Senator Ted Kennedy

From:	President Barack Obama
Sent:	Wed 8/26/09 9:54 PM
To:	Mike Taylor (mikebt1971@msn.com)

Mike -- Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me. In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy. I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom. His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives. For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family. Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still. Sincerely, President Barack Obama

Are you kidding me?

Glen Beck has been an outspoken opponent of the Democratic party. That much is true, as can be researched via google, or whatever search engine you choose to use. He is also someone who will choose to say whatever he needs to, in order to try to avoid an uncomfortable situation, and then lie about it later. This is proven by an appearance on The View, and his recant the very next day on his radio broadcast. He does a half assed job at trying to explain his lies on the air, by quoting Thomas Jefferson, but in the end he admitted to lying, important to the country's national conversation or not. Please enjoy... http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/201/25560/

This douche bag has now accused the President of the United States of being a racist. A racist? Seriously? I can only show you his own words. There is a lot more of this on the internet, but here is what I found upon first glance. You decide.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32197648/ns/politics-more_politics/

Separation...

A friend of mine forwarded an e-mail to me about a quote that President Obama made during his press conference on April 6, 2009, in Turkey. President Obama said, "I’ve said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." 

The e-mail went on to list the preamble for every state’s constitution. Without reciting every preamble here, all of them mentioned the belief in a higher power. Here are some examples: Almighty Being, God, Supreme Ruler of the Universe, Providence of God, Divine Goodness, Creator, Divine Guidance, Him, Supreme Being, Sovereign Ruler of the Universe, Great Legislator of the Universe, Author of Existence, Supreme Ruler, and the most popular, Almighty God. 

After the list was concluded, the author of the e-mail had this to say, “After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be 'Food for thought' send [this] to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were. (Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.) GOD BLESS AMERICA”

Okay, let’s just get right down to it: Separation of church and state. Now while I’m tempted to simply leave it there, there’s just a bit more to it. 

Prayer was taken out of our public schools, and the pledge of allegiance (which also evokes the name of God) has been either removed from the class room or made voluntary, depending on the state (Colorado Revised Statute 22-1-1-6, requires each public school to provide an opportunity, everyday, for willing students to recite the pledge). Having prayer or the pledge of allegiance take place in the classroom, thereby forcing those students who do not wish to partake to remove themselves from the rest of their classmates (potentially changing the way they are treated by their classmates and instructors), is an act of religious persecution. When in court, it used to be customary to say the words, “So help me God” at the end of reciting the oath of truth, right before taking a seat in the witness chair. This rule, which had been in place since 1789, was officially removed in 1997, via the US supreme Court. The removal of religious references from these public forums was done so because not everyone believes in the same religion, or in religion at all. The Establishment Clause was created to protect against this very sort of thing. However, I just grabbed a ten dollar bill from my wallet, and on the back of it, very prominent over the image of the White House, it clearly states, “In God We Trust.” The same phrase appears on all US currency. Granted, if Congress attempted to remove the aforementioned religious phrase from our money would spark an extremely intense political debate, but where is the separation?

The various state’s (to say nothing of our country’s) historical documents were written in a different era, back when we the people focussed a lot more on religion. This is not to say that the bulk of Americans are not currently religious people, but if any of the states constitutions were to be composed today, they would most certainly not contain a reference to a higher power. The very mention of such is exclusive to specific groups, minority or otherwise. A state’s constitution is intended to represent the rule of law for all its people, not just those who worship a higher power. Again, the fourteenth amendment would come into play, in that a state constitution is intended to be a document that is inclusive of all the people living in that state. 

The first amendment of the United States Constitution makes clear the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thanks to the fourteenth amendment, this law also applies to all states. This means that the government cannot enact any law that lends itself toward a religious bias, of the people, by the people, or despite the people. 

