Obama, same sex marriage and his evolving de-evolution.

The other day Barrack Obama arranged for a TV interview where he announced he supported same sex marriage. This came two days after VP Biden said publicly he supported it and "had no problem" with same sex couples getting married.

Almost immediately Obama tried to distance himself from Biden's remarks. That was his knee jerk reaction and his press secretary, when pressed on what Obama's position was, said the president's position was "evolving". Obama probably had "survival of the fittest" in mind politically.

As an Illinois State senator Obama had made public declarations in support of same sex marriage which is really nothing more than supporting equal rights and freedom and acknowledging gay couples as actual human beings and American citizens entitled to the same rights as anyone. Now Obama was "evolving".

When the ridicule starting pouring in Obama decided to do his TV interview where he said he supported same sex marriage.

What was the reaction of Democratic political groups, organizations and progressively leaning journalists? To call their reactions pathetic would not be too strong a word. Their reactions were the reason Obama has wiped his feet on the backs of progressives and Democrats since he's been in office.

MoveOn, Democracy for America, Credo, TPM and other groups started sending out emails asking people to sign petitions to say "thank you" to Obama for coming out in support of same sex marriage.

Someone named Charles Kaiser writing for CNN called Obama's coming out for same sex marriage "the most courageous thing he's ever done" adding to the pathos.

How anyone would or could consider Obama doing a 180 degree switch within 24 hours on an issue he had previously supported that is about simple human rights as something "courageous" is why progressives are looked on as weak and malleable and something of a political joke not to be taken seriously. And its why they rarely succeed in accomplishing their agenda. .If that's their idea of courage its only because, like Obama, courage is something they themselves lack when it matters most. The man holding the sign in the picture above speaks for itself. That is the opposition. That politically active progressives thinks it takes courage to stand up to that makes their reaction even more pathetic.  And it's why Obama feels he can put anything over on this group with no fear of retribution. It's also why groups like TPM, MoveOn, Democracy for America or CREDO send out emails every other days saying " Tell President Obama not to sell out to this..." or "not give in" on that. It's that list that keeps evolving, not Obama.

Its not courageous to stand up for equality especially in the face of medieval stupidity. Its not courageous to stand up for justice. It's not couragous to say that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else. You are a coward if you don't. Or a fascist.

Maybe these "progressive"  groups should also thank Obama for selling out the public option, the most important piece of legislation in 50 years, to health insurance industry lobbyists when the votes were in congress to pass it, completely destroying any chance for true true health care reform. Maybe they should thank him for reneging on his promise to close Gitmo, or to get rid of the Bush tax cuts which he had the opportunity to do four times and didn't,  and a litany of other promises and positions he has reneged on because, quite frankly he didnt have the courage, the principles or the convictions to see them through.

Secondly, Obama, and everyone else knows that those who are against same sex marriage aren't voting for him anyway and he was just shoring up his political position after receiving criticism for backing away from Biden's remarks.

The third thing to keep in mind, especially for people for whom this issue is important, is that Obama's history is he never, ever, means what he says. This is the politician, in addition to his sell outs as president, supported the Washington DC gun ban as a US senator then a year later when the Supreme Court overturned the ban,  supported the Supreme Court decision to overturn it.

If gays and lesbians as well as other Democrats and progressive groups actually believe him, then they haven't learned anything in four years and never looked into his political history. How many times will they accept being lied to, have promises reneged and then pretend it never happened?  It's because Obama has gotten away with it in the past and those like TPM,Democracy for America and MoveOn will never hold him accountable. Instead they want to send him "thank you" notes.

Their own lack of courage in standing up to Obama is so pronounced that to people like Charles Kaiser, a minimum statement of support for equal rights that was virtually forced upon him is called "the most  courageous thing he has ever done". Gee.

Again, for the sake of progressive amnesiacs, what Obama says today when its to his benefit  is no gurantee he will stand by it.  There has been no politician in recent memory whose word is as worthless as Obama's.  Need more proof?

In 2008 in order to get MoveOn's endorsement Obama pledged to filibuster the FISA bill and vote against it if it had retroactive immunity for the telecoms who illegally turned over private information about their customers to the Bush administration. MoveOn gave Obama their endorsement and Obama not only didn't filibuster the bill, he voted for it. He also pledged he would use public financing if he were the nominee, then as soon as he got the nomination forgot he ever said it and out raised John McCain 4-1 because McCain pledged the same thing but stuck to his word. In a speech in front of 7,000 Jews in Miami whose votes he needed,  he publicly supported Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. When the Palestinians went beserk over his comment,Obama reversed himself the next day and said everyone misunderstood him. The list keeps evolving.

