Tesse is back! This time with two Birthday Books that she donated to the library! These two books will be wonderful additions to our collection: Claudette Colvin-Twice Toward Justice by Phillip Hoose and Who is J.K. Rowling? by Pam Pollack and Meg Belviso. I think that both of these books will be very popular. Thank you, Tesse! Keep reading!

The increasing problems that have infected and affected the black community need to be addressed in a serious and sincere manner.  Most of these problems have at their center a morality that was once readily present in black America, but is becoming increasingly rare.  There should be a focused and concentrated effort- originating from the black church- that renews the minds and hearts of black Americans.  This renewal should focus on Christian moral values as the corrective to the pervading values that now afflict black America.

That blacks are in need of spiritual (and social, and economic) renewal is no secret.  Certain segments of black America have given themselves over to behaviors that most people label counterproductive, destructive and undignified- from the astronomically high numbers of black children born outside of wedlock, to black-on-black violence to what has been termed, ‘flash robs.”  Frankly these behaviors are embarrassing and morally disturbing. We know that the black church has failed its moral and spiritual obligation of leadership because the effects of the cultural degradation are too abundant to ignore or claim otherwise.  Of course not all black churches have failed.  But collectively they have.

What’s worse is that many of these behaviors are now accepted and referred to as “culturally authentic.”

Because of the postmodern trappings of “tolerance,” “diversity” and relativism, blacks have willingly relinquished the painful process of self-critiquing their own community.  The moral and spiritual deficiency has led black culture to define “authenticity” as comporting oneself with behaviors and stereotypes that the generations of many black grandparents and great grandparents sought to avoid and overcome.  In other condescending terms, this “authenticity” has been equated with “acting black.”

Many well-meaning white people- Christian and non-Christian alike- are almost equally complicit in this destructive form of “tolerance”.  For out of fear of verbal- and potentially, physical- reprisals, such as being labeled “racist,” “insensitive,” or worse, they refuse to speak out and condemn these unacceptable behaviors, passively accepting and legitimizing a form of conduct that they would never accept from anyone in their own family. The soft bigotry of low expectations comes to mind here.

Recognizing the silence and impotence of the black church, we must assume that black ministers have been evasive regarding the discussion of personal and communal sin.  The sermons regarding the guilt and shame of socially self-destructive and damaging behaviors don’t contain the condemnation they once did.  Again, this truth is self-evident, predicated upon the preponderance of detrimental activity that proliferates within black culture. This behavior is troubling, and the unbecoming conduct represents moral and spiritual captivity, which is very much in need of redemption.  The first slavery was obvious- it was an existential reality recognized by blacks and though an accepted reality, it was challenged as a moral evil and was eventually abolished.   This second slavery however, is much more reprehensible than the first because though blacks are physically free, spiritually, they’re very much still bound while being the freest blacks, ever, in the history of the world.

I’m angry and sad that a community whose heritage and dignity once coalesced around the lordship of Jesus and his church has allowed itself to come to this. The timidity of the black pulpit in not properly teaching the gospel of truth regarding spiritual liberation along with the kind of character that’s centered on the fruit of the Spirit, as well as not holding their congregations to a higher standard of personal and communal morality has had disastrous effects.  The black church is a storied and hollowed institution in American history and we’ve seen the power of the black church as evidenced by its historical stands against slavery and Jim Crow, as well as its morally-influential presence during the era of civil rights.  During these times, the black church truly was a moral beacon of light and hope. It spiritually sustained generations of blacks during periods of time in our country’s history when America was much more racist and unbecoming than it is now.  It fostered an elevated level of moral character that included “blessing one’s enemy” while, “turning the other cheek” when circumstances made it exceptionally difficult to do so.

Many argue that because of the Church’s spiritual complacency, its influence on American culture is fading; some of these arguments have merit.  The voice of the American church has been morally compromised when it comes to religious and ethical positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, high rates of adultery and divorce affecting natural marriage, justice and righteousness when dealing with immigration and poverty to name a few.  But the lack of effect that the black church has had on America in general over the past forty years is nothing short of disheartening.

Blacks must realize that cultural and spiritual redemption won’t come at the tip of a pen from a liberal politician; if so, it would’ve happened by now.  It will only come by repenting and returning (metanoia) to the biblical values contained in the Christian faith of their fathers, facilitated by a church that steadfastly bears witness to that reality in the pulpit by holding their congregations accountable.

Prof. J.D. King

Washington and Lee law professor J.D. King has published a new article titled Beyond ‘Life and Liberty’: The Evolving Right to Counsel. The article appears in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 48, 2013. Here is the abstract:

The majority of Americans, if they have contact with the criminal justice system at all, will experience it through misdemeanor courtrooms. More than ever before, the criminal justice system is used to sort, justify, and reify a separate underclass. And as the system of misdemeanor adjudication continues to be flooded with new cases, the value that is exalted over all others is efficiency. The result is a system that can make it virtually painless to plead guilty (which has always been true for low-level offenses), but that is now overlaid with a new system of increasingly harsh collateral consequences. The hidden consequences of a conviction may never be explained to the person choosing to plead guilty, leading to unjust results that happen more regularly and with more severe consequences than ever before.

This Article argues that current Sixth Amendment jurisprudence on the right to counsel has not adequately adapted to the changed realities within which misdemeanor prosecutions take place today. Because of the dramatic changes in the cultural meaning and real-life consequences of low-level convictions, there is no longer a useful or constitutionally significant line between those cases resulting in actual imprisonment and those cases not resulting in imprisonment. Two years ago in Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court recognized that the line between the direct and collateral consequences of a conviction has no constitutional significance in defining the effective assistance of counsel. Recognizing that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has evolved throughout its history to accommodate the changing cultural context of criminal prosecutions, this Article calls for a robust expansion of the right to counsel in all criminal cases.