President Obama’s statement, “...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values” is true. The majority of the people of the United States believe in a higher power, roughly 85%, but there’s myriad religions that all these people subscribe to. Then there is the remaining 15% that do not believe in any religion at all. That number has increased from 8% in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey poll in 2008. A poll done in 2002 by the Association of Religion Data Archives reveals 51.6% of Americans believe that religion is losing it’s influence. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted a survey in 2008, and one of the many results concluded that, “More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all.” Their results also show that based on their 1986 and 2008 polls, “11% of 18-25 year olds gave their religious preference as ‘no religion/atheist/agnostic’ and 8% of Americans over 25 did the same. Moving forward two decades, 20% of 18-25 year olds had [no religious preference], as did 11% of those over 25.” 

It is my opinion, that our country’s religious belief structure is changing. We seem to be leaning more toward our collective development, as a society, and not so much toward religious dependance. I think that most Americans believe more in our freedoms and rights, than in their individual religious beliefs. The overriding goal being a better place for everyone to engage in the struggle to attain the American dream: The pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, and equality in all its forms. 

To break it down into a very simple generality, the religious debate was intended to be public, while the personal religious experience is supposed to be just that: personal. 

The Right To Mary

Over the last 20o years, different groups of people have had to fight in order to obtain certain basic rights that the white men of America have enjoyed since this country's founding. In 1865  slavery was legally abolished. Shortly there after, in 1870, black men received the right to vote. Back in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, women had to fight for their right to vote, and at times the backlash turned cruel and torturous, but they finally won that battle in 1920. In 1964, the efforts of the Civil Rights movement came to fruition, via Act 5, ending segregation. Finally, interracial marriage was finally made legal, via a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in 1967. 

Now let's jump ahead to present day. Homosexuals are now fully engulfed in a battle of their own. I am lucky enough to live in a city that has said discrimination toward homosexuals is illegal (though it took a nationally publicized and lengthy legal battle). That having been said, it is still illegal for same sex couples to get married in Colorado. There are several states that have legalized same sex marriage. It seems as though every month or so, another state grants the right of marriage to the GLBT community. 

This issue is essentially about a persons' rights. The GLBT community is fighting for the right to become legally married. And by that, I mean to actually call such a union "marriage", and enjoy all the rights afforded to such a joining. In the beginning, I really didn't understand why people were so against calling a union between a same sex couple "marriage". I found the entire thing perplexing. I've spent the last year or so speaking with many individuals, in my attempt to understand the aversion to the title of marriage for same sex couples.

The word "marriage" is defined, by Webster's Dictionary,  as this: "1. The social institution under which a man and a woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments. 2. The state, condition, or relationship of being married. 3. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes marriage. 4. An intimate living arrangement without legal sanction. 5. Any intimate association or union. 6. A blending of different elements or components." If one were to strip away the obviously prejudicial definition of marriage in the first version of the Webster's entry, than all the others are of an indiscriminately inclusive nature of the word "marriage."

Some have suggested the word marriage be redefined. To what end? Why is the word marriage so predisposed to only belong to heterosexual couples? Someone told me that society could create a new word, a different word that would still have the same legal applications as the word marriage. They said the word marriage should belong to straight couples only, as that is how it has always been. That person threw out "gay-arriage." Call me crazy, but if you slap a thick British accent on it, the word would sound like the place you park your car. 

If certain people are so upset about gay people getting married, than don't marry one! Why do people care? How does gay marriage hurt anyone? Well, I've had several conversations with people that are against same sex marriage. The responses are as follows: 

"Gay marriage is against the bible"

"It's supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" Please, that one is so gay.

"Same sex marriage goes against Judaeo-Christian beliefs."

"You must consider the sanctity of marriage, and what it means."

"Gay marriage will corrupt my children."

"If the people grant gay marriage, it will eventually lead to legalizing people being able to mary animals." This one is my favorite. Same sex marriage is the gateway to people having sex with animals? I'm sorry, but people having sex with animals are one of the strongest arguments against repealing the death penalty (that and pedophiles). 

