somewhere ....

Anyway, the grandstanding is great red-meat for the radical Republican base, the "21-percenters" who still think Drunky McStagger was a great president, but it's ultimately useless. Kind of like the space Baker and Plakon are taking up in Tallahassee. But, you know, it's just another day at the office for the wingnut-dominated Florida legislature, where "common sense" is a four-letter word.

UPDATE (10:37 am 9/23/09): Here's another historical take on the futility of what Baker and Plakon are trying to do, courtesy of FOBO (Friend of Blast Off!) Ray Seaman of Progress Florida. Nullification fever: CATCH IT!

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 13 — The show goes on

Sorry, folks. I guess I kind of took the weekend off. It was inadvertent, though, so it's okay -- per the lesson we learned on Thursday in federal court in Pensacola: everything's okay so long as it's accidental. But I digress ....

Fresh off their stunning (and, to my mind, legally questionable) victory in federal court last week, the radical Christianists of Santa Rosa County are taking their Crusade Against the Constitution™ to the very heart of the issue. Next, they're going to try to have the consent decree (PDF) overturned* on the ground that it's unconstitutional.

But now, the nonprofit Liberty Counsel, a legal firm representing the Christian Educators [Association International], says the district went too far in its concessions to the ACLU.

Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, says the agreement fails to draw explicit distinctions between educators in their roles as government agents and their roles as private citizens.

"I think this order is too broad," he said. "When you are dealing with the First Amendment, you have to use a scalpel and a chain saw. You have to be very precise because you risk violating the rights of free speech and the rights of the School District employees."

Christian Educators has filed a motion to participate in the case with the goal of either changing the agreement or scrapping it. On Tuesday, it plans to file its written legal argument to participate.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers has scheduled a Dec. 2 and 3 hearing, after which she will decide whether the Christian Educators can take part.

If Rodgers doesn't allow Christian Educators to become a party to the lawsuit, the group plans to sue the School District.

"We're not going away and let this order continue to confuse and confound students and staff," Staver said.

Oh, come on, Mat -- "confound?" Are you saying students and staff in Santa Rosa County are so dumb that they can't comprehend the simple declaratory language of the decree, which explicitly states that there shall be no "promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events," where the decree clearly defines "School Events?" You know and I know that private, individual or even small group prayers -- for example, privately saying grace before lunch -- are not prohibited by the consent decree. You just want to stir up more trouble and more publicity for your organization. I mean, you can't even spell "Matt," so why should we trust you about anything?**

Never mind that the U.S. Constitution prohibits governments -- federal, state, and local -- from the establishment of a religion. The whackjob Christianists won't be happy until we're a theocracy -- that, folks, is quite clear and indisputable, Joe Scarborough's hand-wringing tut-tuttery notwithstanding.

So, Judge Rodgers gets another crack at the issue, although her first hearing, in December, is merely about whether the Christian Educators can intervene. I don't really care one way or another whether they are a party to the lawsuit -- hell, the more, the merrier. But the real question is, when the actual merits of constitutionality come before her early next year, will she side with the Constitution or buckle to political pressure again? Stay tuned ....

---

* If you have no idea what I'm talking about, click here (and scroll past this post) for all the background.

** Yeah, okay, I'm just being silly here.

Too stupid to breathe: Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Dumbfuckistan)

The stupid is strong with this one.

Sometimes I wonder how U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Chumuckla ... that's right, Chumuckla) got elected to Congress in the first place. Then I remember who elected him ... what his district looks like. And suddenly I get it.

You see, one can keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool. But yesterday, Jeff Miller got up on the floor of the House of Representatives and removed all doubt with regard to himself. And believe it or not, his fellow whackjob Christianists in Congress, the "Prayer Caucus," actually put the speech up on YouTube so the whole world could enjoy the lunacy:

Pandering is one thing, but making a complete travesty of fact and logic in order to do so, well, that takes special talent ... a talent Jeff Miller obviously has in copious amounts. You don't suppose the fact that Frank Lay and Robert Freeman are going to trial today had anything to do with Miller's epic oratory yesterday, do you?

Anyway, I'm going to have to give you the transcript of the speech, so you can get the full effect (italicized emphasis in original; boldface emphasis is mine):

Mr. Speaker, there is trouble brewing in the small community of Pace, Fla., a community of less than 8,000 people just south of my hometown, and full of hard-working Americans, where I believe that a federal judge has gone well outside the bounds of the Constitution to declare that prayer offered among adults is illegal. That's right: the judicial branch is once again trying to act like the legislative branch, and in doing so is hindering the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a lawyer -- this is not a courtroom -- but as a member of Congress, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me, God. That's what I intend to do.

The facts of the case in Does v. School Board of Santa Rosa County are clear. The federal district court, without a hearing, issued an injunction preventing any school employee from promoting or facilitating prayer at any school-sponsored event. That action alone tramples upon the First Amendment rights of a specific group of people, denying them the equal protection that's provided under the very Constitution that we believe in.

The same federal district court has now gone on to prohibit all employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities. The same court now thinks that Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman violated this injunction at a private event, with zero student participation. That the court would somehow consider this action to be criminal behavior [is un]conscionable. However, Frank Lay and Robert Freeman now face criminal contempt charges for praying before a meal that was to be shared. All of this despite the fact that the Supreme Court itself has found that the Free Speech Clause protects private religious speech. The Supreme Court has further gone to find that not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at a school-sponsored event is attributable to the government.

As lawmakers, we cannot sit idly by and let this happen. As members of Congress, we must act to uphold the Constitution. And as Americans, we must fight to ensure that our rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not taken away.