The article is available for download from SSRN.

At the rally, Dr. Reginald Hawkins warned city leaders that if something wasn’t done to end segregation, future marches might not be so peaceful

Nearly two weeks later, civil rights and white business leaders quietly joined forces to desegregate the city’s upscale restaurants and hotels. In a simple but powerful gesture, they ate lunch together in the restaurants, peacefully opening the door to integration.

The May 29, 1963, lunch was a turning point in Charlotte’s emergence as a leading New South city. It contrasted sharply with the massive resistance seen in other Southern cities, such as Birmingham, Alabama, where the police chief that same month turned fire hoses and police dogs on young civil rights protesters.

“The city’s leadership recognized that there was a need to make necessary changes, but they did not want the violence that happened in other communities to happen here,” said Willie Ratchford, executive director of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community Relations Committee.

That lunch is being remembered this month with a series of events. On May 29, African-Americans and white civic leaders will discuss race relations at a Charlotte lunch event. The city’s community relations board is urging residents to invite someone of a different race to lunch the same day.

Ratchford said while race relations have improved, it’s important to honestly discuss the issue.

“Many of us think that the racism of the past is no longer here,” he said. “We think that way because we don’t see it. Back in those days, it was more overt. What we don’t realize is it still does happen — but not to the degree that it used to.”

____

Charlotte has long considered itself a major business community. In the years after the Civil War ended in 1865, the city’s banks provided capital to help the region’s then-flourishing textile industry expand. Today, Charlotte — with 760,000 people — is the largest city in North Carolina and one of the fastest growing in the U.S. The city is home to Bank of America Corp., the second largest U.S. bank by assets, and Duke Energy, the country’s largest energy company. In 2012, Charlotte hosted the Democratic National Convention.

But in the aftermath of the Civil War, Charlotte — like most Southern cities — was deeply segregated. African-Americans were forced to attend segregated schools. They were barred from mingling with whites in movie theaters, hotels and restaurants.

After World War II, African-Americans returning home from military service began challenging the status quo.

One of the leaders in Charlotte’s civil rights movement was Hawkins, a Korean War veteran, dentist and Presbyterian preacher. For years, he led successful sit-ins and protests.

He helped escort Dorothy Counts — the first African-American to integrate a Charlotte school — to Harding High in 1957. Scores of white teenagers and adults surrounded her as she walked into the school, spitting and yelling racial slurs.

The stories and photos made national news, and some leaders, including Mayor Stan Brookshire, believed it cast Charlotte in a negative light. They decided to work behind the scenes for change.

But change was slow, as it was throughout the South.

Many Southern communities were resisting desegregation. In the early 1960s, civil rights activists — many of them college students — began dramatic sit-ins against segregated lunch counters. They boycotted retail establishments that maintained segregated facilities.

Hawkins led many of those protests in Charlotte and was successful in ending segregated lunch counters.

But in early 1963, racial discrimination was still widespread for African-Americans in Charlotte, Hawkins’ son, Abdullah Salim Jr., an attorney, said Thursday.

And a showdown came in the spring of 1963.

____

A major international trade show was headed to Charlotte in April 1963, but Hawkins threatened a massive protest unless hotels and “white-tablecloth eateries” were desegregated.

Brookshire brokered the desegregation of key restaurants and hotels with business leaders, and Hawkins called off the protest. But when the trade show left, businesses reverted to segregation.

Hawkins wrote Brookshire to condemn the action.

“Unless we come to a full realization and act, we shall continue to have demonstrations led by me or someone else,” he wrote.

Hawkins then organized a march for May 20 – the same day North Carolina officials in 1775 signed the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence declaring freedom from England.

“The sole purpose of the march was to address the ills and conditions that were going on at the time,” Salim said. Hawkins ad-libbed a speech. “He declared independence from segregation,” Salim said.

In response, Brookshire called a meeting of Chamber of Commerce leaders and urged them to coordinate a voluntary desegregation of hotels and restaurants. The chamber approved a resolution asking that all businesses serving the general public be open to people of all races, creeds and color.

But some white restaurant operators were concerned that serving African-Americans might drive away white customers.

James “Slug” Claiborne, a 30-year-old cafeteria operator, suggested the chamber use sit-in tactics: Let every chamber director invite a black counterpart to lunch, disperse themselves across the city, and do it all on the same day. That would leave no place for offended whites to flee.

Claiborne’s proposal was adopted, and white and African American leaders lunched at hotels and restaurants throughout the city.

Jack Claiborne said his brother was a problem solver.

“He had some appreciation for what black people went through and sensitivity to them,” he said. “I don’t think he did this out of any ideological idea. He was just, ‘Let’s solve the problem.’”

The successful desegregation pushed Charlotte in the national spotlight.

“There was a lot of one-on-one personal lobbying behind the scenes to get restaurant owners to agree to this,” said Tom Hanchett, historian of the Levine Museum of the New South. “It was a success and made national headlines.”

But Hawkins — considered the public face of Charlotte’s civil rights movement, a man at the center of every protest — wasn’t invited to the “eat-in,” his son said.

“They considered him a troublemaker,” Salim said. “Here you have a man who has a master’s degree in divinity, and they considered him a troublemaker,” Salim said. “He never advocated violence in any way.”

Hanchett said Hawkins wasn’t invited because he believes white business owners wanted to avoid controversy — and the appearance that they were giving in to the civil rights leader.

___

Over the next few years, Hawkins and other local civil rights leaders continued to fight against racial discrimination. Most of the battles were peaceful.