Whether it was his support of the public option that he sold down the river and then claimed he never supported it , the FISA bill, the Bush tax cuts, or Gitmo, or his sell out to Wall Street,  what Obama knows that if he continues to offer his snake oil, or, what Hillary Clinton supporters called his Kool Aid, there are, unfortunately still too many willing to swallow it. Either that or they don't have the fortitude or integrity to admit they were bamboozled in the first place and instead  are willing to swallow what Obama tells them is good for what ails them it and then try and believe that its working.

Obama's public statement in support of same sex marriage according to him,is  a result of his "evolving". Darwin would disagree. It is more de-evolution than evolution. Real evolution would be progressive groups sending  Obama a thank you note that says, "Thanks for nothing".

How Obama's claims about killing Bin Laden cheapens Sept 11.

May 2 is the one year anniversary of Osama Bin Laden having been killed by Navy Seals. And predictably Barrack Obama and his re-election campaign, now in full swing, are using the anniversary to milk the event and try and take as much credit as possible for his own political purposes.

 Having lived in New York on Sept 11,2001 and having seen and experienced the aftermath in the weeks and months that followed, having seen first hand a city so stunned by what happened that for at least four months, probably into February of 2002, no matter where I went in Manhattan I did not hear the sound of one car blowing it's horn at another and could not walk past a single firehouse or police station that didn't have its entrance draped in black bunting, Obama's speech last year in announcing Bin Laden's killing by Navy Seals left a bad taste for his lack of understanding of the true imapact of the September 11 attacks. His current political exploitation of it on the anniversary of Bin Laden's killing makes it worse. And has reminded me of why.

I may be in the minority but when Obama announced Bin Laden's killing by claiming  "justice has been done", it made me recoil. And it made me angry. It showed a real hollowness, the sensibility of someone who never really grasped September 11 and so resorted to political cliches that had no relation to reality.

Killing Bin Laden was not justice. It wasn't even remotely close to justice.  Killing a thousand Bin Ladens would not have equaled the loss of the life of even one person  killed on September 11. A thousand Bin Ladens, much less one, would not be justice for the life of even one of the 343 firefighters and police officers who were killed that day trying to rescue people. To put that number in perspective, the number of firefighters and police officers alone who were killed in New York on September 11 were more than twice the number of people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Trying to equate killing Bin Laden with "justice" for September 11 was empty political rhetoric, political opportunism, and Obama trying to take credit for something for which no credit was deserved.And it showed by Obama's complete lack of understanding of what Bin Laden's killing really was.  Bin Laden's killing wasn't justice. But it may have been the next best thing. Which is vengeance.

Had Obama called it vengeance, which is what it was, it probably would have felt a bit more satisfying . And would have put Bin Laden's killing in its true perspective. Calling it justice was an insult to everyone in New York who experienced that day and every American affected by it.

Obama's re-election campaign is now trying to use the anniversary of Bin Laden's killing again for political purposes. They are trying to paint Obama as a president of courage for giving the mission to kill Bin Laden the green light.

There was nothing courageous about sitting in the White House and ordering brave men to risk their lives to carry out the vengeance against Bin Laden that was necessary and that any citizen, much less president, at any time anywhere would have done. In fact if Obama hadn't given the go ahead when the opportunity to kill Bin Laden presented itself,  it probably would have destroyed him politically. And he knew it.

There's been  no justice either regarding George W. Bush and Sept.11 and Obama's misuse of the term is another reminder of that too. Bush had been repeatedly warned in August of 2001 by both Richard Clarke and George Tenant of CIA,   that intercepts of Al-Qaeda chatter indicated the U.S. was about to hit with a major terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda, an attack that in the words of one CIA memo, was going to be "spectacular". The intercepts also showed the attack was " imminent" and Bush was told on August 4, 2001 in a Presidential Daily Briefing that the Al-Qaeda attack against the United States was going to involve the hijacking of US airliners. Bush and Rice did nothing. Not even an order to the FAA to issue a directive to airlines and airports to be aware of a possible attempt at hijacking by middle eastern men. They did nothing not because of some preposterous conspiracy to let it happen,  but because Republican ideology dismissed terrorism as a real threat as Richard Clarke testified during the 911 Commission hearings. And so the warnings were ignored. September 11 was the result.

Justice has not been done with regards to September 11. Vengeance against Bin Laden,yes  which might have to suffice, but not justice.  And calling it justice for political purposes, then or now,  cheapens the events of September 11, the people who lived through it, and the people who didn't. So if Obama's claim that "justice has been done" leaves you feeling slightly hollow , if it doesnt make you feel as giddy as you think you're supposed to feel,  at least now you know why.

Casey Stengel to Democrats: can't anybody here play this game?