America is a nation of principles. We can sit here all night and argue about whether we are a nation of Judeo-Christian principles or of secular principles. But the fact is that our Constitution protects all Americans, and a court has no place deciding that some Americans do not warrant those protections. The Founding Fathers would be appalled, and I certainly am as well. I yield back ...

Now, it's tempting to take apart Rep. Pander's Miller's speech point-by-point, but anyone with half a brain can do that. Still, for the benefit of the wingnuts who lack that half-brain, a few pertinent points:

• If you're not a lawyer, then don't argue the law, dumbass. You "believe" the court went beyond the bounds of the Constitution? Do you believe in Santa Claus, too? You'd be just as credible if you do.
  


• No one makes the judicial branch act more like a legislative branch than some of the wingnuts on the U.S. Supreme Court, like Justice Antonin Scalia, who are notorious judicial activists. Bush v. Gore, anyone?


• The Constitution doesn't exist to protect the rights of the majority, Rep. Miller, but of the minority. No one's rights are being "trampled" by being forbidden to conduct organized prayer at a school-sponsored event; rather, the rights of non-Christians to not be subjected to such prayer ought to be the paramount concern. You should have learned that in civics class, congressman. Aren't you smarter than a fifth grader?


• A private event, with no students present? According to the complaint originally filed, the congressman is just flat-out wrong here:
  
  

  During a school-day luncheon on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at the Dedication of the new Field House at Pace High School, Defendant Principal Frank Lay asked Robert Earl Freeman, Pace High Athletic Director, to offer a prayer to bless the food. See Ex. 86-02 at 1-4 (“In a traditional manner [Mr. Lay] asked Athletic Director, Robert Freeman to bless the food for the adults in attendance. Respectfully he responded to [Mr. Lay’s] request.” Id. at 1. “Principal Frank Lay asked [Mr. Freeman] to give thanks for our lunch, which [Mr. Freeman] did.” Id. at 2. “[Mr. Lay] asked Robert Freeman to ask a blessing on the food. [Mr. Lay] shared that [he is], and [was] at the date of this incident, aware of the court injunction and aware that this type of action is not permissible under the injunction.” Id. at p. 3.).
  
  Upon Mr. Lay’s request, Mr. Freeman offered a prayer at the event. Pace High students and faculty and community members were present at the Dedication of the new Field House. In response to Mr. Lay asking Mr. Freeman to pray and Mr. Freeman praying at a school event on Jan. 28, 2009, Defendant Superintendent instructed Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman to “avoid this type of action as it not permitted or [sic] as per the attached injunction.” Ex. 86-02 at 3-4. Although the actions of Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman appear to be in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction, Defendant Superintendent nevertheless ends his “reprimand” by thanking them “for [their] leadership at Pace High School.” Id.

  Seems pretty clear to me that the event was not private and students were there, unless Rep. Miller astonishingly has access to evidence that shows otherwise. I can't imagine the plaintiffs would have included it in their complaint if it weren't true, since it's so easy to prove or disprove objectively. Besides, even if students were not present, the luncheon still would be a "school-sponsored event," not a private one as he alleges, and this obviously is not "private religious speech" as Rep. Miller suggests. Again, Jeff: not lawyer? Don't argue law.


• It should go without saying that courts decide all the time that some Americans don't warrant certain protections. Time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech are just one basic example of how courts and the law restrain constitutional rights. I shouldn't expect Jeff Miller to know this but, as a member of Congress, it sure would be nice if he did.
  


• Finally (for the purposes of this post), the Founding Fathers would be delighted, not appalled, that their wishes had been carried out. For starters, read Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a significant source for the First Amendment, which spells out precisely why people should be free from having a particular set of religious beliefs imposed on them. Bottom line: this isn't a freedom-of-speech issue, and the only part of the First Amendment implicated here is the Establishment Clause, which the court is trying to uphold.

Sure, I'm a lawyer, but it took me all of five minutes to find most of this stuff on the Internet. You'd think a freakin' member of Congress could do it pretty easily, too. But, apparently that's not the case for my very own congresscritter, Jeff Miller, who clearly and painfully is too stupid to breathe.

UPDATE (9/17/09 11:17 am): I see someone from Reston, Va., near D.C., just stopped by to read this post, having found it on something called "ReputationConnect.com." You don't suppose Jeff is checking to see what people think of him, do you?

Ah, never mind ... I'm not even sure he knows how to pull stuff through the intertubes, because if he did, he could have debunked his whole speech in minutes, even before he delivered it.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 9 — They never learn

Based on my observations of the Florida panhandle town of Pace over the last several months (scroll down at the link to read earlier coverage), I've learned that the town values three things above all else: God, country, and high school football. And not necessarily in that order.

Last night, the Pace Patriots opened their 2009 varsity football season by hosting Daphne (Ala.) High, and it was a successful start for the home team as they avenged last year's loss in Alabama by topping the Trojans, 27-7.

But of course the assembled multitude couldn't manage to resist sticking their collective finger in the eye of the Constitution yet again. Blast Off! received an exclusive eyewitness account afterwards from one who attended the game, and our correspondent reported that immediately after the National Anthem, some students with a bullhorn led the crowd in a recitation of the Lord's Prayer. In addition, before the game students circulated throughout the crowd, distributing prayer cards with the Lord's Prayer on one side and the sponsors of the cards (some of whom, says the correspondent, are the very people spearheading the fundraising drive for the PHS principal's legal defense fund) listed on the reverse.

Remember, Santa Rosa County's public schools -- including Pace High -- are under a court order (via a consent decree) that forbids any and all organized religious activity at school events, which presumably would include a football game. The school's principal and athletic director already face criminal contempt charges for their own failure to comply with the court's ruling. And the populace, including students, apparently just LOVE to defy federal law.