But the calm was shattered Nov. 22, 1965, when the homes of four Charlotte civil rights leaders — including Hawkins’ — were bombed. No one was hurt, and no one was ever charged.

Salim said it didn’t stop his father, who ran for governor in 1968 and 1972. He said his father continued to fight for racial equality until his death in 2007.

“He battled his entire life for equality,” he said.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

VERY DISTURBING!!! And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

I am in my fifties but don’t act my age.

I am a very empathetic person who loves giving bear hugs. I believe that empathy is important and is important in our interactions with each other.

I am a Queer man. I identify as queer because I feel labeling myself as a gay men is not as inclusive of my many psycho-social-sexual quirks. I also am attracted to androdgynous guys and identify with some aspects of those into age regression and age-play (letting your inner child out to play). I am also an advocate for the transgender community. Many important people in my life are or were, (sadly two transgender friends were lost to AIDS), transgender. I also believe in everyone’s right to adopt gender roles, mannerisms or behavior that align with who they are, irrespective of society’s gender role expectations.

I am a Bear (hairy, bearded, “bellyed)” but don’t conform to bear stereotypes. I feel like a mother bear sometimes, a playful cub sometimes and a fairy bear frequently. I am also a caring bear aka a care bear.

I am a Secular Humanist. I am a caring, moral person who doesn’t rely on a deity. Like the line from the Christmas song I am good for goodness sake. I am an Agnostic but could be called an atheist (I don’t believe in a god but would be prepared to believe if strong, irrefutable evidence is presented). I am also a Unitarian Universalist (the only “church” I know off that welcomes secular humanists). I joined a UU church in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1986.

I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) and attend SDA schools from 2nd grade through college. My father was a minister/pastor/preacher and didn’t believe in dancing, pop/rock music, drinking anything with caffeine, eating meat, going to movies, smoking, drinking alcohol, doing anything secular on a”the Sabbath (sundown Friday through sundown Saturday), sex before heterosexual marriage (including a taboo on masturbation and homosexuality), guns even toy ones, eating before praying first, starting a day without morning worship. and on and on. As an adolescent I rebelled and had verbal fights over music, clothes, hair length, amount/kind of facial hair and other topics and issues. I held a lot of anger bottled up inside me. At college my world opened up. I was presented with the concept of critical thinking while a resident assistant by the dean of men at the dormitory. I was exposed to other faiths while overseas and for a couple years embraced the charismatic Christian movement. It was a search for a church that made sense to me and OF me that led me to the Unitarian Universalists.

I am a naturalist. My primary escape from problems at home was nature. We lived near a wooded area where I built trails, identified edible plants,observed birds and animals, camped out with friends and swam with beavers. During this time my favorite author was Henry David Thoreau and my favorite singer/songwriter was John Denver. I continued to enjoy all things nature including visits to the rainforest while living on Borneo for a year. As I have gotten older, and my mobility has been impaired, I have become an armchair naturalist collecting books, DVDs, and Blu-rays about nature.

I am a naturist. No this isn’t a repeating paragraph – I said naturist as in nudist. It all started when I was born; well, okay that’s cheesy, it actually started during the same period I turned to nature. I would run for the woods, strip naked and walk in freedom until bug bites forced me back into my clothes. I also had some great friends whose family owned land along side a river. I spent countless hours during several summers skinny dipping. I simply loved everything about being nude, the freedom, the breezes on all parts of my body, the sun warming my skin all over. One time myself and two friends decided we would try streaking. We rode out to the main highway and took turns running down the road and then ran together. It ended when some local yokel screeched his tires and pulled over. We all dove for cover – unfortunately I ran into a barbed wire fence – fortunately it missed my groin! Later I heard from my friend that a member of my dad’s church saw us but was nice enough not to tell our families. When I was out on my own I became an official naturist and joined the 2 national organizations: The Naturist Society and The American Sunbathing Association now called The American Association for Nude Recreation. I joined a camp a little under an hour from home and went to a beach in Rhode Island that was then clothing optional. I enjoyed all aspects of the experience and found that it was a great equalizer. No one knew or cared if you were rich or poor and you could quickly see that humans come in all shapes and sizes. I don’t live near a club now but continue to be a naturist at home and would love to visit a club again.

I am overweight but as I discussed here,I am less obese than I once was. That being said, I doubt I will ever be svelte. While I was a child, teen and young adult I managed to remain at a healthy weight because circumstances forced me to exercise. If I wanted to go anywhere I had to walk or bicycle to get there. I was also in good mobility health; I had no conditions that made exercise difficult. Then I graduated from college and got a car. Right away weight began to creep on. Then my knee started acting up and I had to have surgery. I went on a severe diet and exercise program in my late 20s and early 30s. I developed a blood clot from using a rowing machine and tried to still keep weight off after, Seven through I exercised less. A few years later I developed psoriatic arthritis walking more difficult. Finally I essentially gave up after developing the conditions I mentioned here. I am able to loose weight now by keeping unhealthy food out of the house. I will eat anything that’s available so I try to not purchase unhealthy food. I read the recent stories about “the couch potato gene” and I believe I may have it. I dislike exercise and crave sweets which is not a good combination. I hope to keep excess weight off as it has led to health problems but damn, it’s not easy!

I am an animal rights and environmental activist. I began my concern for these issues as a natural outgrowth of my love for nature. In fact, I started an “ecology nature club” while still in middle school. This passion for preserving the planet has never waned, if anything, it has grown stronger as science has uncovered the perils of global warming – climate change exacerbated by our pollution of our planet’s air. I am also a vegetarian as I discussed here. In fact the video on this post also helps explain my animal rights stance.