This is the 50th anniversary of the first season of the New York Mets and watching Democrats play politics since 2000, you cant help but be reminded that Democrats play politics like the 1962 Mets played baseball.

 Hilary Rosen a Democratic strategist who, like Marvelous Marv Throneberry once did,  actually cashes a pay check to play this game leaving people wondering why, led off the presidential campaign recently like  a Met lead off hitter in 1962, when she made the comment on CNN that "Ann Romney never had to work a day her life."

 One could make the case that if that comment is any example of Rosen's ability as a political strategist, the same could be said about her.

It didn't take long for horrified congressional Democrats and other strategists, including Axelrod and other Obama advisors, to distance themselves from her comment, acknowledging that  raising 5 children is a lot harder than anything Obama has been doing the last 3 years.

 But Rosen isnt the only Democrat or Democratic strategist, a term that has become an oxymoron, to resemble the '62 Mets.. Democrats, while proven right 95% of the time on policy since 1992 while Republicans have been proven wrong, and advocating policies that usually has the support of the majority of the American people,  have been nothing less than  pathetic when it comes to dealing with the politics of governing and even more pathetic when it comes to taking on Republicans in the public arena of debate. Which is why the Democrats had no runs no hits and a bunch of hugely costly errors when Pelosi and Reid capitulated to Obama's bungling and selling out of the public healthcare option, one of the most popular pieces of proposed legislation in history, and got slaughtered in the 2010 elections because of it by Democrats fed up with their not delivering on their promise.

 With Obama as president, Democratic political ineptitude has only gotten worse since Democrats are looking foolish  trying to defend a president so lacking in conviction and principle and who has already sold out so much of the Democratic agenda,   that it is only distaste for Republicans that doesn't insure that Romney will win in a landslide.  Casey Stengel would know better. Trying to sell Obama as a president deserving of re-election would be like Stengel trying to convince people the '62 Mets were pennant contenders. And if Romney is smart enough to distance himself from the radical right and repudiate their repugnant anti-American  ideas, he probably will win in a landslide since well over half the Democratic party is fed up with Obama anyway.

To show just how far Democratic political strategiy has fallen and how desperate and dishonest they've become in trying to defend Obama,  aside from Rosen's comment you have the recent comments by Donna Brazille, former DNC chair and former campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 writing for CNN about Romney.

 Its important to keep in mind that Donna Brazille was Al Gore's campaign manager since, while every candidate bears ultimate responsibility for their campaign, and while there is no way of knowing how much input Brazille had in making final decisions,  it is still a fact that Al Gore ran the most imbecilic incompetent self-defeating incomprehensible presidential campaign in American  history. Gore and Brazille, badly misreading true public sentiment about the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, decided that their best presidential strategy was for Gore to distance himself from the most successful Democratic president since Roosevelt. Gore refused to campaign with Clinton. Gore refused to be seen with Clinton. Gore didnt want Clinton campaigning for congressional Democrats in states where Gore was making campaign appearances, a decision that infuriated many state party chairman who blamed Gore's decision for Democratic defeats in congress. Unfortunately, Gore's decision to distance himself from the White House succeeded. Permanently. And the country got stuck with George W. Bush in an election that Gore should have won in a landslide. And in terms of simple competency, John Kerry's presidential campaign was just as inept.  Kerry managed to lose an election to a president who arguably had the worst first term in American history. Yet on the day Richard Clarke testified  at the 911 Commission hearings that less than one month before the 911 attacks he and George Tenant  were "running around the White House like men with their hair on fire", armed with intercepts of  Al-Queda messages pointing to an impending major attack against the United States and was  ignored and rebuffed by both Rice and Bush, John Kerry decided to go on vacation. When Bagdahd exploded in terrorist insurgent attacks after it was confirmed that Sadaam didnt have WMD after all, John Kerry talked about gas prices.

Now we have Donna Brazille, former chair of the DNC and former Al Gore presidential campaign manager and an influential voice in Democratic politics writing for CNN ( cant they find truly objective people to be political commentators?) that Romney"bought  the Republican   nomination with  a bunch of nasty ads".

 This is not only political idiocy its the worst kind of hypocrisy. Who does Ms. Brazille think is stupid enough to believe that? Who did Brazille think would have won if Romney had not spent what he did? Santorum? Gingrich? Paul? 