Let's delve into the religious reasons against same sex marriage. The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22. 

Leviticus also says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean: Leviticus: 11:7. How did that go over in the early days of football? Any child who curses its' parent shall be put to death: Leviticus: 21:17. Leviticus continues to say that any man who touches the bed where a woman with her period has been, shall be unclean: Leviticus: 20-27. The holy book goes on to say that the entire town must come together to stone someone for planting different crops side by side: Leviticus: 19:19, and that it is okay to burn someone for wearing a garment made of two different threads: Leviticus: 19:19.

The bible states that selling one's daughter into slavery is sanctioned in Exodus: 21:7, as well as working on the Sabbath is punishable by death: Exodus: 35:2. It also says that any man who engages in a sexual act with an animal, shall be out to death... and so shall the animal: Exodus: 22:19. What the hell? What did the animal do? Was the animal so beguiling that it simply overwhelmed the poor sap? Are we to take the bible literally? If so, than I dare suggest that everyone I know is doomed to execution, if not the fires of hell. 

Some people I have spoken with have talked about the "sanctity of marriage", as a defense against allowing same sex couples to legally wed. The sanctity of marriage? The average divorce rate in this country for first marriages is 41%. That's right, 41%. It gets worse from there. Second marriages end in divorce by 60%, and  73% of third marriages end in divorce. Where's the sanctity in that? Sanctity indeed. 

Now to the corruption of our country's children. How does same sex marriage corrupt our nation's children? Seriously, what is the basis of this argument? It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disease. It was even classified as a disease as recently as 1973, until the American Psychiatric Association removed it from their list of mental disorders. After that, medical science has proven that people are born the way they are born. Once puberty starts, and all those hormones start to kick in, the game is over. It is at that point that some of our children start to realize, in some small way, that they are different from the majority of their peers. They start to have sexual feelings about others who are exactly like them, in a gender specific way. It is an extremely difficult process to go through, as society has clearly laid out what the youth of this country are supposed to do. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, and eventually, a family will ensue (a dog usually shows up too). Most of the time, that's the way it works, but from time to time, it manifests itself in a different fashion all together. 

It has been suggested that having a same sex couple living a few homes away from a heterosexual family would be a corruptive influence on that straight family's children. In what way? This argument indirectly lends itself to the same sex marriage issue. What will a same sex couple living on the same block, or in the same building, have to do with the essential development of that straight family's children living near them? Will those, ever so impressionable, children learn about "deviant behavior" that is considered by some to be against God? Only if their parents tell them about it. It all starts at home. 

Prejudice is something that children learn from their parents. Parents have an awesome responsibility, in that they are in control of the majority of what their kids learn, experience, and absorb during the formative years. If the parents are racist, sexist, or homophobic, than those traits are passed on to their children. 

Moral behavior. People used to be arrested on "morals" charges back in the middle of the last century. That charge, by the way, was primarily used against homosexuals. One example of this, albeit not that well known, was the arrest of Bayard Rustin in 1953. He was brought up on morals charges, and subsequently convicted of the same, because he was gay. Mr. Rustin was the right hand man to Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement, and was the tactical genius behind the 1963 march on Washington. He was an incredible civil rights activist who, because of the black mark on his legal record, had to step out of the lime light, and was never able to truly explore his full potential. 

Well the states might want to dust off the old morals charge, in preparation for the onslaught of bestiality that's coming our way. According to some, if same sex marriage is to become legalized in the United States, then soon people will want to marry their pets. While Scruffy can be cute and even adorable at times, I don't know of anyone I know that feels an uncontrollable urge to legally formalize that union, to say nothing of consummating their special relationship. Granted, I'm sure there are some out there that would actually want to wed their animals, and if they are willing to stand up, come together, and make their voices heard, than I say let them try. Good luck to you all. Chicken fuckers unite!