I am a life long Democrat but the Green Party would be closer to my beliefs. I just believe in making my vote count and, unfortunately, third party candidates only seem to be spoilers. My first vote for President was Jimmy Carter and every Democratic candidate after that. I did vote for a Republican once nd that was for William Weld in Massachusetts. He ran against an anti-gay conservative Democrat. I served on Gov. Weld’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, the first such Commission in the country. I had the privilege of working with some wonderful people who were pioneers in addressing the needs of LGBT youth. I was also one of the adult advisors to an LGBT Youth Group. I remain a strong advocate on behalf of LGBT/Queer Youth.

I am an activist. I participated in many causes but a few stand out. I already mentioned my environmental and animal rights activism and those causes were important. My major activism occurrence during the late ’80s and early-mid ’90s. I participated in many street demonstrations prior to anti-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation. I witnessed some amazing milestones including a huge demonstration that brought the state Senate to a halt and saw activists, including an elderly Unitarian Universalist minister, dragged across seats and out of the chamber and was there when, a year or so later, the bill passed and the community met at Faneuil Hall in celebration. I also was privileged to be part of the activism that led to protection for LGB youth in schools, (protection for transgender students came later). I am also proud of my time as an AIDS activist. I planned and participated in demonstrations at schools that didn’t provide condoms or comprehensive sexuality education, a demonstration when the municipal buses refused to display a pro condom use poster, and annual candlelight vigils and inter-faith services for World AIDS Day. I also was a part of ACT-UP and participated in several demonstrations and when ACT-UP spun off Queer Nation I joined in. In fact my then partner and I got “married” at a unique Queer Nation wedding protest.

I am committed to maintaining strong civil rights protections. I grew up during the struggle for civil rights. I witnessed my father call black children “carob drops” (we had carob rather than chocolate drops as treats growing up). I saw my parents display an offensive bobble headed black maid doll – they removed the ear rings because that was offensive but kept the doll! I also heard my dad make disparaging remarks about black religious music. I realized that this was wrong as I grew older. My views really changed in college. I witnessed racism first hand when a group of fellow students and I went to watch the tall sailing ship “Parade of Sail” in Boston in 1976. I was horrified when some racists called my friends the “n” word and me a “n” lover. My awareness grew as I studied and interacted with African-American students and professors. During the mid ’80s.I participated in the sanctions movement against South Africa because of apartheid. Years later, in 1988, I worked on Jesse Jackson’s campaign for President. It was a wonderful experience as I worked with a diverse group of volunteers. The one memory that still makes me angry was while I was campaigning holding a Jackson for President sign and a passer by hollored out “what are you voting for that “n” word for?” I was filled with pride when 20 years later, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America. Several years ago I was in Atlanta and visited Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memorial it was a very moving experience. The museum there was also amazing. The take away message was King’ s commitment to non violence – a principe I have tried to live y life by.

I am disabled as I described here. I know how difficult it can be to go through the of getting approved for Social Security Disability benefits. I know the frustration of having activity curtailed because it hurts to move. I also know the desperation you feel when your anxiety and fear of panic attacks limits the number of times you leave the house.

So that’s a little bit about me. I am a human being with flaws but I try to be a kind and loving person. I am grateful you have taken the time to get to know me. I look forward to learning about you!

In a process that took three decades, Sajjan Kumar, a leader in India’s Congress Party, was recently acquitted for his well-documented involvement in the anti-Sikh pogroms during November 1984 in which thousands of Sikhs were murdered in three days in the country’s capital city. Five co-accused were convicted. (Source: Live Mint)

About two months ago, I observed the continuing engagement by representatives of the Indian government with the Sikh American community, which in that instance took the form of an exhibition on Sikh heritage in Atlanta, Georgia, sponsored by the Government of India. This exhibit has just recently been presented in Washington, D.C., as well, and it is consistent with increased engagement and activity related to the Sikh American community — be it directly, or through lobbying of US officials — by representatives of India. The increasing effort by Indian officials to promote the Sikh community in the United States is problematic, however, as it runs contrary to India’s track record with the Sikhs in its own borders over the past several decades.

Whether in the aftermath of a hate crime (such as in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, or recently in Fresno, California), or in what appears a deliberate attempt to brand the Sikh identity with Indian nationalism, representatives of the Indian government are insisting that they be the custodians of the Sikh community in the United States.

To an observer unaware of context, there would seem nothing out of the ordinary with such engagement by representatives of the Government of India. Historically, Sikhs originated in the Punjab area of what is now Pakistan and India, and since the Partition of British India in 1947 to create those countries, the majority of the world’s Sikh population resides in India. Many Sikh Americans have strong ties to Punjab on both religious and personal bases. And, certainly, as India’s Ambassador to the United States recently wrote to me on Twitter, there is a role for the Embassy in protecting the interests of Indian nationals — presumably, this includes Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and others — in the United States. (It must be remembered, of course, that many Sikhs and others have no proximate ethnic or familial ties to India — having adopted Sikhism later in life or having been born and brought up in the United States, in some cases for several generations.)

It is not difficult to see where this expression of solidarity with Sikh Americans is problematic, and where this role presents a conflict for India’s representatives.

When India’s representatives in the United States are hosting “Sikh heritage” exhibitions to promote the Sikh people as “the shield of India,” or insisting on their place in addressing Sikh American civil rights issues such as hate crimes and discrimination, this activity is in stark contrast with the Indian Government’s own well-documented participation and lack of responsibility around the severest of human rights abuses of Indian nationals within its own borders. Specifically, in but one example, India has itself failed to adequately address the horror of the anti-Sikh pogroms in November, 1984, when thousands of Sikhs were butchered, burned alive and raped in the streets of Delhi in just three days by organized and unfettered mobs. From complacency to active participation, government officials and police agencies have long been implicated, and various human rights organizations (such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) have lamented both India’s refusal to administer justice for the surviving victims and its protecting of government officials who were responsible. In fact, even the US Council for International Religious Freedom continues to track India for its failure to administer justice for these abuses towards its religious communities. Recently, the White House itself asserted its condemnation of the anti-Sikh pogroms of 1984.