What is wrong with these people? Why do they hate America? They characterize the court's actions as some sort of assault on their freedom to pray when, in actuality, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows, they are the ones trampling on freedoms, ignoring the Constitution, and spitting in the face of the very country they profess to love so much.

But they prayed at a football game, so I guess they sure showed us. Whatever. Hopefully soon enough these people will learn that there are real consequences to their deliberate violations of constitutional law.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 8 — Ignorance reigns supreme

Remember that long post I said I wanted to write? Well, this is it ... and it still doesn't cover everything I wanted to address.

If you've been following the Pace High School prayer story since its inception (and if you haven't, you can catch up here, scrolling past this current post), you know that public opinion out of Santa Rosa County and the greater Pensacola area has been strongly in favor of the illegal actions of Pace High principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman. To me, this shows nothing more than (1) people around here don't care much about the law, and (2) supporters of the two men essentially are ignorant.

Don't get me wrong: if they want to throw money away contributing to Lay's soon-to-be-unsuccessful legal defense, more power to them. The problem here is not that they want to support their friend/colleague/fellow Jesus-worshipper, but rather the overriding attitude that their worship of Jesus somehow puts them (and Lay) above the law.

"We feel what Frank Lay has done echoes the conscience of the community," said [Lay's friend, insurance salesman Robert] Smith, a former Santa Rosa county commissioner and, more recently, the leader of an unsuccessful charge to keep liquor sales out of the county.

"Our school district in Santa Rosa County is so unique. We continue to excel academically. There's something going on over here that's right, and we think this is part of it."

The Rev. Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, also is lending a hand by promoting the legal-defense fund on his blog. Lay is an 11-year member of Olive Baptist and a deacon there.

Traylor, who writes his personal views every Tuesday and Friday, said Lay and Freeman shouldn't face charges for asking a blessing.

"To quote the Commander in Chief on another issue: this is acting stupidly," he wrote. "But, this is the America we live in today. Socialism is next. Then comes communism. If we do not stand with Frank, they will come and take us away next."

Oh, come on, Rev. Traylor! They'll be far too busy taking away your guns and your hard-earned money to come and take you away! Seriously, though, you see what I mean? These people place the "conscience of the community" above the U.S. Constitution!

Smith is even producing T-shirts (shown at right, courtesy of WALA Fox10 News) that completely (and, I imagine, intentionally) misrepresent the issue, asserting that the very institution of prayer is under assault here (whereas, as has been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere until I'm blue in the face, no one seriously is contending that the students can't pray -- even in school! It's merely prayer organized and led or approved by public school personnel that is proscribed by law!).

But, unfortunately, such ignorance is not just limited to Lay's friends. Check out the craziness that has appeared in recent letters to the editor in the Pensacola News Journal:

August 11:

The name may be Frank Lay, but everything I have seen in the man is "stand-up." Meanwhile, the un-American Casualty of Liberties Union is attempting to take away the very liberties they purportedly are trying to protect.

Most men lie down at the first sign of real adversity; not Frank Lay. This man has spent his career educating our youth, instilling professionalism in students and teachers alike, molding discipline and character. Lay, in my opinion, has the intellect to manage at the highest corporate level but he chose to be a servant and give instead of take; a man of integrity; a man of courage to speak his mind; a man who actually lives the faith that harbors his soul.

As I look around and see the decadence and immorality cascading to levels unseen, I am overwhelmed that we still have great American men who take a stand to protect what our forefathers forged more than 200 years ago.

— Carl F. King II

Hey, I think it's great that Frank Lay is a man of faith. He should feel free to practice his faith in church, at home, even in a public forum ... but not in a place where his professional authority is conferred by the government. As for "protect[ing] what our forefathers forged more than 200 years ago," I'm not sure what Mr. King thinks was "forged" back then, but it definitely was not the ability to foist one's particular faith onto others with the backing of the government. Religious freedom means not only practicing whatever religion you wish (or none at all), but also freedom from governmental establishment of religion. More on that below ...

Also from August 11:

In my opinion I think U. S. District Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers should be ashamed of herself for instigating these charges against Mr. Lay.

In God We Trust.

— Carol Alfonsin Boyle

Setting aside for the moment the fact that "instigating" doesn't mean what Ms. Boyle apparently thinks it means, Judge Rodgers is sworn to uphold the law, which in this case means enforcing the consent decree she approved, one to which the Santa Rosa County School District agreed. Lay and Freeman violated the decree; that is contempt of court under the law. The real shame is that Ms. Boyle deigns to tell a federal judge how to do her job.

August 14:

While wackos kill innocent folks in gyms and schools, murdering commandos kill a Beulah couple, lunatics, robbers, rapists, illegals, gangs and drug dealers roam our land at will, we're wasting money we don't have and manpower we can't afford prosecuting two revered school teachers who are widely credited for helping turn out the best-educated students in Florida for the federal criminal offense of praying before a meal. Where is the ACLU when their rights are trampled?

If Frank Lay and Robert Freeman are dubbed criminals, this surely will end as a tragedy we will see as a weakened school system. If this is the sorry thanks we give to two good men who have dedicated their lives to bettering our children, then fewer good men will volunteer.

In a play off a statement made by our first lady, I am finally ashamed of our country.

— Sandy Wyatt, Pace

[...]

I have grandchildren coming up in this world. I wish there were something I could do to stop this insanity. Why are "they" so afraid of God? I pray that this mess will be straightened out and with a happy ending.

— Devona Willis, Laurel Hill

Ms. Wyatt, why do you hate America? The only weakening of the (public) school system would be if school officials were permitted to impose their Christian beliefs on the students, some of whom are not Christian and likely some of whom do not believe in God. If a parent wants Christian education, there are plenty of private schools that would be more than willing to accept Pace's students. To put it simply: religious indoctrination has no place in public school.

