Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania Democratic Primary!!!

Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 10%

Vote: Clinton: 55%

Obama: 45%

Obama outspent Hillary 3 t0 1, and still couldn't deliver the knock-out punch. Pennsylvania is Hillary country, so he wasn't gonna win, no matter how much he spent. Over 10 million is alot, but you can't buy votes. Pennsylvania is NOT for sale, I think Sen.Obama miss that sign.

Hillary Clinton got her double-digit win in Pennsylvania. Now she's on her way to Indiana, and President Clinton has four stops in North Carolina. Hillary's ahead in Indiana by 11 one poll, some from 6-10 in other polls. In North Carolina, she's down 9 in one poll, and the highest I saw was 15 down for her. She has a battle in NC, but two weeks is long way, and anything can happen.

Obama couldn't close the deal, so much cash on hand, over 7 weeks to argue his case, and loss. Pennsylvania is a swing state, and he failed to show his strengths among lunch bucket-blue collar democrats.

Many are now asking: With some much cash and appeal for Obama, a woman with high negatives and unfavorable rating, and still can't close the deal??? Super delegates may move a little to Hillary Clinton, but are still frozen until May 6's next primaries. Obama needed to win Pennsylvania to give his electability a boost, but it was just down-graded even more. Good night for Hillary Clinton, a disappointing night for Barack Obama!

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Clinton: "A Win is a Win"!!!!!

Polls will be closing less than two hours in Pennsylvania, and turn out is not so high in Philly.

If turnout's not high in Philly than that might not be good for Obama.

If Hillary Clinton win by 8-10 percent than it may be a boost for her in momentum, and could take back the popular vote.

If Clinton win by 12%-15% percent than that would be a mini-landslide. IF it's 15% or maybe more than Obama has fail to win a key swing state to prove he's can carry a diverse state with blue collar Democrats.

The Reality is Obama needs to win more than Hillary does. Obama won't win Pennsylvania, but how big the loss? I say between 12%-15% percent. If it's over 15%, even better for Hillary, and superdelegates will take notice.

I'll be up with Primart coverage as the votes come in!

Monday, April 21, 2008

Hillary Clinton's New AD "kitchen" before Pennsylvania Primary!!!

Hey everybody, I'm back! I know it's been a long time, but I'm back in time for Pennsylvania Primary, and the expectations are high.

My predictions for tomorrow is Hillary Clinton will win, but by how much???

I say she'll win at least between 10%-15% percent. I wouldn't be surprise it's between 18%-20% percent.

Some say the new AD above from the Clinton camp is politics of fear. I don't think so, and it's ridiculous for the Obama camp to assert that.

The new AD out a day before the Primary in PA ask a simple question, some thinking, and an answer. It's makes people think, and it appears the Obama camp doesn't like that.

Oh well, enjoy the new "kitchen AD". If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. From the poor performance in the debate by obama, and now saying Hillary is using the fear card is a wild theory.

Get into the AD, this AD makes people think!

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Election Results: Hillary Clinton wins TX, OH, RI !!!!

What a night for Sen.Hillary Clinton!!! Here's what her husband said before last night's big night took place!!!

"If she wins in Texas and Ohio, she'll be the nominee. If she doesn't, I don't think she can be. It's all on you." - former President Bill Clinton

Here's last night's results:

CNN and Fox call Texas for Sen.Hillary Clinton. This was close by she pull it off with a narrow 4 point win. I was hoping Texas to look like California, but this win is good with some bragging-rights, also possibly with a few more delegates than Obama. Huge win for her.

Sen.John McCain wins Texas GOP Primary to win GOP nomination, congrats to him.

CNN and Fox call Ohio for Sen.Hillary Clinton. Another "no surprise". Hillary Clinton has a her base back. However, I heard Republicans was crossing over to over for Obama, so the margin should be wider. She wins 55% to his 44%. A big win for her.

CNN and Fox call Vermont for Sen.Barack Obama. This is no surprise. Vermont is very liberal, and the war in Iraq is at the top of list, but Obama's argument is deeply flawed. That's for another post. He won with 60% to her 38% of the vote.