In this disconnect between the stances taken related to the Sikhs in India versus the Sikhs in the United States, the recent public relations effort appears as little more than a propaganda campaign to maintain a colonial ownership over the Sikh American community — one that is slowly increasing in prominence and organization. It is difficult to see these efforts as more. There is nary a mention by Indian officials in the United States of the more recent history of suffering of the Sikhs during 1984 and beyond, nor is there any concern shown for the obfuscation of justice in India towards Sikh and other communities that still continues today. For India’s representatives in the United States to “promote Sikh heritage” on one hand, and deny recent and painful Sikh history on the other (and attempt to deflect attention by defaming anyone who nonviolently raises concern about human rights as a terrorist or extremist), is certainly a scenario that begs many questions.

If representatives of the Indian government wish to present themselves as allies of the Sikh American community, they must start by first becoming so for the Sikhs in India. Until justice for large-scale and decades-old human rights abuses exacted by complicit governments, agencies and officials towards Sikhs in India is achieved, it is difficult to accept with any legitimacy the overtures made towards the Sikh community in the United States.

[Cross-posted on The Langar Hall]

By Ian Millhiser on May 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.

And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriouslyconservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.

This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.

That’s supposed to be MY White House!

Poor President Obama. If you looked at the headlines or the Congressional calendar last week, it was his worst week ever, as his administration was bogged down in scandal after scandal. Or was it?

First, there was the ongoing attempt to politicize the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi. (Dick Cheney Wannabe) Rep. Darrell Issa (R – Nastyville) held more pointless hearings to get exactly the same information. There was some understandable confusion right after the attacks. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated some partially incorrect CIA talking points to the media. The White House and State Department have been very forthcoming with all the information Congress demands. There are some real security lessons to learn, but the GOP would rather try to smear the very popular Hillary Clinton and attack the President. ABC’s Jon Karl screamed scandal as he revealed “new” White House emails. The only problem? They were old, incomplete emails — provided to Karl by Republicans.

Next, the mess at the IRS. A branch office (in Cincinnati) used the term “Tea Party” to analyze tax exempt applications for “social welfare” agencies. “Political targeting!” cried the GOP. Well, maybe. But since the dreadful Citizens United decision, the number of organizations trying to get such status has gone from under 700 to over 2400 a year. Republicans have slashed the IRS budget and refused to craft legislation that would give the agency guidelines for implementing Citizens United. One office made a poor decision, but NO APPLICANT WAS REFUSED THE STATUS — except for one liberal organization. It must be a scandal, though! (Curiously, although the record clearly shows that the White House learned about the problem about a month ago, long after the practice was stopped and an internal investigation launched, at least one person DID know about it way back in July — Rep. Darrell Issa.)

Finally, the Justice Department demanded hundreds of phone records from the AP. This is actually disappointing, fitting into the pattern of domestic spying and privacy infringements that have been part of the Holder DoJ for years. From drones to wiretaps, it’s a blemish on Obama’s potential legacy. Oh, but so far his administration, however foolishly, IS FOLLOWING THE LAW. A law shoved down Congress by a Republican president (Remember good old W?  If you want someone to blame for this law, then blame W, trampling rights as he lied his way into Iraq.). Oh, and the GOP actually likes spying on the press, so never mind, no real pressure here.

Bad news for the GOP: all their screaming and hearings aren’t getting much traction. Sure, the Sunday talk shows (aka the McCain hour–always a pleasure trip into insanity) and the newspaper headlines are parroting their points in the name of “objectivity.” The real impact though? Not so much.

A new Gallup shows the President’s favorables at 53-45, up 11 points from March. GOP ratings for the same period? Down 13, to the lowest since 1992. Maybe Republicans in Congress should focus on creating jobs and actually passing some bills for a change. Clearly, their obstructionist ways along with their “Get off my lawn” ranting is not working.

The most public cases of these frauds are known as ”Notario Fraud” or “Immigration Consultants Fraud.”  Notarios or immigration consultants use false advertising and fraudulent contracts.  They hold themselves as qualified to help immigrants to obtain lawful status or perform other legal functions.  (You can read more about Fight Notario Fraud at the ABA).

Now, federal agents were indicted in an immigration fraud scheme led by a L.A. attorney.  The indictment alleges two conspiracies against the US involving bribery and fraud, seven counts of bribery, as well as making false statements and misuse of government seals.

The U.S. Attorney stated in a statement,

The conspiracy was allegedly orchestrated by a Los Angeles attorney who paid bribes as high as $10,000 to officials with several agencies in the Department of Homeland Security to help secure immigration benefits for aliens he was representing.

The indictment claims alleged that Kwan Man “John” Lee bribed public officials to get immigration benefits for clients who paid him, at times, more than $50,000.  Lee was charged in a previous criminal complaint and is not a defendant in the indictment.

via Courthouse News Service.

Undermining civil rights

Recently gay marriage was passed in New Zealand, and comes into force next year; however on other hand civil liberties have been undermined by National and the government bureaucracy, through them allowing another agency called the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders, after the government broke the law by allowing the agency to spy on New Zealanders that the government doesn’t like (such as in the case of Kim Dotcom).

The National party and the ‘champions of human rights’ NZ First (which voted against the human rights act, gay marriage, rights of the child,etc) support this change, even though there is no proof whatsoever that New Zealand is at risk from terrorism, and even though there has never been a terrorist attack in New Zealand that wasn’t state sponsored, or done by someone mentally ill.