By the way, Ms. Wyatt, the criminal offense wasn't "praying before a meal;" it was violating a temporary injunction against school activities that violate the U.S. Constitution -- violations Santa Rosa County school officials previously were more than willing to commit. But nice strawman argument anyway ...

And Ms. Willis, I would respond by asking why "you" are so afraid of the law and the Constitution? This isn't insanity; no one is being told they can't pray (or they shouldn't be told that) -- just that they can't have prayer led by public school officials. Big difference ...

August 18:

I believe civil disobedience (for Christians) is justified when God's principles are opposed.

There is only one God, the one who enjoys Frank Lay's allegiance! Lay is a man of God, not ashamed of His Master! America needs more like him, like most of our founding fathers. This mother of a Pace High graduate was grateful he was in that environment.

If every "Christian" in the educational system took a stand for God, we could take back our public schools and our beloved country from Satan's bunch. The ACLU would get a run for its money.

Liberal judges need to know the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, before it's too late. We'll all stand before the Judge of Judges one day.

Our School Board should never have signed the "consent decree." I wasn't surprised at the member who reported the incident. She opposed the elective Bible course offered years ago. Thank God for Chuck Norris and his wife who researched the legality thereof.

God bless you all as only he can.

— Chrys Holley, Milton

This letter practically defines the "whackjob Christianist" genre. Ms. Holley seems to think only Christians have a right to civil disobedience -- this in a country founded on the right to worship as one wishes, or not at all. It would be difficult to be more wrong (in light of settled American law and jurisprudence) than this letter ...

I think it's great, Ms. Holley, how happy you are for your son having graduated from Pace High. But how should the students from Jewish families or Muslim families or atheist families react to that? See, Ms. Holley, you don't have the right to push your beliefs on others in a public school. That's the bottom line. And if you don't like it, you're free to try to repeal that part of the First Amendment. Good luck with that.

August 19:

We have a constitutional right to free speech, not to be protected from what we don't want to hear. All of us have to listen to things we do not like, such as the vitriol launched against those who believe in prayer.

It is wrong for a few unbelievers to tyrannize and prevent the free speech of the majority and to prevent the free speech of student leaders because of what they might say. No one is forced to join in.

Congress prays. The Constitutional Convention in June of 1787, stymied by its members' disagreements, began to pray daily at the suggestion of Ben Franklin. National days of prayer and fasting were commonly declared in the early days of our nation.

It is not prayer that is the problem in this country today; it is the lack of it and the denial to God of His proper place in our lives that are.

— Carolyn Hinton, Pensacola

Where did you earn your law degree, Ms. Hinton? Free speech is not absolute -- American courts, including the Supreme Court, long have recognized limits to free speech. These limits include certain restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech and limits on free speech in public schools. Religious indoctrination simply is not permitted in public schools, and it shouldn't be permitted now.

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution does not exist to ensure the rights of the majority, Ms. Hinton; rather, it serves to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we followed your rules, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote. Fortunately on both counts, that's not the case. As for "no one is forced to join in," that's just bullshit and everyone knows it. What constitutes "forced" in your opinion, Ms. Hinton? If a Jewish child doesn't want to pray to the Christian God, do you think he or she will feel free to decline in a Santa Rosa County public school and, more to the point, that said child won't be ostracized for failing to pray?

Sure, Congress prays. But there are limits to the prayers, the prayers are offered by various denominations including Jewish rabbis and Muslim clerics, and the members of Congress are adults who are capable of declining to pray or not deriding others who choose not to pray. This isn't a freedom of speech issue -- it's an issue of freedom from the establishment of religion, which is expressly provided by the First Amendment.

Get over yourself, Ms. Hinton. Your attitude sucks.

But the very best example of this kind of stark raving Christianist lunacy comes from one Dorothy Jacobs of Pensacola, who brilliantly argued in a letter published on August 20 (page 2 at link), "Wake up, America! The Constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Will we soon be called the United Soviet Socialist States of America?" Precisely wrong, Ms. Jacobs, as the First Amendment provides for both freedom of and freedom from religion. And what this has to do with socialism -- an economic theory -- I have absolutely no idea. She's probably just railing against that eeeeeevil black man in the White House ....

I know this was a long post, but I think it was necessary for you to understand exactly what we reality-based people have to face in northwest Florida. The News Journal runs letters at least two-to-one in favor of Lay and Freeman; whether that's reflective of their own bias or the number of letters they're getting, I don't know. Either way, it's frightening to see the lack of respect for the Constitution around here.

I've generally opposed the idea of jail time for Lay and Freeman, who will face their criminal contempt charges in a September 17 hearing ... but if giving the two wrongdoers a little time behind bars will wake up the Christianists to the reality that they can't impose their fundamentalist "values" in a public school setting, then maybe locking them up for a bit is the right way to go.

(More discussion on this tonight on Blast Off! Radio at a special time, 7:00 pm Eastern .... details to come show details are here.)

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 6 — Criminal charges for prayer in school

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The controversy over prayer in school in Pace, Fla., just won't go away.

Can the staff at Pace High School not comprehend the Constitution? Hell, they don't even have to understand the Constitution -- all they have to do is comprehend and follow the consent decree to which their bosses at the Santa Rosa County School District agreed. But, no, apparently that's too much for at least three members of the Pace High staff:

Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and his athletic director, Robert Freeman, now face criminal contempt charges that accuse them of violating a federal court order banning Santa Rosa County school officials from leading prayers at school events.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers instigated the criminal charges against Lay and Freeman on July 22, according to Lay's attorney, Horatio Mihet of Orlando.