 And the political hypocrisy is staggering. It was Obama who, in 2008, promised publicly and on numerous occasions including the presidential debates that he would only use public financing if he were the presidential nominee as part of his "promise" to change the way Washington works ( this was of course, before he sold out the public option  to healthcare industry lobbyists) . And it was Obama who, after he was nominated reneged on that promise overnight and raised over $400 million.. John McCain also promised to use public financing in the 2008 campaign, He kept his promise and was outspent by Obama by 5-1. Brazille complains that Romeny virtually stole the nomination by outspending Gingrich 4-1. Brazille also accuses Romney's spending of having "bought" delegates. She doesnt say a word about how the DNC threatened to strip many Hillary Clinton delegates of their credentials at the 2008 Democratic convention unless they promised to change their votes to Obama in violation of all of the Democratic party's rules and procedures for nominating a president and delegate obligations and disenfranchising literally millions of Democratic voters who voted for Clinton in the primaries. That is stealing delegates.

And the Democratic party and congressional Democrats have paid the price for it ever since.

 Accusing Romney of having "bought" the Republican nomination while Obama is the product of the most dishonest presidential primary campaign and convention in history and is now  holding fundraiser after fundraiser to rake in as much campaign cash he can get his hands on only erodes Democratic credibility with the public in general. It also shows there is no real strategy for Democrats largely because Obama's record is so indefensible even to Democrats that they clearly feel the only strategy left is to try and say Romney would be worse. Which may not work.

 The other problem with Brazille's  distorted and hypocritical comments is that it erodes Democratic morale as well. since if you have to resort to that kind of distortion and dishonesty to win an election, maybe you dont deserve to win. Obama certainly doesn't.  Because unlike the '62 Mets, no one has found selling out the public healthcare option, reneging on getting rid of the Bush tax cuts, bungling the debt ceiling debate, and squandering what was once the largest congressional majority any president has  had in 60 years, very lovable.

 The Democrats best strategy to win in 2012, is to concentrate on retaking the House and maintaining their majority in the senate. If they try and tie themsevles to  Obama they are finished so they have to find a way to be Democrats without endorsingg Obama's first term.And without lying about Romney.  And in order to win, whether its congress or the White House, like the '62 Mets, they need to get better players. And like the '62 Mets, right now they just dont have them.

Obama's Newest Wall Street Scandal: Going Through the Motions of Accountability.

Barrack Obama's 13 year history as a politician and elected official is based on one idea: promise something for political advantage and then do nothing so the opposition can't hold it against you. He's done it so many times on so many things from healthcare reform to the Bush tax cuts for the upper 5% that there is no point in listing them all. But it's the most recent sleight of hand ( and sleight of what's left of his Democratic constituency) that needs to be pointed out.

Obama, after pressure from Democrats and the left, did as he usually does -- he made promises to quell the political heat that he had no intention of keeping. This time he promised a much needed investigation into the abuses of Wall street and banks that led to the economic melt down.

Many experts who looked at the activities of the banks claim there is evidence of criminal wrong doing, recklessness and a criminal disregard for regulation that caused the financial failures of Wall Street banks ( and AIG) that the country is still paying for.

Obama, in an election year, made promises to Democrats and independents ( conservatives will generally let banks walk all over them) that he would appoint a task force to investigate and if necessary prosecute those in the banking industry whose violation of law or regulation contributed to or caused the financial melt down.

The problem is, as is always the case with Obama, it was more words than deeds. There is in fact a task force but, thanks to Obama, it is comprised of a skeleton staff so thin and undermanned as to be virtually useless. Which, based on Obama's record is exactly what he intended. Appoint a task force to say he did it, but understaff it to such a degree as to make it impossible to accomplish anything so he can avoid criticism and retribution from an industry from which he hopes to raise tens of millions in campaign donations.

The number of investigators authorized by Obama for the financial crimes task force is 55 and many of those still haven't been deployed. In comparison during the savings and loan crisis in the 80's more than 1,000 FBI agents were assigned to investigate the activities of the banks, and that didn't include the large number of federal prosecutors assigned to assess culpability. The Enron scandal alone had over 100 agents assigned to investigate, a scandal which was a drop in the bucket in terms of damage caused to the country and the economy in  comparison to the financial crisis, yet the investigation into possible wrong doing by the banks which led to the biggest financial crisis since the Depression has a task force of 55 staffers .

CREDO is circulating a petition to Obama to increase the size of the investigative staff which you can sign by clicking this link. But sending petitions to Obama about anything is like sending a message in a bottle to the Bermuda Triangle.

A better policy is contacting the DNC and Debby Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair and threatening to withhold votes for congressional Democrats as well as Obama unless there is a real investigation and a substantial increase in staff and commitment, though withholding votes from Obama is probably the best thing to do anyway.

Obama's gutlessness in dealing with Wall Street is nothing new ( as was his gutlessness in dealing with the health insurance industry, the Republicans on just about everything and anything else one can think of). Democratic spokespeople like Wasserman-Schultz  want you to believe that Romney is the only flip-flopper running for president, when, whatever Romney's failings ( and they seem to have more to do with his publicly embracing right wing ideas he doesn't believe in for political purposes than his actual policies) Obama could give Romney lessons when it comes to saying one thing and doing another.