The New Zealand government claims a threat exists, when it clearly doesn’t, it believes that New Zealand (having no nuclear weapons or power plants) is at risk of giving nuclear knowledge to Iran,etc though its lack of ‘cyber-security’. The New Zealand government is also totally paranoid, as expressed by their claims that Israeli students spied on New Zealand during the Christchurch earthquake. This will mostly likely result in a rise of islamophobia and anti-semitism, through more discrimination against Muslims, Jews and those deemed a ‘cyber security threat’.

This is an attack on civil rights, a classic case of freedom being taken away for the sake of government interest. When the terrorism label doesn’t stick they use ‘cyber-security’, noting secret meetings and information that the public is denied access to, a classic case of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ Iraq style.

On another front, the government is attacking the civil rights of people with disabilities, baring the legal rights of people with disabilities and their carers to pursue legal action against the government. The reason for this legislative action is because the government has violated the human rights act, and multiple UN agreements on human rights in regards to people with disabilities.

What is worse? The fact is the New Zealand government has a double standard when it comes to civil rights in New Zealand, and civil rights are being eroded in order to support special interests, neo-liberal hatred of the disabled ‘parasites’,  and to spy on New Zealanders without justification.

The US flourished for over 120 years without an income tax, and our liberty and prosperity will only benefit from getting rid of the current tax system.

We want to emphasize that ending the IRS is a realistic proposal.  Ending the IRS would actually save money, and it’s pretty straightforward.  Congress just has to repeal the founding law of the IRS, and roll back to the prior system.

The prior system was for the states to pay tax to the federal government.  Each state already has a tax agency, so the IRS is redundant.  America’s founders never intended the federal government to reach over the states and tax their citizens directly.  That’s an obvious source of abuse.

The real problem is that this is a federal program, wherein the states spend “federal money” under federal direction.

Paying tax only to your state means that you don’t encounter an omnipotent federal agency.  It also frees the states to collect tax any way they choose.  Your state may have a personal income tax – not all do.  It may rely on a corporate tax, a sales tax, a property tax, or the lotto.  This is the states’ traditional role as laboratories for new policy.

One way or another, your state taxes would go up, but your federal tax would go to zero – and there would be one less giant bureaucracy to support.

See also:  President Guts Welfare Reform

Sarah and Maryellen have contributed a selection of images from their current chapters

2 US civil rights images. One, The Rabbit’s Wedding, culminated in the banning of this children’s book in 1941. The other, a illustration by Jacob Lawrence encapsulates neatly the segregated world of the South.

When Tanya and I met with Maryellen last week she showed us a swag of cartoons, photographs and other visual sources on the topic of force feeding suffragettes.

In the mid-20^th Century, science fiction writers imagined a 21^st Century where consumer goods and food could simply be printed in a machine quickly and at very low costs to the consumer. While this world has yet to truly materialize, we are rapidly seeing the beginnings of such a world emerge with the developments of 3D-Printing technology.

3D-printers use computer assisted design (CAD) blueprints—downloadable over the internet—as a template to print solid objects out of raw plastic polymers. This technology allows for the creation of a huge variety of good, ranging from lawn ornaments and tools, to, as of May 2013, fully working firearms.

The first functional 3D-printed firearm, called “The Liberator” (see above picture), was designed by Defense Distributed and first fired on May 1, 2013. After its successful test fire, Defense Distributed released the CAD blueprints of the gun onto the internet, turning the firearm into the first open-source weapon.

The Liberator is almost entirely plastic, only requiring a metal firing pin, and is completely invisible to metal detectors (the design has a non-vital metal piece to make it legal, but this piece can easily be taken out). It fires .308 rounds and is capable of firing multiple rounds without breaking.

Printed guns are a new frontier, as they allow individuals to make their own weapons without any reporting/regulation and to circumvent all conventional police methods to trace guns. In this new frontier of guns, a criminal can simply print off a metal-detector invisible gun for as little as $25, use it in a crime, and destroy it, only to make another one. There are no background checks to avoid, no worries about handling a “hot” gun, and no need to risk being caught buying an illegal weapon—they simply need a 3D-printer and an internet connection to obtain an untraceable weapon, or even to start their own arms factory. In addition to being untraceable, printed guns are made to be identical and there are no distinguishing marks to prove that a bullet came out of a specific gun (ex. All Liberators are exactly the same and there is no way to link a bullet used in a murder to a specific Liberator pistol).

Ultimately, The Liberator is far less lethal than a conventional firearm, but it is simply the proof of concept for a very dangerous new gun market; after the first designs for 3D-printed guns are successful, the development curve will dramatically expand and the new guns will be much more lethal.

To put the potential for this situation to spiral out of control into perspective: Less than two weeks after the release of The Liberator, a new design, called the “Lulz Liberator,” was released onto the internet. This design can hold 9 bullets instead of The Liberator’s 1, is cheaper (costing only $25), and is more resilient and less likely to misfire. If such improvements can be made in less than 2 weeks, imagine what could be developed by the end of the year, or in five years.

The NRA and Printed Guns

The NRA presents itself as a sportsman’s organization (or sometimes a “civil rights group,” but that is too absurd to dignify with a detailed response), and one would think that they would love the invention of printed guns. After all, when guns are printable, everybody can have one, the government will have a very hard time stopping new printed weapons from being manufactured, and the ideal, gun-flooded world of the NRA will be realized.

If we are to believe the gun-anarchy rhetoric of the NRA, the more guns that we have, the safer we will be and the development of printed guns is a great achievement. No longer will people have to buy their guns from regulated suppliers, as they can meet all of their hunting and self-defense needs with guns fabricated in their own garages.