Lay formerly faced a civil contempt charge, which could have resulted in a fine. Freeman was not charged at all.

Rodgers' decision to turn the case into a criminal matter against Lay and Freeman means they could be sentenced to jail or fined, if found in contempt.

[...]

In a separate matter, Michelle Winkler, a School District clerical assistant, faces a civil contempt charge instigated by the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Feb. 20, at the School-Related Employee of the Year banquet, Winkler was asked to offer a "thought for the day." Instead, she turned to her husband, who is not a School District employee, and asked him to offer a prayer.

Now, I doubt Lay and Freeman will do any jail time for their transgressions, but they absolutely are getting what they deserve. They have flouted the law, claiming some kind of moral superiority as Christians, and they've been supported (or, at least, not opposed) in their efforts by the entire school district structure -- why else do Lay and Freeman still have their jobs? And Winkler's act specifically was condoned, if not approved, by school district personnel:

On Jan. 23, Jud Crane, the district's director of purchasing and a coordinator of the Employee of the Year banquet, e-mailed Winkler that she would most likely would not be allowed to offer a prayer at the event but would have to offer a "thought for the day" and a moment of silence.

Winkler e-mailed back that she wanted to use a prayer she "prayed about and received from God," that she was "unfearful of the current events," and she would "suffer whatever consequences for."

"I cannot be silent as God is my very life and Christ is who I am," she wrote.

Crane asked Winkler to send him the prayer.

"I'm with you ... but I'll get it cleared," he wrote.

After checking with School Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick, Crane wrote Winkler on Jan. 26 that the prayer would not be allowed.

"I'm with you?" Way to enforce that consent decree, Jud.

Look, folks: there isn't room for negotiation here under the law. You can't organize prayers at public school events -- not just because of the consent decree (which merely enforces the already-existing law), but because of the United States Constitution (ever heard of that?). If Christ is who you are, Ms. Winkler, that's fine for you -- but you can't foist that upon everyone around you, not legally. Believe it or not, not everyone agrees with you -- not even in Pace.

The fact that Frank Lay and Robert Freeman still are employed by the Santa Rosa County School District just proves that the district has no respect for law, nor for Judge Rodgers and the federal district court. If Superintendent Wyrosdick fails to take appropriate action to prevent further violations of the consent decree -- by firing school personnel who cannot conform their actions to the law -- then he, too, is demonstrating his contempt for the law and should face legal sanctions. A mere "slap on the wrist" or, worse, ignoring the transgressions of Lay, Freeman, and Winkler will only empower the Christianists in their illegal efforts to practice invidious religious discrimination against those who disagree with them.

UPDATE (9:19 am 8/8/09): I understand there is an email circulating among parents of students in Pace, seeking financial support for Lay's legal defense. That's all well and good, but they characterize the actions of Lay (and Freeman, I gather) as merely "asking for a blessing" (paraphrased) at a school event ... as though a "blessing" somehow is distinct from a "prayer," and as though it's somehow permissible under the consent decree.

Whatever. It's like arguing with a brick wall, dealing with these rabid Christianists ....

(I'll post the email if I ever can get a hold of it ...)

Florida court: state must recognize same-sex adoptions from other states

As more and more states permit marriage between people of the same sex, thereby acknowledging that discrimination against the GLBT community is unjustifiable, one naturally would expect Florida, the land of "Amendment 2" and the proposed Jesus license plate, to lag behind in terms of joining the 21st Century. After all, Florida is the only state that bans all same-sex adoptions, no matter what the circumstances.

Yet yesterday, a state appeals court properly and unanimously ruled that despite its own prohibitions, under the U.S. Constitution (Art. IV, sec. 1) Florida must give "full faith and credit" to -- that is, recognize -- same-sex adoptions secured in other states.

While living as a couple in Seattle, Kimberly Ryan and Lara Embry each gave birth to one child. Each then adopted the other's child as the second parent. They moved to Sarasota and then split up, originally agreeing to share custody.

Ryan then became engaged to a man and cut off contact between her biological child and Embry, saying that under her new Christian beliefs she didn't think the relationship was good for the child. Embry sued for custody.

The lower court sided with Ryan, ruling that the Washington adoption had no legal standing in Florida because of its bans on gay adoption and marriage.

John Blue, who is representing Embry for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday's reversal of that decision protects the legal bond between adoptive parents and their children and ensures the stability of those relationships across state lines.

Ryan's attorney, Mathew Staver, said he plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Florida law does not allow homosexual adoptions, so logically they shouldn't be recognized from another state," said Staver, the founder and president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group.

Certainly this will go on to the state Supreme Court, as Staver vows, because we know from experience that when it comes to bigotry, the batshit crazy fundie crowd Just Won't Quit. But trying to argue "logic" to the Supreme Court isn't going to get you very far, Mr. Staver, when the law and the Constitution are against you.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Taking a Constitutional

While thinking about today's exciting edition of Blast Off! Radio, it occurred to me that there is really a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding regarding the U.S. Constitution. Now, that's not altogether surprising, considering the lengths to which the Bush crime syndicate went over their eight-year reign of terror to hide, obfuscate, ignore, and generally wipe their collective asses with the Constitution.

But even though Drunky McStagger rapidly is becoming a footnote in history and Dick "Dick" Cheney is busy working on his memoirs (at least according to President Obama), there still are a lot of -- well, for lack of a better word, morans out there (as shown at right). Therefore, today's show will focus on the U.S. Constitution, and we'll talk about some of the key points therein ... for example:

• The First Amendment, which gives us freedom of speech, as demonstrated so capably at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (a/k/a the "Nerdprom") on Saturday night by the president; and religious freedom, which is under attack again right here in northwest Florida as well as at a little college in Indiana you may have heard of;


• The Second Amendment, about which I'll have a little rant regarding the oft-ignored first clause: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."; and


• Article I, which establishes Congress, a body Florida governor Charlie Crist evidently would like to join -- we'll find out for sure tomorrow.

