UPDATE May 11, 2010: I asked the question below: "Ms. Kagan is an openly practicing homosexual, is she not?" Even though I phrased it as a question, I think it wise to clarify here. I was told in the mainstream news that she is, but it turns out many are reporting that if she is a practicing homosexual, she hasn't stated it publicly, as in "coming out" as the homosexuals call it.
Tom Usher wrote or added | What is this "like and trust Clinton & Obama" stuff?
Hey Tom, that was a bit confusing. Greenwald is quoting Matt Yglesias: "Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.""
Okay, so, the actual quote is: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust, and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama," and Glenn added the [Kagan] because Glenn knows the proper use of straight brackets. I didn't go look at Matt's post. I'm taking your word for it. I stand corrected. I repent of it.
Thank you for pointing that out. I like that! I like how you did it, Rose. I wish others would take that approach.
(Here's the rest of my comment the way it was before Rose clarified. Let me say that it was a millisecond where I incorrectly assumed Glenn had made a punctuation error concerning the parentheses. I should have overcome though since he had placed the quotation marks where he had.)
Why does Glenn Greenwald like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? They disagree with pretty much everything he cares about, save about one issue I can think of: sexual orientation. Why does he trust them? They've both shown a huge capacity for blatant lying and ducking incredibly important issues, such as that they have zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program but rather every reason to know that the Mossad and Likud and American Neocons and the like have been drumming up the same style of lies used as a pretexts for invading not only Iraq but Afghanistan in the first place (following Cheney's and Rumsfeld's lead), when it was Iran that the Jewish Zionist-Neocons always had in their bomb sights.
Come on, Glenn. You can do better, can't you? Your two main articles on Elena Kagan don't even mention Israel, Zionism, or Iran. She's a Zionist, isn't she?
Also, why have your long, ostensibly thorough, articles fail to mention freedom of speech? The issue of freedom of speech has been front and center on many other blogs. Is it implied by your mentioning civil liberties? I'm trying to think of it that way.
Many people seem legitimately concerned as to whether the Court will shift to not allowing religious folks openly to state that in their religion, homosexuality is sin. Ms. Kagan is an openly practicing homosexual, is she not? So do civil liberties include freedom to say that and the freedom of religion to exercise that spiritual belief, or are we to witness the type of religious persecution that led many to travel to these shores in the first place, such as various peace churches. (Not every "Christian" who came to these shores burned witches at the stake, as I know you know just as well as do I.)
You raised the issue of detainee abuses and Bush-43's imperial presidency, but that neoconservatism is the same as for Clinton and Obama right now and the same as Zionism in general.
It's also interesting that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was the issue concerning Kagan's caving in at Harvard over military recruiters at Harvard Law School rather than the anti-war aspect, which is infinitely more important. It isn't doing anyone a favor to let him or her join the militarists. It's rather soul-killing in very fact.
What happened to the anti-war movement and "modern" progressivism? It was the "liberals" of the 1960's who ended the despicable Vietnam War, which would have been despicable even if there had been no Operation Phoenix or any other Bush-43 type war crimes. Did you mention war in the anti-war sense? I didn't see it. Perhaps you aren't as anti-war as I thought.
Does it concern you at all that if Kagan is chosen that there would be three Jews on the court but no WASP's who founded the country? I'm not interested in an ethnic litmus test, but I thought "Progressives" were for affirmative action to some degree. Would this be going to the extreme in the opposite direction, or has affirmative action been thrown out only concerning the Supreme Court.
Regardless, I see strong fascistic leanings in this Elena Kagan person.
I read the following. If I missed any articles that cover what seem to be holes referred to above, I'd be interested in being directed to those:Â Â Â Â
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)