In reality however, the NRA hasn’t been a sportsman’s organization since the gun manufacturers took it over in 1977 and transformed it from a group that supported responsible gun ownership and regulation into one that only cares for the interests of corporate donors. Rather than following the wishes of its members, the NRA now follows the wishes of its donors

As the donors to the NRA are primarily gun manufacturers, the NRA unfailingly supports deregulation of guns and more guns in society. More guns being sold equals more money being made by gun manufacturers and more money available to be “donated” to the NRA. Currently, the NRA is simply a combination of the gun lobby and a gun manufacturer’s PR group being shrouded in the remains of a century-old sportsman’s organization.

The development of 3D-printed guns presents a very interesting and complex problem for the NRA, as such a development puts its rhetoric at direct opposition with its goals. In order to attack regulation and promote the sale of guns, the NRA claims that more guns are always better and that regulations on guns are not only pointless, but oppressive. This rhetoric allows the NRA to increase the profits of their funders, while claiming to be defenders of freedom and safety. Unfortunately for them, this rhetoric is only useful in promoting gun sales for as long as guns are exclusively manufactured by corporations.

With the invention of printed guns, guns are much more available, but the gun manufacturers face a dramatic problem with their business model—if guns are printable by individual citizens at very low costs, they can no longer sell as many guns and their profits are directly threatened.

If the very same paranoid individuals who are stockpiling guns due to the rhetoric of the NRA realize that they could simply buy a 3D-printer and start their own arms factory (producing huge numbers of untraceable weapons to stave off “government tyranny and encroaching Mexican drug gangs”), they will no longer be cash-cows for conventional weapons manufacturers. Sure, assault rifles will likely not be fabricated in 3D-printers for a good time, but the entire handgun market may soon be swamped by the development of a cheap and reliable printed gun.

At the end of the day, the NRA’s response to the printed gun invention will determine the true nature of the NRA—will they stick to their talking points and endanger the business of their funders or will they betray their rhetoric in order to preserve the gun manufacture industry?

On one hand, if the NRA supports the gun-anarchy of printed weapons—untraceable and available to all—and gets behind protecting the right of everybody to become a gun manufacturer, they are truly as insane as their rhetoric has made them sound.

On the other hand, if the NRA supports stronger regulations on printed guns, they are exposing themselves to be nothing more than unprincipled tools of gun manufacturers—willing to promote gun anarchy and risk the murder of children if it protects the bottom line of their corporate sponsors.

Honestly, I am uncertain which is worse—being hopelessly corrupt or hopelessly insane—but neither option is particularly comforting when one considers the power of the NRA in Washington politics.

Beware an NRA “Concession” on Printed Guns

If I were a director at the NRA, I would utilize the outrage over the lack of gun control in order to facilitate the destruction of my funding corporation’s largest market competition. The public wants increased gun control and the NRA could direct its political allies to give them just that—but only affecting the emerging market of printed guns.

It would be extremely easy for lawmakers to make arguments against printed gun ownership, as the entire concept is a public safety nightmare. Currently, public opinion is eviscerating the NRA’s political allies (ex. a 15-point drop in approval for Kelly Ayotte after she voted against background checks) and a strong anti-printed gun law could be just the fig leaf that they need in order to stave off criticism.

If NRA-allied politicians were to “break” with the NRA line and draft strong legislation attacking printed guns, the NRA need only not score or attack them for their actions. The NRA could simply say that it will not oppose restrictions on gun printing, as it is a very new industry that is too new to speculate upon, or that printed guns are so unreliable at this point in time that they pose a safety risk to the user.

By calling a bill severely restricting gun printing or ownership of printed weapons a concession, the NRA could simultaneously serve the interests of their corporate funders and give themselves a veneer of credibility—by appearing reluctant to support such legislation, but eventually going along with it, they could paint themselves as more reasonable then they actually are and deflect future demands to increase gun restrictions by saying that they already met the gun control advocates part of the way.

In looking at legislation aimed at restricting gun printing, we must not only set the bar high, but we must also not allow gun manufacturers to use us to destroy their competition and then call it a concession. Any new restrictions on printed guns must not be considered progress in the debate over gun control in the USA.

Folks, it’s time to strap in… this is where the ride begins to get rough.

From my perspective, all hell broke loose the instant I first set foot in a public school. I was 7 at the time, and was placed in 2^nd grade.

Evidently people talk to each other in my town, thus many already knew I was the “special” child who had just been mainstreamed.

In the late 60’s there really wasn’t much of anything along the way of anti-bullying or diversity awareness. I didn’t see any blacks at school, but likely almost none lived here either because they could not afford to rent or live in my town, or even if they could red-lining was still an extra-legal practice.

But word spread and the children already knew. The very first thing I remember hearing when I came into the classroom was, whispered, “Here comes the retard.” The teacher had a welcoming song and all the children were each table were to place their hands in the center, touching the others, shaking each other’s hands cross-armed, and while doing so were asked to sing this just before the Pledge of Allegiance, here is what little I remember:

Good morning, Good morning,

Good morning to you!

Good morning, Good morning,

And how do you do?

I would extend my hand to the middle of the table but no other child would grasp it. I tried grasping another child’s hands but each child I tried to do that with would withdraw his or her hand.

I don’t necessarily remember what I studied aside from the fact that I got bored quickly during each and every class. In the public library I began reading the Oz series by Baum with those books having been both simplified for children and illustrated. I also liked reading about the other planets in our solar system, Jupiter and its moons were my favorite, very colorful.