Its the DNC and congressional Democrats that need to be pressured to do something and to force Obama whether he likes it or not to make the investigation real, not the 55 member staff that seems to be intentionally inadequate to do the job.

If nothing is done Democratic voters need to somehow let congressional Democrats know that they wont be snowed anymore.

And in continuing the same pattern of his talk being cheap while knowing political campaigns aren't, Obama is once again talking up the Buffet Rule on taxes for the upper 5% income earners, something he could have implemented two years ago when there was a substantial Democratic congressional majority but didnt.

NOTE: as predicted the CREDO petiton was useless and they are now sending out emails urging Democrats to call Obama to demand a real Wall Street investigation. It seems these Democratic groups never learn.

Debating Obama's sell out of healthcare.

As the debate over Obama's health care bill winds down in front of the United States Supreme Court with its very constitutionality and survival at stake, its a good time to remember that had Obama not sold out the public option to healthcare industry lobbyists there wouldn't be a debate in front of the Supreme Court at all.

At the heart of the Supreme Court debate is the individual mandate, the provision Obama inserted as the substitute for a public option in another one of his unnecessary conviction-less capitulations and now as is usually the case when the wrong thing is done for the wrong reasons, its about to blow up in his face since it is now a vitual certainty the mandate will be struck down as unconstitutional. And with good reason.

But while the Supreme Court debate is making front page news, what most people, especially congressional Democrats, their strategists and the news media seem to forget, is just what a catastrophe on every level Obama's selling out the public option really was and how, had it passed, it would have transformed America. Instead Obama sold out the health care of Americans, the justice of a level playing field for healthcare, the Democratic agenda and congressional Democrats who were prepared to pass a public option,by capitulating to the healthcare industry lobby, the drug companies, insurance companies and of course the Republicans in dropping the public option even though the votes were in congress to pass it. And then, as usual, lying about it.

When questioned about his dropping the public option Obama claimed with brazen, blatant dishonesty that he never campaigned for a public option. And in a press conference defending his healthcare bill, lied again claiming that his bill "got health coverage for 32 million uninsured Americans". What his healthcare bill and mandate would have gotten was 32 million new customers for the insurance companies. The mandate was a boon to the health insurance industry as the spike in their stocks have shown, not to Americans without health coverage. And now not only is the mandate almost certainly to be struck down, it could bring down the entire law which wasn't all that great to begin with, and make all the angst and political bloodletting, all the time and money spent on healthcare reform all be for nothing.

But this is what passing the government run public option could have done:

It would have taken the 2700 page law and probably reduced it to 27 pages because most of the provisions in the law directed at insurance companies would have been unnecessary. It would have been unnecessary to require insurance companies to drop pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny coverage or prevent them from dropping people with catastrophic illnesses, or setting caps or a hundred other things because the public option would have had none of that and if insurance companies wanted to keep customers and compete they would be forced to drop those policies on their own.

Secondly, the government run public option would have greatly reduced healthcare costs since the government (and tax payers subsidizing it) wouldn't abide by hospitals charging $50 for an asprin ( or a Michelle Obama being paid $350,000 a year in a patronage job to do PR for a Chicago hospital, which she did while Obama was a senator). Government run health insurance would have done more to reduce health care costs than just about anything else which was one of the goals of reform.

Third, with a government run public option available, employers and workers could have switched to the public option and that would have had a long lasting positive impact not only on their own health but health of the economy.

It's been estimated that 1/3 of the cost of manufacturing a car is health insurance premiums have to pay for their employees. A public option would have greatly reduced or eliminated an employer's health insurance burden as well as eliminated employees contributions to their insurance coverage which comes out of their paycheck. That would have meant more money back in the pockets of employees and less costs for employers. More money in employees pockets would have meant more spending which would have meant increased demand which would have meant increased hiring and lower unemployment. And increases to a bottom line also increases the value of stock to investors. So aside from all the good things it would have brought to the health of the American people, it would have also made the economy healthier. In fact the CBO also scored the public option as reducing the deficit by $160 billion.

Add to that the common sense provisions that a government run public option would have had which included  preventive care and healthcare maintence like regular check ups, enrollment in fitness centers etc., and  it would have made for a healthier population with less need for expensive healthcare procedures. And a healthier population staying healthy for a longer period of time would have reduced  Medicare costs far into the future since as people grew older and were healthier, they would have less of a need for medical care which would have reduced the drain on the system in a much better way than slashing coverage as Republicans propose.