Sen.John McCain win the GOP Primary in Vermont also. No surprise at all.

CNN and Fox call Rhode Island for Sen.Hillary Clinton. No surprise here. Rhode Island is a little state with a big voice, and they choose Hillary Clinton. The state is also close to the state of New York. She won 58% to his 40% of the vote.

Final Thoughts: Hillary Clinton had a amazing comeback last night, just like would. Last night was a test not just for Hillary, but Obama as well. Obama has too prove he could finally beat her in a diverse big state like Texas, and a major swing state like Ohio. Unfortunately, Sen.Obama failed the test BIG TIME! The Obama camp along with media can spin all they want, he hasn't won one big state other than his home state Illinois.

He's winning states that are red with caucuses, along a purple, and a couple of blue states. Hillary Clinton has passed the test. She continues to do better in the major swing state like Ohio, even with Republican cross-over, he still couldn't beat her. In Texas, I thought he had a chance, but suffered a disappointing loss by almost 5 points. Hillary won my birth state, I admit i was nervous, but she pulled it off. What's interesting, she's winning the states a Democrat needs to capture the White House. Obama hasn't proven he can take on John McCain.

In New Jersey, a Democratic state, in a head-head between Obama and McCain, he is very competitive with Obama than Hillary. In meaning, McCain could make a traditional blue state go red, and that's NOT good. It's a Known fact far-left liberal Democrats don't win General elections, only moderate [centrists] like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton can win a General Election.

The Democratic party and Super-delegates can afford to roll the dice with Obama, or give him the ball, McCain could possibly win by a landslide in November against Obama. The Democratic party can't afford to suspend belief from reality, and just plain wishful thinking. Democratic leader can't afford to ignore Hillary Clinton's hard experience, toughness, base of support, and centrist appeal. There is NO time for gambling or experimenting!!!

P.S- There is still more to come today!!

Monday, March 3, 2008

Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record

[Here's a good artice I found on Obama's so-called superior judgment, and it's worth read. I'll be up with my post tomorrow, enjoy. Justice MH]

Guest Post by: Joseph C. Wilson

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful.As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Message From Justice MH: In the coming days, there will be more closer looks at Sen.Barack Obama's record, judgment, character, and stances. As always, I will cover daily news with my views, and tomorrow's elections will be covered. Stay tune!!!

I'm Back!!!!!!!!

I know it's been so long since I blogged. I never thought I would neglect my blog, but it happen for almost a month. So, I'll have a post up before it gets to late tonight.

This is short, but I'll be coming out swinging with posts. It's good to be back!!!

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

America Votes 2008: Super Tuesday Results and Commentary!!!

It's that time of year again to go out and vote for the canidate we think who is best qualified to be President of the United States. Super Tuesday has 24 states voting that is rich with delegates and superdelegates[in the Democrats case].

Here's the latest Super Tuesday Results:

Breaking News: CNN calls California for Democrat Hillary Clinton and GOP John McCain! This is a BIG BIG win for Sen.Hillary Clinton! Congrats to Sen.Clinton!!!

Minnesota: Democrat Barack Obama wins Democratic Caucus!

Connecticut: Democrat Barack Obama wins Democratic Primary. GOP John McCain wins Republican Primary.

Kansas: Democrat Barack Obama win Democratic Caucus. Sen.Obama wins his mother's state.

DELAWARE: GOP John McCain wins the GOP primary in Delaware. Democrat Barack Obama wins the Democratic primary in Delaware. IT was real close on the Democratic side.

ALABAMA: Democrat Sen. Barack Obama wins the Democratic primary in Alabama. Note: Thanks to a large black population. GOP Mike Huckabee wins the GOP primary in Alabama. The South loves Conservative former baptist preachers. No Surprise there!

WEST VIRGINIA: First win of the day. GOP Mike Huckabee wins the Republican Convention in West Virginia with 18 delegates-winner take all for him. It's been said Romney was in the lead, but Sen.McCain's supporter help Huckabee win the West virginia convention.