Many people are very unaware that the movie, The Wizard of Oz, is based on a book written in the mid-19^th century. Years later in a bookstore I browsed the entire series of more than 20 books at the adult level. I was entranced by the author’s exquisite attention to detail in his world building.

In the classroom the teacher could keep control of the students and guarantee at least a minimal level of civility towards me. Outside in the schoolyard, it was a completely different game. No one would play with me. One boy even snuck up behind me and quietly said, “retard!”.

In phys-ed the teacher had to force her students to include me on one of the teams for baseball or soccer. I was a notoriously poor batter so the teacher allowed girls three strikes, myself two, and the other boys a single strike. I did learn how to bunt, though, and I could at least get around all four bases as long as the rest of the team was patient.

I was somewhat better in soccer, especially in wing position, because I could sprint at a high speed for short distances and intercept the boy running as forward. I obtain a grudging respect from the other boys for that.

The harassment got worse over time. I remember in about 4^th grade about half a dozen boys would say, “I hate your guts! I call you out!”, as they wanted an excuse to beat me into the ground. My usual response was: “I refuse! Fighting is stupid, and people who fight are stupid!”

One boy on the actually did jump me from behind completely by surprise, and since I was heavier than an average kid my age and he was lighter, and I somehow managed to roll us over and to use my weight to pin his shoulders to the ground. There were witnesses, and the principal did not cite me for fighting because I was not the attacker.

I would still be called out for fights in 5^th grade. Meanwhile at home, I was taking apart television sets, and reading about electronics projects at school. I was beginning to get interested in the concept of amateur radio, which specified no lower age limit for participating! I really wanted to do that, so I checked out and read ARRL books for Novice hams at the public library.

In the spring of 6^th grade, something very terrible happened to me. I believe if it hadn’t happened I would have been a much more successful person in terms of relating to other people and being able to focus on complex work.

The boys who wanted me to fight started screaming the word “faggot” to me. I didn’t understand what the word even mean at the time, so I ignored it. They then evidently decided they had no choice but to hunt me as a pack.

On that day walking home from school, I managed to see these same five boys following me. I began walking faster, so they started walking faster too. Then they started running to catch up with me. I tried to keep running home, but what they did was maneuver me to a tree. They then formed a ring, and closed in. I had my back to the tree, and to use my arms to shield my head, and they also kicked me in the legs and butt.

The very worst of it all was this: one boy decided he really wanted me humiliated so on his turn as the circle of boys rotated around the tree, he would reach out to my crotch and grip my penis through my jeans in an painful squeeze, shouting, “wee-wee!”, with a squeeze at every syllable, and he was able to take several turns around the circle. This went on for a while.

I was shuddering, shivering, and crying, sitting with my back still to the tree, and I had no presence of mind at all to ask why they felt that hurting me was so necessary to them. As the boys left, one of them turned back to me, shouting, “Go back to where you came from!”, then followed the other boys.

I limped home a half hour late. Mother asked what happened to me. She couldn’t believe what I told her, and therefore engaged in denial. She told me I was lying, that it could have only been one kid, and that if I wasn’t such a sissy I wouldn’t have attracted this attention or been beaten up so badly.

This only made me feel worse. In retrospect, I understand Mother could easily file a lawsuit against the school district. But as it was, I received no support whatever to help cope with being so traumatized. My state’s statute of limitations for sexual assault had certainly run out by the time I realized in my 40’s just how much just this one event had degraded the quality of my entire life, and for why no matter how hard I tried I fulfill my potential I could never make the grade.

It is one of those memories I had gained which still sometimes makes me wish I had never been born.

First and foremost, I respect all religions. What I’m revealing today is only about my own experience. I’m not saying it’s everyone’s experience.

My father, like many Cubans, practiced Santeria, which has its roots in Yoruba, a religion that slaves brought from Africa. Because they weren’t allowed to practice their religion, it was hidden behind, and eventually influenced by, Roman Catholism. However, in my many homes growing up, there were no signs of the Christianity. No Bibles or pictures of Jesus.

There were, though, many symbols of Santeria. In the kitchen on top of the cabinets were vases and jars full of sugar, honey and coins, to bring in money. Behind the front door were a brown coconut with a cigar half smoked and an expresso coffee cup on a plate. (I have no idea why.)

In the freezer next to the food were coffee cans that had little pieces of paper with names written on them. When I asked my father about the cans in the freezer, he said, “Those individuals are being cooled down.”

My father was a career criminal and I guess he needed all the help he could get.

As I was connecting to the Colombia cartels, I knew the consequences would be great if I got caught. I didn’t have a crystal ball per se, but I had Maria.

She was pretty famous tarot reader in Miami with a background in Santeria. Her claim was that she could prevent or fix any problem, and her client list included an executive secretary from the White House, whom I met, lawyers, doctors, high ranking Miami city officials, and, she said, priests. She also saw a number of drug dealers.

Drug dealers all have the same problem: “I want it Now!” They’re impatient, always looking for short cuts, and that’s what Maria seemed to promise. Whether the client wanted LOVE, MONEY, a JOB, or help with a LEGAL PROBLEM, she could get it for them, she said. But as I learned the hard way, short cuts don’t work.

I saw Maria a few times and she always told me that my road was clear but that a tall women with long brown hair would get me into trouble, so stay away from her. Then she gave me a protector to always carry with me.

Since The Golden Rules that Pedro taught me said don’t do drug business with women, I thought I was in the clear on that. But desperate circumstances got the better of me, and it was a female confidential informant who brought me down.

The complete story of my experiences with Santeria and getting busted will be in my forthcoming memoir.

P.S. My own beliefs have always been Christian. As soon as I could drive a car, I went to church to open that channel with the Lord because I knew in my heart it was the right place for me to be.