All of this went down the drain when Obama shortsightedly and for his own political fortunes and because he couldn't take even a little political heat, sold out the public option. It also was the single biggest factor in the Democrats getting wiped out in the 2010 election since polls showed an overwhelming number of people wanted and supported what Democrats promised but didn't deliver.

It should also be kept in mind that Obama's healthcare bill without the public option, the bill that some congressional Democrats, strategists and political shills try to call his "signature piece of legislation", was called a piece of "junk" by Howard Dean, former DNC chair, presidential candidate, governor and physician. Tom Harkin and other Democrats could only say about it that it was "better than nothing".  Dean said before the vote on Obama's healthcare plan that it "should be junked and the Democrats should start over".

It looks like the Supreme Court is about to take Howard Dean's advice and do what congressional Democrats should have done to Obama and his healthcare plan two years ago if only Pelosi and Reid had had the backbone to stand up to Obama who didn't have the backbone to stand up to Republicans and the health insurance companies. Only now it looks too late to start over. And it seems that the Supreme Court is not only going to listen to Howard Dean and junk it, even if the rest of the bill stands while the mandate is gone, it's  not going to be "better than nothing," it's going to be nothing,just more medical waste.

In his closing arguments defending Obama's law, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.lamely tried to tie Obama's mandate to buy health insurance to the concept of liberty, trying to define it as giving people liberty from illness and disease. Rebutting it,Paul Clement said, "it's a funny concept of liberty that forces someone to purchase an insurance policy..."

The concept of healthcare and liberty as related, as well as related to equality ( not racial or gender but human)  is at the heart of the concept of universal healthcare.  And had Obama really cared about healthcare as a civil right he would signed a public option into law. Instead of selling it out.

Should liberals have to pay to bring conservatives into the world?

As crazy as that sounds that is the other side of a ruling by a Kansas Federal judge in refusing to block a new Kansas law that requires health insurance companies to exclude abortion coverage in their general healthcare policies. The new law forces a woman to buy a rider that would cover medical expenses incurred in electing to have an abortion because it can no longer be covered as part of a general health insurance policy.

 The rationale Judge Wesley Brown used in failing to block the law was this:

 "The law appears to rationally further a state interest in allowing the State's citizens to avoid paying insurance premiums for services to which they have a moral objection,".

 Good enough. So now lets expand that to do the same for everyone so that the majority of those in blue states can pass a law where they don't have to pay insurance premiums that cover the cost of obstetric and post natal care policies for conservatives and Republicans since most Democrats, liberals and progressives have an understandable deep moral objection to Republican conservatives and their beliefs. Based on that, and Judge Brown's legal logic, they shouldn't have to pay to have conservatives bring children into the world who will no doubt grow up to be Republicans. Instead, conservatives and registered Republicans can buy riders to their insurance policies to cover their obstetric and post natal  care.

Using Judge Wesely Brown's logic, and the logic and values of Kansas conservatives who make up a majority in their legislature,  what's good for one has to be good for all since based on the Constitution no one group or majority gets to make only their moral objections law, which is why there is an establishment clause in the first amendment. Given Judge Brown's ruling, no Democrat or liberal should have to pay to subsidize health care premiums for Republicans to bring new Republicans into the world whose ideas, value and ideology for which  they have deep moral objections.

There is no doubt that most liberals and progressives have a deep and abiding moral objection to so called "conservative" values ( as did the Founders of this country and the framers of the constitution by the way). In fact a good case can be made that millions of liberals have a deep moral objection to even keeping conservatives healthy. So there is no reason for them to have to pay health insurance premiums that contribute to the health of conservatives.

According to Judge Brown's logic no one should have to pay insurance premiums to cover the cost of any kind of medical care for which they have a moral objection, so Democratically controlled states could pass laws forcing Republicans or conservatives to buy riders to cover the cost of their pregnancies and post natal care makes sense.

 Or is the judge saying that only the moral objections that he agrees with should be supported by the law? Which is the same rationale that kept African Americans, women, gays and lesbians and other minorities out of mainstream society and even put their lives at risk. Wasn't that also at the heart of Nazi philosophy? Of course the good people of Kansas and Judge Brown no doubt think that their moral objections are superior to everyone else's and are for the good of mankind. So did the Nazis and fascists who took those ideas to the extreme.

How far could Judge Brown's logic extend when it comes to laws based on a community's moral objections? Does anyone doubt that there are communities that have a moral objection to Muslims?  Wasn't the persecution of Jews, blacks, women, gays and lesbians and other religious minorities based on moral objections? Taking the politics out of it, if a state can pass laws based on their "moral objections" against people who don't want children which also results in a financial burden on those people, there should also be laws that put the same burdens on people who do want children, and force them to buy riders to their health insurance policies to cover the costs.