Of course, there's sure to be plenty of other topics to discuss, but much of that depends upon you, the Blast Off! Radio listener! Yes, you can participate -- in fact, it's encouraged -- and it's oh, so easy to do:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So please, make it a point to join me this afternoon for your daily constitutional. You'll be glad you did.

An oath so nice, they did it twice

Here's a story that escaped me yesterday: after the somewhat embarrassing screw-up by Chief Justice John Roberts when administering the oath of office to President Obama on Tuesday, the two arranged to have a do-over in the White House last evening.

"We decided it was so much fun ...," Obama joked while sitting on a couch in the Map Room. Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool reporters as Roberts donned his black robe.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

After a flawless recitation that included no Bible and took 25 seconds, Roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations, again."

Obama said, "Thank you, sir," and then added: "All right. The bad news for the [reporters] is there's 12 more balls."

[...]

In a statement, White House counsel Greg Craig said the oath was re-administered "out of an abundance of caution."

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself," Craig's statement said.

Two presidents -- Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur -- have retaken the oath because of unusual circumstances the first time around.

As an aside, isn't it nice to have a president with a genuinely good sense of humor?

Anyway, notwithstanding the fact that the oath itself is purely ceremonial and in fact has nothing to do with the president's actual accession to power (the 20th Amendment provides that the changeover occurs precisely at noon and does not stipulate the necessity of the oath), it was a nice touch to do it again, thereby silencing the screeching of the insane wingnuts who insist that by failing to take the correct oath on Tuesday, President Obama somehow is not really president. Yeah, I'll have what you're smoking, dude ...

Of course, the best laid plans ... The President did not use a Bible the second time around, so naturally the aforementioned screeching has taken a new tack:

jonfromcali wrote, "How long before the crazies start bloviating about the fact that Obama didn't use a Bible the time he got the oath right -- clear proof that he's a Muslim and doesn't plan to rule by Christian principles?..."

Not long.

goldmineman said, "Obama has still NOT been properly sworn in! He is NOT the POTUS until he says the oathe correctly (as written in the Constituion) and swears on the Bible. He ain't the president!"

And Bitter_Bill wrote, "He didn't use a Bible, for this, the official oath. Wonder why?"

Besides once again proving my maxim that Wingnuts Can't Spell, the utter contempt they have for facts is astonishing. A simple Google search reveals that the use of the Bible is a tradition, not a requirement, and indeed there have been presidents who did not use one at all -- for example, John Quincy Adams, who swore on a book of American laws.

So, in short, the wingnuts need to shut the hell up and enjoy the Obama presidency, as dignity, responsibility, and lawful behavior return to the White House after a painful eight-year absence.

T-shirt wisdom

There are certain sentiments that really ought to be kept to one's self. Unfortunately, and especially in the case of the most rabid fundies, some people can't resist foisting their narrow-minded and logically ludicrous opinions on others via that ubiquitous message board, the T-shirt.

Here's one I saw tonight in Deerfield Beach, Florida:

Dear God,
Why do you allow so much violence in our schools?
Signed, Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student,
I'm not allowed in the schools.
Signed, God

Setting aside for the moment my first thought -- of all people/deities, wouldn't God be the one you definitely could count on to sign off with "Love?" -- I don't think it would be possible to obscure the issue much more.

The U.S. Constitution says (or at least it did, before the Bush crime syndicate used it to wipe their collective asses) that there will be no law "respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Look, folks, God is present in the schools. Ever been around a group of students before a big test? Seriously, the issue is not barring God or religion from schools altogether -- rather, the law prohibits organized religious activity in schools.

Besides, how does God "allow" violence in schools? I never understood that whole concept: did God "allow" the Holocaust, or 9/11, or Katrina? If this God is so wonderful, wouldn't He or She find a way to prevent harm to people?

That's probably a deeper issue than I intended to address from a mere T-shirt. But we in the reality-based community never can forget what we're up against.

Laughable letters to the editor

There were a couple of doozies today in the Palm Beach Post, my local fishwrap.

For example, enjoy this gem from Dr. Donald W. McKinnon, who hastens to remind us that although he's from Riviera Beach, he's from the Singer Island (i.e., the wealthy and predominately white) part of Riviera Beach. Thanks for emphasizing that for us, Doc ...

When did this become a godless country? Why did the "In God We Trust" disappear from the new dollar coin, and now the new one-cent coin? Why are we doing nothing about this?

Is there no accountability left in our government? Regardless of the religion, be it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other of the numerous faiths in our country, they all acknowledge a god. This country was founded on the principles of religion. Who had the authority to change the coinage to eliminate the "In God We Trust?" The time has come to pinpoint accountability, and stand up for what we hold precious.

DR. DONALD W. McKINNON
Riviera Beach (Singer Island)

When did this become a godless country, you ask? Oh, around 1788, I'd say.

Don't scoff, Dr. McKinnon! It's common knowledge that the vast majority of the Founders were not Christians, and indeed, several were deists or just didn't believe in a "higher power" of any kind. Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson? Yep -- not a Christian.

See, the Constitution they drafted (yes, I understand you right-wing idiots don't follow the Constitution anymore, but just bear with me for the sake of argument) expressly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...." In other words ... we've always been godless, at least as a nation. Thanks to the rest of that clause, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," you can worship as you wish. But it's true -- America is godless. Suck. On. That.