After all the political rhetoric is done, after all the religious fervor has died down, I find that what is left, the real reason that some are so vehemently opposed to same sex marriage, are the same things that have always been behind depriving different groups of people certain rights and privileges: ignorance and fear.  

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people live, work, shop, and generally go about their lives right next to everyone else. We are farmers and business people, students and teachers, police officers and fire fighters, fast food employees and government officials, scholars and illiterates, and have been around since time immemorial. Chances are that you know one of us, even if you don't realize it. 

To those that believe that same sex marriage should not be legal, think about this:

Is it that you feel there is so much love in the world, that there is no room for others to share the legally recognized, and legally binding, union that you enjoy? 

We are not asking you to agree, or even embrace, how we choose to express our love. We do not wish to take anything away from anyone else. We wish to express our love equally to your own. We only want the same rights and privileges that you enjoy, if not take for granted. 

As of this writing, change is coming, no matter how you may try to deny it. Please take a moment to think what it would be like, if you were told that you could not marry. 

It Was A Dark And Stormy Night...

Last Thursday I helped to elect a new House District Representative. The process took 10 days, a big chunk of my time, and voting during a snow storm at 11 at night.

Everything was set into motion when Anne McGihon, the former Representative, decided to leave before her term was over in order to rejoin her law firm and head to Washington D.C. Anne did an outstanding job for our district and our state, and she left very big shoes to fill.

As it turns out, there’s a very specific process that takes place when a representative leaves before their term is up. I figured it would simply be a standard election process. I was wrong. In order to fill the position before a vacancy was created, the district and state leadership enacted a little known, and rarely used contingency plan: Let the Precinct Committee People vote on it, otherwise known as: The Vacancy Committee.

I became a PCP in February ’07 at the same time I signed up to run for delegate for the DNC. They don’t really give you a manual or anything, you just sort of learn as you go. I was notified of my new responsibilities as a member of the Vacancy Committee via a sudden onslaught of e-mails from all sorts of people whom I had never heard of. They turned out to be candidates announcing their intention to run and why they were the best qualified for the job. Apparently, the contact info (e-mail and physical addresses as well as phone numbers) for all of the PCPs in the district had been given to the candidates. After the e-mails came the phone calls, mailings, and even a few people attempting to knock on my door. Oh, and the candidates knew they had 10 days to convince me to vote for them. I was suddenly extremely popular.

Invitations to coffee, and dinner at people’s homes came in droves. I chose to stick to the official events, as I wasn’t comfortable giving any one candidate special treatment. With my work and school schedule, it was pretty easy to artfully and respectfully dodge the unofficial requests. Daily phone calls and e-mails from people wanting to talk about their reasons for running, including their friends and associates wishing to vouch for them, became common place.

During the deluge, there developed an interesting e-mail driven conversation about whether or not a “place keeper” position would be preferable for the rest of the existing Representative’s term. This involved a fair amount of legal wrangling and questions of the political viability of who ever would hold the spot until a full blown election could be held in a year and a half. This idea was eventually, and thankfully, shot down.

Finally, it was time for election night. Denver was hit with a snow storm that bordered on becoming a blizzard, including white out conditions. There was some trepidation that the weather would keep enough people away and we wouldn’t be able to form a quorum. Fortunately, we had nearly 100 people show up. We needed at least 40 PCPs and ended up with 63.

I had to report to the basement of the University Park United Methodist Church at 6 p.m. It had been a while since I had been in a house of God, and thankfully, I continue to not burst into flames. Not even a mild smiting. Anyway, I had been nervous that we would be there all night. I based this on the history of House District 3 events, while having one of the largest voter turn outs in the state, not being very organized when it comes to process and procedure (see my blog posting: http://mikebtaylor.blogspot.com/2008/03/it-should-work-better-than-this.html). I was extremely pleased to discover that HD3 has finally got their act together. The entire evening ran like clock work, although we had a lot to get through. There were a ton of procedural points that needed to happen to make everything legal, then we had the final speeches of all nine candidates, a follow up question and answer period, three rounds of voting, and finally the announcement of who won.