GEORGIA: Barack Obama wins Georgia's the Democratic primary here in my home state. What cause this victory? Well according to exit polls, Sen.Obama had 88% of black voters which Georgia has a big black population. No Surprise.

ILLINOIS: GOP John McCain wins the Republican primary in Illinois. He was in the led for the past week so no surprise. Democratic: Democrat Barack Obama wins the Democratic primary in Illinois. No surprise Sen.Obama wins his home state, but CNN'sGloria Borger and Mr.Martin said he ONLY won 52% of the Latino vote in his own home state. That is a MAJOR problem for Sen.Obama. In my view, California, Arizona and New Mexico look good for Sen.Clinton.

MASSACHUSETTS: GOP Mitt Romney wins the Republican primary in Massachusetts. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary in Massachusetts. Democrat Sen.Clinton wins a HUGE victory in Massachusetts over Sen.Obama. With the first black Governor Deval, Sen.Kerry and even Sen. Ted Kennedy. This is a sweet victory for Sen.Clinton!

NEW JERSEY: Democrat Sen.Clinton wins Democratic New Jersey Primary. This was hard fought, and she has led for months in this state. GOP John McCain wins the Republican primary in New Jersey.

NEW YORK: Democrat Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary in her home state New York. No Surprise here for Sen.Clinton. Sen.Obama gave a strong show as Sen.Clinton did in his home state.

TENNESSEE: Democrat Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary in Tennessee. Sen.Clinton is winning in the south as Sen.Obama with Tennessee, Florida, so she has showing in the south.

OKLAHOMA: Democrat Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Primary in Oklahoma. Sen.Clinton led in Oklahoma for months, a victory for her in that state.

More Super Tuesday Results still to come!

Monday, February 4, 2008

Who's the clear choice---Hillary or Obama???

I have been on the fence between Hillary and Obama for months. I know I had prematurely said who I would support, but went back being undecided.The 2008 Election in November is very important and many people of different races, ages, religions, genders, and sexual orientations are more engage than ever!

As a Democrat, and for many others, we never expected to get the chance to vote for the first woman or african-american president of the United States. Now we have that chance, unfortunately at the same time.

Many Families, couples, friends, and etc are divided over who's the better canidate to be President, and to face and defeat the GOP nominee who is supposely Sen.John McCain[more on him later].

After watching the California Democratic debate, and I couldn't even be attentive to the GOP debate, which like many others I nearly fell asleep. As for the Democratic debate last thursday, I loved it, and I watched it twice over the weekend.

A few Points on the debate with issues that concern me and help conclude my decision:

Healthcare: It's been clear to me that Sen.Hillary Clinton owns and masters this issue on Healthcare which is very important for many Americans. Many experts note Sen.Clinton's Healthcare plan is better and superior to Sen.Obama's plan. What I also know, and it was brought up in the debate that Sen.Obama's plan leaves 15million Americans out as follows:

Concord Monitor: ‘Gruber estimated that 15 million people would remain uninsured under Obama’s plan.’ “Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who worked on the Massachusetts plan, said a mandate means "the difference between universal or near-universal coverage. Obama would have a large expansion, better than anything the Republicans have, but not universal coverage," Gruber said. "You can't get it without a mandate; it's just not possible." Gruber estimated that 15 million people would remain uninsured under Obama's plan.” [Concord Monitor, 12/26/07]

It's been well-documented that Sen.Clinton has been fighting for Universal Healthcare for over ten years, as President she'll have more authority to get it or close to Universal Healthcare. Sen.Obama did well, but is weak on this issue. Score 1 for Sen.Clinton!

Both Sen.Clinton and Sen. Obama are even on the Economy and Immigration so they tie in my view.

When asked a question on if viewing America as a business like Mitt Romney argues, and why should the country vote either as the CEO? Sen.Clinton gave a good answer to a loud applause. I agree as Sen.Clinton said: " America is more than a Buisness, it is a trust, and a complex organization that is not looking for a profit". I agree with that! Both Sen.Clinton and Sen.Obama support path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Score 1 for each!