Oh, and "this country was founded on principles of religion?" Where did you read that? Guideposts? There's not a shred of truth in that. Yes, there are ethical principles in our form of government (or were, before your heroes in the Bush crime syndicate took office) that are derived from or have cognates in Judeo-Christian beliefs, but to say the United States of America was "founded on principles of religion" is to ignore all responsible and respectable scholarship -- including first-hand accounts -- of the creation of our nation.

Thank you, Dr. McKinnon ... please drive through.

The next nugget comes from Charles Lyday of Boca Raton, who criticizes Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) for some recent discrepancies concerning his residence:

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney's residency issues sound like another politician's recent sorry story. Did Rep. Mahoney, D-Palm Beach Gardens, learn the same dignity, ethics, honor and values as Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach?

Mr. Lyday, for the sake of our country and the 16th District of Florida, I hope the answer to your question is a resounding yes. If Mahoney and others learned from the example of Robert Wexler, one of the most forceful, vigilant, and honorable liberals in Congress*, then I'd be delighted.

Where do they find these morons to write such drivel?

---

* Rep. Wexler's disappointing vote for the massive government bailout of big business notwithstanding ...

Florida voter suppression law remains valid, says federal judge

Even in its revised version, the law still sucks. But a federal court upheld it yesterday.

I'm referring to the Florida Legislature's latest attempt to keep undesirables (read: Democrats) from voting by requiring onerous identity checks at the polls. Naturally, the people most affected by the law will be lower-income people and minorities, both of whom tend to vote Democratic.

A federal judge has refused to block a new version of a Florida voter registration law that critics say could keep thousands of people from casting ballots this year.

U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle issued the ruling Tuesday in Gainesville. Last year, he granted a preliminary injunction against an earlier version of the law. He was reversed on appeal and the Legislature modified the law.

Both versions require elections officials to match Social Security, state identification or driver license numbers listed on voter registration applications with numbers in government databases.

"This ruling puts thousands of real Florida citizens at risk this November based on bureaucratic typos," lawyer Justin Levitt said Wednesday.

Levitt represents the Florida Conference of the National Association of Colored People and other groups challenging the law.

Under the new version, if the state is unable to match a number, an applicant can still register by providing verification of either his or her driver license, identity card or Social Security number regardless of which one was entered on the application.

Let's not kid ourselves. This bill was narrowly tailored for one reason: to provide a constitutionally valid way to limit access to the polls. You know, if the Repukes can't have their poll taxes or literacy tests, they'll take the next best thing.

This is heinous, it's craven, and it's a shame that Judge Mickle has decided to let it stand. I applauded him for rejecting the earlier version of the law, but the right to vote is perhaps the most dear -- basically, it's what makes us Americans. And limiting that right for specious reasons, as here, therefore is a greater assault on American liberty.

Call me breathless, say I'm overreacting ... but come back to this post in November and remember how Our Legislature found a way to skew the election long before then.

Professional courtesy

I guess it's something that legislators do for each other, like vote for each other's bills or set up dates with pages or campaign on their behalf, but it still seems a little weird to find Sens. Obama and Clinton as co-sponsors of this resolution, which I somehow managed to miss last month:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a 'natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term 'natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Yeah, I know, privilege and courtesy and all that ... and I never honestly believed the issue of Huggy Bear having been born in Panama was going to go anywhere as a matter of constitutional law.

[snark]

Still, isn't it great that the issue's off the table now?

[/snark]

(h/t NTodd)

Anti-gay marriage amendment makes Florida's ballot

The haters get a win ... for now.

Even though Florida currently does not permit gay couples to marry, a three-year-long effort to push for a vote on a constitutional amendment against gay marriage appears to have been successful.

Florida voters, who have been asked in the past eight years to approve smaller class sizes, ban smoking in restaurants and allow slot machines in South Florida, will decide in the fall of 2008 whether to put Florida's ban on same-sex marriage in the state Constitution.

The hot-button issue appears likely to spark an emotional debate from both sides and could likely prompt increased voter turnout during a year when Florida will once again become a battleground state in the presidential election.

But unlike past years, the 2008 ballot will not be crowded with constitutional amendments promoted by special interest groups. New ballot deadlines, as well as the new requirement that all amendments be approved by 60 percent of voters, have contracted the number of ballot initiatives that will be sent to voters.

[...]

Organizers of Florida4Marriage.Org began gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage in early 2005 and initially were aiming to get on the 2006 ballot, but did not get enough signatures to declare victory until this week.

This sort of thing represents the very worst in representative democracy, not to mention Florida's ridiculous process that ends up creating constitutional amendments at the drop of a hat. While the U.S. Constitution has existed for 220 years and has been amended only 27 times, the Florida Constitution most recently was revised in 1968 and since then has been amended a whopping 110 times.

Of course, this also demonstrates that bigots and hatemongers are still going strong in Florida, as they are in so many states. I never have understood the gay-marriage amendment concept from a legal perspective -- after all, gay marriage already is illegal in Florida. So what's the purpose of making it a constitutional amendment?

One rationale I've heard is that it prevents, say, a pro-gay marriage state legislature from making a routine change to a law; it raises the bar for subsequent changes. But, in Florida, we hardly have any bar at all to even constitutional changes -- get a few hundred thousand signatures and you're on the ballot. (Yes, that's a lot of signatures, but relative to the U.S. Constitution, it's pretty easy to change Florida's constitution.)

So, in my opinion, there's only one plausible reason for anyone to advocate or support a constitutional amendment "banning" the already-banned gay marriage: hate. Pure and simple. It's no longer okay to hate blacks or Jews or Hispanics, at least not openly, so the wingnuts are turning to gays (and Muslims, of course, but I digress) as an "acceptable" group on whom to practice their disgusting brand of bigotry.