Sadly, the person I was rooting for didn’t win, although they made it to the final two. The winner took the stage, made a victory speech, was congratulated by almost all the other candidates, and then began filling out the mountain of paper work. By the time I had to travel the snow covered two blocks home (it took me longer to brush the snow off my car than it did to drive home), it was nearly midnight.

In the end, I was quite pleased with how the evening went, and I was glad to have again been a part of the political process.

Hypocrisy

I’ve been watching the news about the new federal budget for the upcoming year, and I’ve also been listening to all the talk about how the new budget is full of ear marks. I find it interesting that the people doing most of the complaining about the aforementioned ear marks are Congressional Republicans. I also find it interesting that those angry voices, along with many others, have inserted ear marks of their own into the bill. 

Shenanigans I say! Shenanigans! To say nothing of hypocrisy. 

Had the President not signed this federal budget bill, which provides our federal government the money it needs to continue operating, the United States government would have shut down. Were that to happen, the ramifications could be devastating. Little things, that most people take for granted, would stop working. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid checks would stop being printed and mailed. All nonessential federal workers would be sent home without pay. Basically, a slow but steady breakdown of vital services would ensue. 

The President publicly stated, “I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it’s necessary for the ongoing functions of government and we have a lot more work to do.” He didn’t even sign the bill in the traditional public fashion, but rather, behind closed doors, implying his displeasure with it. 

Thirty-five senators voted against the bill, although 28 of those 35 had pork attached to it. For what it’s worth, there was Democrat pork, but only from one senator, all the rest was added by Republicans. They all very vocally opposed the spending bill, but in the end, took home $240 million to their states. 

There has been criticism toward President Obama for signing such a bill. Some opponents of the President have said that he is breaking a campaign promise by signing the bill, while it carries so much pork. In fact, President Obama never made a campaign promise to end ear marks. That was Senator John McCain. At the time, Senator Obama said that he would work to end the abuse of said ear marks. President Obama has stated, “ Let me be clear. Done right, ear marks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I opposed their outright elimination. I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principals that prevent the abuse of ear marks.” 

Here’s the list of the senators that decided that their states could use a little extra cash, via the federal budget:

Barrasso R-WY (4 earmarks, $2.7 million) 

Bayh D-IN (4 earmarks, $1.2 million) 

Bennett R-UT (23 earmarks, $18 million) 

Brownback R-KS (21 earmaks, $12 million) 

Bunning R-KY (5 earmarks, $735,000) 

Burr R-NC (3 earmarks, $1.3 million) 

Chambliss R-GA (7 earmarks, $4.3 million) 

Collins R-ME (1 earmark, $380,000) 

Corker R-TN (1 earmark, $760,000) 

Cornyn R-TX (5 earmarks, $2.5 million) 

Crapo R-ID (1 earmark, $100,000) 

Enzi R-WY (5 earmarks, $1.7 million) 

Graham R-SC (14 earmarks, $9.5 million) 

Grassley R-IA (8 earmarks, $350,000) 

Gregg R-NH (19 earmarks, $10 million) 

Hatch R-UT (7 earmarks, $700,000) 

Hutchison R-TX (35 earmarks, $9.9 million) 

Inhofe R-OK (34 earmarks, $53 million) 

Isakson R-GA (2 earmarks, $1.4 million) 

Kyl R-AZ (3 earmarks, $5 million) 

Lugar R-IN (10 earmarks, $3.3 million) 

Martinez R-FL (8 earmarks, $18.8 million) 

McConnell R-KY (36 earmarks, $51 million) 

Roberts R-KS (11 earmarks, $2.2 million) 

Sessions R-AL (12 earmarks, $4.3 million) 

Thune R-SD (6 earmarks, $4.3 million) 

Vitter R-LA (16 earmarks, $4 million) 

Voinovich R-OH (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)