Iraq War: This issue really made me upset of how Sen.Clinton has been harassed for her vote which was based on Intelligence information and the so-called evidence from the corrupt Bush Adminstration. The same Adminstration that convince the American people and manipulated the then Republican Congress . The Media never mention Sen.Obama wasn't even in the U.S Senate at the time! I agree with Sen.Clinton, Bush abused the authority that was given to him.

Sen.Obama continues to argue he was against it from the start??? I have been questioning this, and doing some research. I found this interesting quote back in 2004 when Sen.Obama was asked about the Iraq War:

"When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

Ummm, I thought Sen.Obama said he was against it from the start meaning: 2001-2002? Another quote from Chicago Tribune back in 2004, to my surprise, Obama says his position was no different than President Bush:

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

Okay, once again, now this is what I thought all along with the media and everything, and I have a question to posed: I though Obama was opposed to the war from the start? That's what Sen.Obama has been saying, in last thursday's debate, and even Obama supporters are spreading this...........should I say lie or as Former President Bill Clinton said "fairy tale"?

Over weekend I have taken a whole 180 degree look at Sen.Obama without the poetic speeches of "change" and "hope"!

So Mr.Clinton was right, and the media made him look like a mad man attacking a black canidate, and why was black people thinking Mr.Clinton was talking about Obama's canidancy for President for the United States??? It seems the media has put on notice anyone who questions Obama, if you're white, then there's racism coming from the person, specificly Mr.Clinton!

I have taken all this in account of who to support and vote for on Super Tuesday, and in November. So I have decided the clear choice is: Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She really won me over in last thursday's debate, as I have noted above. She really showed her true self, who had command and experience on the issues, especially on Policy. She gave detailed responses on the policies, and the things to consider when making decision like: getting out of Iraq in a responsible way, and doing it right.

Sen.Obama likes to use the phrase:" you have to be right on day one"! Well, you can't always be right on day. The phrase is catchy, but when you think about it, it's a deeply flawed phrase!

Sen.Clinton has shown she's ready to lead, and ready on day one.

The media has given Sen.Obama a free ride, and has turn him into a superstar! The media is heavily bias against Sen.Hillary Clinton. Even after the debate on CNN, a conservative Republican said the obvious:" she won the debate". Other pundits tried to dig up reasons why Obama should be declared the winner, but many said he didn't do enough, and I agree.

On the GOP nominee: If it's Sen. John McCain, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the democrat to beat McCain. I'll have another post up explaining why Hillary is the one, even though it would close, but she's the democrat to beat McCain with his so-called straight-talk.

Sen.Clinton is prepared with experience to bring change. It's been noted in Chicago on Obama's over 130 present votes in the state's legislature. Well, in the Oval Office, you can't vote present, and not make the tough decisions. Hillary Clinton has made tough decisions, and we need a President who's not going hesitate to make tough decisions.

It pains me to say this: but blogger Captain appears to be right about Obama as not doing much in the state of Illnois. I really don't like agreeing with the man, but he has made some good points about Obama.

However,let me say, I love everything Sen.Obama has accomplished in his bid for the White House, but he is not sqeaky clean like the media wants everyone to believe. For me it's Sen.Hillary Clinton all the way. She's ready to lead, bring solutions, and bring change with her experience.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Florida Primary: The Final Showing heading into Super Tuesday!!!

Most of the polls have closed for the Florida Presidential Primary as I'm writing this. The Sunshine state has become an important state on the GOP side for the nomination. On the Democratic side, some are calling it a "beauty contest".

State Democrats broke party rules, moving it's primary too early, and was strip of all it's delegates. State Republicans broke party rules also, but was strip of only half of it's delegates.

The DNC, in my view, acted to harshly against a large state like Florida that is important, and the DNC is abandoning voters.