The ACLU should get this ruling by judge Brown struck down on constitutional grounds based on the "moral objection" rationale since it clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th.  And if it should be ruled constitutional then the same principle should be used against the people who formed it.

 "Moral objection" as a rationale can be a clear danger to democracy since many, including those on the extreme right have used moral objections as a rationale before to justify most of their agenda which many find immoral, amoral and hypocritical, not to mention that their agenda whenever turned into law became a disaster. Laws based on "moral objections" were used it to keep African Americans enslaved, to deprive them of equal rights 100 years after emancipation, to keep people of different races from marrying, to keep women, gays and others from having equal rights and opportunities, and was at the heart of the actions of the KKK whose symbol of a burning cross signified their belief in the rightness of their cause.It also led to women who were believed to be witches because of their sexual indulgences being burned at the stake by the church in the middle ages.

The "moral objection" idea has been used by dictators from Hitler to Ahmadinejad to not only deprive people of their rights but to persecute them. It's used in Iran and other Arab countries to stone women to death who dont adhere to their ultra right wing conservative moral beliefs, which is not all that far removed in attitude from  Republican conservatives trying to  pass laws banning contraception and forced vaginal ultrasounds along with state sanctioned psychological torture aimed at women wanting to get a legal abortion. "Moral objections" are also the grounds under which gays are executed in Iran.

The Kansas law and the rationale behind it seems to be patently unconstitutionall. It should be struck down. But if it isn't then let's do it the right thing and satisfy everyone's moral objections so Democrats and liberals and progressives and people who believe in the constitution don't have to pay and subsidize insurance premiiums for people for whom they have a deep moral objection bringing children into the world. Let's have everyone's moral objections respected. And lets see what Judge Brown and the conservatives in Kansas and everywhere else think about that.

Penn State trustees, Pa. governor issue self-serving whitewash on Paterno firing.

Both Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett and the Penn State trustees issued an expected self-serving and sanctimonious report to justify the firing of Joe Paterno in which they cited a "failure of leadership".

 It is both pathetic and not unexpected, that the trustees of an institution of higher learning have demonstrated both with their actions at the time and the report issued three months after the fact, that they either don't have the capacity to logically locate the open end of a paper bag, or that they will do anything to keep from admitting their own egregious cowardice and failures.

 The report is nothing less than a joke and a cover up since not only is there not a shred of logic attached to it, but it flies in the face of their own public statements at the time as to why they fired Paterno.

 In any court room in the country any statement by any witness that is more contemporaneous to the event they are testifying about will have more weight and will be considered to be more truthful and more accurate than a statement made about the same event four months later.

 In the case of Paterno, at the press conference in which they announced Paterno's firing, they said plainly and in so many words that it was the pressure applied by the news media in making what happened at Penn State a big story and the trustees inability to deal with it, that brought them to the conclusion that the best way to put an end to the media mob focusing on Penn State was to fire Paterno.

 It was putting an end to the media glare at Penn State, a glare mostly the result of self-serving motives by the media to create a big story which the Paterno name provided, that the trustees said all agreed was in the best interests of Penn State and so, displaying the kind of cowardice and disregard for principle and truth that a university is supposed to stand for, they fired Paterno for their own self-serving reasons because they not only couldn't stand the heat they wanted to get out of the kitchen as fast as they could.

 The fact that media attention was there and relentless only because of Paterno's status and that it was the Paterno name that rung up their cash registers and brought out the vultures to feed ( had exactly the same thing occurred at a different university with a football team run by an lesser known head coach it would have been a one day story), was besides the point. The fact that the media glare  had nothing whatsoever to do with children or child abuse as subsequent events have proved,  was also besides the point. It was the media attention that they admitted at the time they couldn't handle that was the impetus behind Paterno's firing, and this report which tries to say otherwise makes both Corbett, the Pennsylvania governor, and the trustees the worst kind of cowards and political hacks. Now they are trying to revise history and cover themselves by issuing a report saying the "real" reason they fired Paterno was for "lack of leadership". It is the psychologists term "projection",  which describes behavior which is characterized by a deep denial of ones own flaws and projected onto someone else that is the hallmark of the report.

 Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett proved it himself when two days ago he issued a statement taking a pot shot at Paterno when he said that Paterno "deserved to be fired" for" not following up".

 How self serving was it? For one thing Corbett had a heads up that the report was going to be released a few days later and so wanted to get in the first shot and Corbett is also one of the trustees that voted to fire Paterno in the first place.  So the idea that he would admit he and the other trustees were anything other than sanctimonious idiots for making a knee jerk reaction unsupported by facts  is beyond the realm of possibility. The second aspect that proves Corbett's statement was self-serving, is, who asked him? Who wanted or needed him to make any statement at all at this point, four months after the fact? Doesn't he have anything else to do as governor?  But when you are worried about covering your own backside, that's what takes precedence.