To those who would say that gay marriage "destroys the institution of marriage," I ask you, how exactly is your marriage or that of anyone you know affected if a gay couple marries? Hell, I did just fine screwing up my two marriages, and whether or not gay marriage existed had nothing to do with their demise.

Anyway, see you on Election Day, haters and bigots. And, incidentally, nice job finding a good way to increase Democratic voter turnout, to oppose your deplorable referendum.

Bumper Sticker Review

Long, long ago, when Blast Off! was just a 98-post weakling, I had an occasional series called "Bumper Sticker Review." There were some crazy stickers around, especially in Brevard County at that time (2004), and it was all too easy to laugh at their idiocy.

Well, maybe it's about time to bring back the ol' BSR. I saw the following sticker this morning on I-95 in Palm Beach County:

Bring Prayer Back to School

Oh, Jesus H. Christ with salisbury steak and chocolate milk. Do the wingnut fundies fail to see the obvious: prayer has never been out of school!! No authority has ever advocated, to my knowledge, that one can't pray in school. Hell, even I was known to utter a prayer now and then: "Please, God, let me pass this exam" or, more likely, "Please, God, let [fill in girl's name] notice me -- and in a good way this time."

It's just organized prayer that is illegal. How about you keep your prayers to yourselves, where they belong? The Bible (yes, I've read it, more than once, actually) says that worship ought to be private and that faith shouldn't be worn like clothing. (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing -- so sue me.) Organized prayer does exactly the opposite. And you fundies who want prayer back in school have plenty of private school options so your kids can be brainwashed indoctrinated into whatever value system you think is appropriate. So keep your religion off of my kids, thanks.

An oft-overlooked lesson of history is that the separation of church and state was included in the Constitution (remember that?) not to protect religion from oppression by the government, but to prevent religion from unduly influencing government. You know, like it is today.

Practice whatever religion you want, fundies. Just remember that practice doesn't always make perfect.

Blast Off! Radio TODAY!

It's Monday, which means it's time once again for Blast Off! Radio. Please join me: listen and participate!

I think today I'll recap the D.C. march, plus we'll talk about it being Constitution Day (irony alert!), and more -- including whatever you'd like to discuss. I really need callers today because my brain feels like it's soaking in pudding. (How's that for descriptive?)

Here are the details:

TIME: 12:30 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

AIM: blastoffradio

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

Hope you can be a part of the show this afternoon!

Larry Craig's trump card?

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Third Stall on the Right) is considering withdrawing his resignation and fighting the charges to which he pleaded guilty in June last month.

And he might just be able to make a case, legally.

Turns out there's this little-known, nearly overlooked passage in this document called the United States Constitution ... Article I, Section 6 states in relevant part:

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

So could it be that the arrest of Sen. Craig was, in fact, itself illegal? He was going to Washington for Senate business ... but what about the "breach of the peace language?" Does disorderly conduct qualify?

And, irony heaped upon irony, might Sen. Craig be able to sidestep (pun intended) his guilty plea by relying on a document his party and its leader, Drunky McStagger, have been using for six and a half years as ... um ... toilet paper?

Remember, Constitution Day is right around the corner ...

(h/t Unrepentant Fenian)

Constitutional irony

As we've already seen, the resignation this morning of Alberto "Abu" Gonzales is completely permeated with irony. But there's one more irony I almost missed. And it's a doozy.

Abu's resignation is effective on September 17.

Constitution Day.

The mind boggles ...

Dear Senate Democrats: I have lost faith in your ability to do the right thing. Sincerely, Sinfonian

I've been somewhat nonplussed, if not bemused, by all the concern trollage regarding the Democrats in Congress, especially the Senate, and how they're not doing anything to stop the Bush crime syndicate from continuing to wipe their collective asses with the Constitution. After all, they've done far more than a Republican Congress would have done, and the hearings and investigations thus far have revealed an epidemic culture of corruption and politicization of the governmental process.

I've allowed that there probably have been legitimate reasons for much of the Congressional action, or inaction; I mean, for example, I totally disagree with Nancy Pelosi's decision to take impeachment off the table, but at least she has a plausible rationale. So, I've generally given the Dems a pass.

Until now.

The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.

The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.

Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.

The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible."

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.

The Senate's acquiescence to the Bush crime syndicate on FISA this time is unforgivable. I can't for the life of me understand what they are thinking by giving Drunky McStagger more authority to violate individual rights; with all the evidence that when you give them an inch, they take a mile, you know that this is going to lead to more warrantless domestic surveillance, whether covert or not. If they did this only because "Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal," then they've lost their last shred of honesty and integrity.

I'm appalled that the Senate caved in. So, let Drunky veto the stricter proposal! We need judicial intervention, and there would be ample opportunity to use the veto against Drunky and the Repukes politically. But, now, we've got a bunch of pussy Democrats -- please forgive the sexist language, but the pejorative colloquial meaning of the term truly applies here -- who have failed to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Senate vote was 60-28, complying with previous agreements to require a supermajority of 60 to pass the bill. As soon as I can find the tally of yeas and nays, I'll post it here. As I write this, it's not on any Senate or governmental website that I can find ... and I've been searching for an hour. (UPDATE -- see above.)

But there'll be more ranting to come on this. Count on it. This may not be the last time the Senate lets me down, but it's not going to go unnoticed or uncommented upon without response any more.

UPDATE (7:39 am 8/4/07): The bill result (it's S. 1927, sponsored by the egregiously bad Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and cosponsored by only one senator, the nearly as egregiously bad Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.)) has been posted in the Congressional Record, but the roll call vote, no. 309, still isn't up yet. I'm monitoring it regularly.

Also, I changed my last sentence. I can "comment on" the Senate's dereliction of duty all I want, but it won't change a thing. It's time to act -- indeed, it's well past time.