However, Sen.Clinton is trying to get some, if not all delegates reinstated. The Clinton campaign argues it's important everyone's voice is heard at the Democratic Convention in August. I agree with the argument. Sen.Clinton will be in Florida tonight for a victory celebration.

Predicited winners: Democratic side: Hillary Clinton. Republican side: Mitt Romney.

I'll update this post throughtout the night!
UPDate: CNN has a projected winner for the Democratic side: Hillary Clinton

Florida Race Status Candidate Votes Vote % Del* Precincts

Edwards:15%-- 142,642

Updates will continue later on. Congrats to Sen.Clinton for her big win.

Late UPDATE: Sen. John McCain has won the GOP Florida Primary with 36% of the vote to Romney's 31%. I know I'm late, but here's the already-known results. I'll try to bring more updates, and new posts.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Remembering the Legacy that is Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.!!!

Today is a celebration of a man who change America with his words, and values for every human being.

I like this speech, it's historic, and unforgettable in American history.

Check out the full version of the "I have a dream" speech. Long live dream!!!

Thursday, January 17, 2008

NBC Dateline: Benny Hinn's lavish lifestyle exposed!!!

The video above is worth the watch on self-proclaimed anointed Benny Hinn.

I always wonder what what televangelists do between their globe-trotting conversion crusades? This NBC Dateline special on Benny Hinn would put most true christians to shame.
Facts on Benny:-- Hinn's salary is somewhere between $500K and a million dollars per year.
-- he has a $10 million seaside mansion,.
-- he owns a private jet with annual operating costs of about $1.5 million. and he drives a Mercedes SUV and convertible, valued at about $80,000 each.

I agree with Christian watch dog, you're a servant for God's people, not a King and shouldn't be living like one.

Some will be shock. Some will not be surprise like me. Some will deny it, which would not surprise me.

Benny Hinn continued to reject any commitment to join a Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability.

"He has also been criticized by a number of Christian watchdog groups for not joining the Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability. The Council is the leading accreditation agency that helps Christian ministries earn the public’s trust through adherence to seven standards of accountability. It has over 1,100 members, including Pat Robertson and Billy Graham. Benny Hinn refuses to join.
...Benny Hinn insists that every penny is spent on God's work. But the fifth estate obtained confidential financial records from inside the Hinn ministry. These documents were provided by individuals who say they want the public to know how Benny Hinn spends the money entrusted to him.

The fifth estate asked Roddy Allan, a forensic accountant, to review the ministry's expense and travel records. He says, "I'm a mere bean counter, but it would be hard to persuade me that you had to incur that kind of expense in order to accomplish a business objective."

Oh, let's not forget his failed prophecies on the gay community:

"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."
-- Orlando Christian Center, Dec. 31st, 1989

Hey Benny, we're still here, and still gay. What God told him that? Certainly, not the God I know.

From CBS News: CBS News has learned Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating six prominent televangelist ministries for possible financial misconduct.
...According to Grassley's office, the Iowa Republican is trying to determine whether or not these ministries are improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles.

The six ministries identified as being under investigation by the committee are led by: Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. Three of the six - Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar - also sit on the Board of Regents for the Oral Roberts University.

One down, and four or more to go.Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, and Kenneth Copeland. You guys are next on the list. I hope you're not mis-handling your money like Benny.

Catch the NBC Dateline Special on sunday 7/6c.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Religion's Need to Construct Enemies!!!

[Another informative and insightful guest post from Jerry Manker, and Jerry's words are right on point to everything I would say on how religion has it's picks on a certain group that's socially acceptable to torment. Enjoy this post, it's worth the read,-Justice MH]

There is an interesting article in the "Salt Lake Tribune" regarding Salt Lake City's newly elected mayor Ralph Becker's first official action as mayor to have a citywide registry of domestic partners, which would include same-sex couples.