 To demonstrate, again and for the last time, just how dishonest and self-serving both Corbett, the trustees and the news media were then and now,  all the criticism of Paterno was based on one idea -- that  he "didn't do enough". But no one has ever said what "enough" was. No one who has ever criticized Paterno ever said with any specificity what it was he should have done that he didn't,  or what they would have done differently and why notifying the AD at Penn State of what he was told ( not witnessed himself) within 24 hours and then notifying the person whose job title was described by a trustee as "the head of Penn State police services" wasn't enough.

 Both Corbett and the trustees in their self-serving report tried to define it by saying that "not enough" and "failure of leadership" was defined as Paterno "not following up".

 To illustrate how preposterous and self-serving this conclusion is, consider this scenario:

Paterno informs Schultz the head of Penn State police services of McQueary's allegation, arranges a meeting with McQueary to report what he saw, then Schultz passes on the information to Penn State chief of detectives. Based on McQueary's eyewitness account Sandusky is arrested. The legal system plays out in whatever way it does and Sandusky is either acquitted or convicted. Ten years later in reviewing documents related to the case both Tom Corbett and the trustees realize that Joe Paterno,after reporting what he knew to Schultz and the AD, didn't make any follow up calls to the detectives  or prosecutors to check on whether or not they are doing their jobs,  but instead went back to his own job of coaching football. They decide since Paterno didnt follow up he should be fired.

 To take Corbett and the trustees at face value, that it was "not following up" which justifed the firing, they are essentially saying Paterno had to  be fired because the AD and Schultz  didn't do their jobs. According to the trustees, supposedly it was Paterno job and "moral responsibility"  to check on both of them and possibly even the detectives to make sure they were doing their jobs.

 Based on this, Corbett and the trustees are saying that every citizen of Pennsylvania who passes on any information at all regarding a possible crime to the police has a moral responsibility "to follow up" and make calls to the police to make sure they are doing their jobs.  If Corbett actually came out and said anything like that in so many words, if he tried to apply the same standard to every citizen of Pennsylvania that he is  applying to Joe Paterno, every  every police chief in Pennsylvania and every cop would want Corbett's head on a platter.

As for the news media who created the storm for their own self -serving and journalistically dishonest reasons,  further proof of media hypocrisy regarding the entire Paterno affair was on display two weeks ago in Philadelphia when Roman Catholic Monsignor William Lynn went on trial in a landmark case as the first church administrator indicted for failing to take action and report to authorities priests he had known were sexually abusing children in Philadelphia. Lynn tried to get the charges dismissed based on evidence that he had prepared a list of pedophile priests and gave the list to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua in 1994  who ordered the list destroyed. Lynn's defense is essentially  " I did what I was told"  and that he wasn't responsible for the list being destroyed. But prosecutors said they will show that Monsignor Lynn's purpose for creating the list was only to prepare for possible civil law suits against the church, not to weed out or report the predators, and that Lynn took no action himself nor did cardinal Bevilacqua,  to stop or report the sexual abuse of children to authorities, sexual abuse that he knew was going on since 1994.

 Monsignor Lynn's trial began on  Feb 29,2012. News of the opening day of the trial and the evidence against Lynn wasn't even mentioned on the front page of the Philadelphia Daily News, the same newspaper that put Joe Paterno's picture on the front page, someone who did report what he was told about possible abuse within 24 hours,with a banner headline, "Shame".  Yet a trial involving a 12 year cover up of child sexual abuse by a monsignor and cardinal of  the Roman Catholic church in Philadelphia and a failure to report the abuse to authorities for more than 12 years doesnt get a word on the front page.  So much  for the Daily News and their ideas of "moral responsibility".  What the Daily News cared about is that the name Joe Paterno sold more newspapers and attacking Paterno was "safe".

So who  really failed in their "moral responsibility" and "lack of leadership"?  Everyone who attacked Paterno, that's who. The news media, Tom Corbett,  and the Penn State trustees  who clearly lied in their report in an effort to rewrite history and get out from under the heat of Penn State students and alumi disgusted with them

 Given the recent success of exerting pressure on the sponsors of Rush Limbaugh's radio show to stop their advertising because of Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke,  people outraged by the Philadelphia Daily News, Corbett and the Penn State trustees could decide on a boycott of their own -- a boycott of advertisers of the Philadelphia Daily News until action is taken against the editors responsible for the Paterno "Shame" front page, and a boycott of donations to Penn State from outraged alumni until the trustees are replaced.   As for Tom Corbett, the best way to handle him is on election day.