Beyond the courageous action of Ralph Becker, and the indications that, relatively speaking, Salt Lake City is far more progressive, loving, and civilized regarding Gay people than is most, if not all, the rest of Utah, the following comment was made on the article that I think sums up a great deal of the reasons for the homophobia of many in churches of various religions, and of the many professing Christian people, churches, and denominations within the institutional Church. I'm reprinting the comment as it was written:

"Growing up in the South in the '50s taught allot 'bout Christianity. Seems that Christian tribes have to have devils to keep the members focused and together. Nothin like hav'in an evil outside enemies tryin to destroy tribe to spur unity and loyalty. Back then is was blacks, they didn't call 'em blacks but somethin much nastier, and the Jews and of course Catholics or anyone that wasn't white and protestant. I can't recollect ever hearin of Mormons back then. Yea, you could see the church members on Sunday and know they wore triple "K" on certain nights. Today is no different, religious tribes still need devils and evil to stir the troops, today its Mexicans, still blacks but not so much, and gays. Looks like things haven't changed much in the last 50 years. Nice to see there are still those brave folks still trying."

I disagree with this commentator on only one issue: Black people are still discriminated against in many subtle and not so subtle ways

The famous 19th Century Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, asserted that when there is a threatening out-group, the in-group untites to protect itself against it. Therefore, in order to cement in-group solidarity or cohesion, meeting the needs of people to have a sense of belonging, the in-group constructs "enemies" against which to identify, so that the out-group is not only fodder for the in-group's hate; serves as the target of that hate; enables the in-group leaders and their followers to materially and/or psychologically and/or socially and/or politically gain from demonizing their constructed enemies designated as the out-group.

They construct out-groups as "enemies" because to do so also serves to help make members of that in-group feel self-righteous, and appear to be more "moral," more "religious," more "superior" to the out-group they have constructed that is frequently depicted as being "diseased," "disordered," "evil," "destructive of the family, tradition, and all other institutions and values that all 'religious' and other 'good people' hold dear."

So, even when there is no enemy at the moment, the in-group must construct an enemy, an out-group, so as to meet these needs that they have in order to make and justify their claim to having moral hegemony, and depicting themselves as being on the "moral" high ground, even when, as in the RC Church, that group is rocked with sexual scandals involving children and subsequent coverups that amount to criminal facilitation that cry out to God for vengeance.

Therefore, regarding professing Christians creating "needed enemies," Gay people have served the same function in most of the institutional Church as have the Jews, the Afro-Americans (many of whom have now helped take the lead in the oppression of Gay people), the Catholics (who have now been among those in the forefront in the oppression of Gay people), women, and all other designated out-groups, so as to not only keep the money rolling in, but to keep people coming back to listen to fiery sermons that jack up their emotions to fever pitch, and affirming their "righteousness" and the "rightness of their cause," and giving the hate-filled clergy forums to express their hate in the context of usually overwhelming congregational approval.

Since appealing to the dark side of people's emotions is a sure winner, as it pays off in so many ways, and for so many people, professing Christians or not, there is no end to the "rewards" gained by homophobic clergy, Black or White, in continuing their rhetorical and discriminatory targeting of Gay people, viewed by them as being "safe" targets to persecute, in order to meet their own conscious and/or unconscious needs and agendas.

This need for out-groups by self-identified members of the in-group will never end, as it seems to be one of the many tragic parts of the human condition. However, targeting a given group will definitely end when there is no longer seen to be a payoff in so doing by the in-group, and that state of affairs will only occur when there is sufficient and continuous grassroots and organizational activism that presents the in-group with the realization that the costs of their creation of the "enemy" far exceeds what rewards they have been receiving from their creation.

That is one of the reasons I have been suggesting such activism as coordinated picketing of homophobic churches; boycotting homophobic churches; refusing to support any politician who is not unequivocally in favor of full and equal civil rights; taking to civil and, if appropriate, criminal court clergy (and others) who spew hateful rhetoric that slanders Gay people and/or may reasonably be expected to cause others to assault and murder Gay people. [For my most recent salvo in this area, please see my December 29th post.]

As I wrote in response to a comment made byDon Charles regarding my January 11th post:

"Homophobic pastors who spew hateful rhetoric must be held accountable for the ravages they cause, and the lies they tell about Gay people, and taking them to court is one of the best ways of holding them accountable.

"Rather than indulge in political expediency, and being anemic regarding meaningful activism, the Human Rights Campaign should be the one to file such suits (and they should be pressured to do so), as they undoubtedly have the funds and staff necessary to see these suits to completion."

It is important to recognize that religious homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with the things of God or of the Spirit! It has to do with the functions and perceived rewards to the in-group that hate produces! And never, never buy into the lie that they "hate the sin but love the sinner."

Beyond the fact that being Gay is not a sin, these wolves in sheep's clothing hate Gay people too, and to ignore that fact diminishes the realization of the tremendous harm that homophobic clergy and their followers have done to Gay people, their families, and to society at large as partly seen in our ever-increasing coarsening of the culture.

And when LGBT people and allies finally marshal enough strength of will to put pressure on such organizations as the Human Rights Campaign to become more aggressive, coordinate meaningful grassroots activism against homophobia whenever and wherever it occurs, Gay people will no longer be considered the "safe" targets the in-group can persecute.

Then, the in-group will hunt around and find another "enemy" to construct, another out-group, to continue to meet their perceived needs that discriminating against LGBT people have hitherto afforded them.

But, at least, when that day occurs, we can expect there to be far fewer Gay lives lived in desperation; far fewer Gay suicides; far fewer assaults against Gay people; far fewer murders of Gay people. And, Gay people will be afforded the same dignity and civil and sacramental rights afforded to all other citizens.

And if these goals are not worth meaningfully and aggressively fighting for, I don't know what is!

Rev. Dr. Jerry S. Maneker is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at California State University, Chico.

He can be reached at his informative website A Christian Voice for Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual, And Transgender Rights .

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

2008 New Hampshire Primary:Surprising Come back for Hillary Clinton!!!

I am so surprise by how close the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire was , and it was in the favor of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The polls was saying that it would be a huge margin for Obama, but that was not the case. Sen.Clinton was the comeback girl on the Democratic side of the primary. As for the GOP, congrats to the Sen.John McCain, but on this site it's all about the Democratic side of things in the 2008 election.

N.H. Democratic Primary Candidate Votes %

Hillary Clinton -39% of the votes

Barack Obama -37 % of the votes

John Edwards - 17 % of the votes

Bill Richardson -5% of the votes

Other- 4/516/ 3

Justice MH: To Mrs Clinton: You go girl. Never count a Clinton out. It's almost midnight wednesday.I'll talk more about this later wednesday evening. Stay tune....

Thursday, January 3, 2008

The Next President and Iowa Predictions!!!

We are a little over a hour away to the first contest for the race to the White House, and the Iowa Caucuses are almost here.

I have made a decision of who I'm supporting in the Presidential Primaries this month, and that candidate is Sen. Barack Obama. Yes, it was tough, and I was going back and forth between Hillary and Obama. If Obama doesn't get the Democratic Nomination, then it's without doubt Hillary Clintion will have my support in the general election.

In my view, Sen.Obama will bring change in Washingtion for America, and we need it. Obama has alot of support: Oprah, independents who want big change like me, young democrats, and african-american support which is increasing.

Sen.Obama's record on gay rights is passable, and it will do, even though fellow blogger and Guest blogger Jerry Manker argues that LGBT people should support Democratic white house hopefuls like Congressman Dennis Kucinich who supports full marriage equality. While I understand and agree with his argument, I still favor Obama. If Dennis doesn't make the 15% mark, he has told his supporter to support Obama, and that may help Obama tonight.

Quick Iowa Predictions

Democratic Iowa Winners: Republican Iowa Winners:

1st: Barack Obama 1st: Mike Huckabee

2nd: Hillary Clintion 2nd: Mitt Romney

3rd: John Edwards 3rd: Ron Paul or Fred Thompson

Justice MH: Well, that's the way I see it. It's going to be interesting in a hour, and through out the night. It's like a who's who, and no knows what going to happen. I hope my predictions are right or close, we'll see!