Daily news sites

Husband pleaded guilty to murdering his wife, a Wauwatosa Police Officer on Christmas Eve.

By H. Nelson Goodson
June 26, 2013

Milwaukee, Wisconsin - On Wednesday, Benjamin Sebena, 30, pled guilty to killing his wife, Wauwatosa Police Officer Jennifer Lynn Sebena, 30, on Christmas Eve 2012 under a plea agreement to seek parole within 50 to 60 years of his sentence. His sentencing on the case is set for August.

Anne Frank House Muesum


Película en español "El Diario de Anne Frank"  video

The Diary of a Young Girl (English version)  video

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

But in a move that is sure to deepen tension between the right wing and the House leadership, social conservatives are gearing up to reignite the fight in D.C.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), speaking at a Tuesday meeting between reporters and conservative lawmakers, said he will file a constitutional amendment in Congress late this week to restore DOMA. Huelskamp said he will be joined by other conservatives.

“My response to this [decision] will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment,” he said.

And so we see yet more republican bigotry and unwillingness to accept that which is ethically and morally right. While many who are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian had hoped reason would ultimately prevail in the republican party, and more specifically it's Fundie faction, such will not be.

The full story from POLITICO...

Congressional Republican leaders are speaking with resounding unity: the same-sex marriage fight is ending on Capitol Hill.

While conservative rank-and-file want to continue the fight that has, in part, defined the Republican Party for much of the last few decades, leadership is eager to shift it to state capitals across the country.

House Speaker John Boehner, whose leadership spent millions to defend DOMA, said he was “disappointed” in the decision, but did not promise action in the Republican House.

“While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances,” Boehner said in a statement. “A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said he’s “disappointed in this decision, and the marriage debate will continue in the states”

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No 2. Senate Republican, said “like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutional matters.”

“It sounds to me that that battle will be moving to the states,” Cornyn said. “The issue is not going away and there are going to be havens of traditional values like Texas where I don’t think the law is going to be changed.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) simply flashed a smile and ignored a reporter’s question about the court’s decision Wednesday.

Skip

When asked if leadership is likely to support efforts to restore DOMA, Huelskamp said he was encouraged by the Boehner’s statement after the ruling. “I give tremendous credit to the Speaker of House,” Huelskamp said.

It would be a drastic understatement to say the political dynamics of gay rights and gay marriage are shifting. National Republican politics and policy reflects the changing electorate.

The congressional GOP leadership that spent much of the last few decades trying to write into the Constitution its opposition to gay marriage, now appears to be waving the white flag when it comes to national policy. The party does face a shifting electorate, which is increasingly more comfortable with same-sex marriage, and several congressional Republicans — including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman — have endorsed same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately the "... several congressional Republicans — including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman — have endorsed same-sex marriage" are in the decided minority. Therein lies one the reason the republican party is rapidly losing much of the nation to the Libertarian Party and the Democratic Party.



Via: Memeorandum

The Lynching of Paula Deen
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
**************

What we are experiencing with Paula Deen is nothing more than a modern day lynching. 

Let's be clear:  I don't care for Ms. Deen's politics.  I don't even like her cooking show -- and I am a born and bred southerner.  In fact, I am a bit embarrassed at what appears to be the forced over-usage of the southern word "y'all" by Ms. Deen. 


But what got my dander up was the vicious attack on a woman honorable enough to answer a lawyer's question truthfully. 

Look. Ms Deen did not HAVE to tell the truth.  She could have lied -- as our President is fast becoming infamous for doing. 

I am also sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the black community, a "protected" minority, in America.  If they can use the "N" word,  then white folks ought to be allowed to use it just as easily, and as frequently, as they do -- and with absolutely no repercussions.

There is an old expression:  "If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas."  It's another way of saying be careful with whom you associate. 
Ms. Deen is reported to have campaigned for President Obama and even had Mrs. Obama as a guest on her TV show.  She could not have associated herself with more leftist leftists!  Yet, it is the political left after her head today.  She has learned, too late, that no matter who you are -- the left will throw you under the bus if they even THINK it is expedient to further their progressive agenda.

In my opinion, Ms. Deen should never, never, have apologized.  It was a sign of weakness and only emboldened her attackers who stepped up the ferocity of their crazed mob-like assault. 

We love to sand atop our soap boxes and proclaim our love for, and defense of, freedom of speech in America. 

We're lying!

You want to wind up like Ms. Deen?  Try speaking your mind openly in America today.  Freedom of speech in America today is saying only that which those in power agree with. 
Look.  Ms. Deen's attackers are hammering her for using a single word thirty years ago -- in PRIVATE!  What the heck do you suppose will happen to US today if we step out side the traces -- what with our government's 24/7 monitoring of everything we say and do?  Something I say today can be pulled out of the government files -- thirty years down the road -- and used against me. 

So -- this is where we are in America today.  I have to tell you -- this is pathetic.  I suppose it just puts the lie to the very old adage: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but WORDS can never hurt me."

How pathetic, how weak, how sissified, we have become when we recoil in utter horror at the sound of a single WORD, a simple utterance of sound.

But here's the thing: Much, if not most, of that horror is feigned!  I dare say if the host of Deen's attackers were held to the biblical test of "he who is without sin cast the first stone" -- the crowd would melt away.  Of course, in this day and age, when psychopaths hold respectable places in our communities and our society,  there are those tossing stones with great enthusiasm, all the while loudly proclaiming their defense of the defenseless and demanding that we all pay attention to, and praise them for,  the zeal with which they practice their high tech lynching of an honorable woman.  

There are two lessons here for all American young people.   Avoid honesty at all costs.  For, as we have seen with Ms. Deen, being honest can cost you dearly. And secondly, forget freedom of speech.  The constitution is dead. Today you may only utter the words approved by the political left -- or suffer the consequences.

And yes, I am a southern gentleman offering a defense of a southern lady's honor.  I'm old-fashioned that way.  I suspect, had we not outlawed dueling, there would be echoes of gunfire and/or the clash of dueling rapiers along the Savannah River at sunrise.

Make no mistake.  This is a seminal event. The seeds for future modern day lynchings have been sown now.  Worse even, the seeds of FEAR have been sown --  fear of words, which are nothing more than THOUGHTS.

The thought police are abroad in the land seeking those they can devour who, like Ms. Deen, used a word they are forbidden to use due to the color of their skin.  Does  anyone see the irony in this?  No.  The REAL question is:  Does anyone see the bigotry in this?  For, after all, that is EXACTLY what it is.

© J. D. Longstreet

I couldn't resist not showing you this statement pair of shoes... or art work?
Yes, these shoes are totally a work of art and even though they are not my everyday shoes option, they definitely are a show stopper!
For more f a b u l o u s shoes visit I' alave.com 





                                                                        Shoes: thanks to I'alave/ Here 

We've been spending a lot of time outside this week. One of the benefits to potty training in the summer  is enjoying the privacy of your own backyard in your underwear. We get a lot of fresh air and accidents are a lot easier to take on the grass than on my rug. Too much information first thing? Moving on.

So with all of this outside time, we've been using the deck like crazy. In fact, we've used the deck more this spring/summer than we have the whole time we've lived here. And since I still get questions weekly about our deck makeover (read about it here), I thought I would give a progress report.


This is how the deck looked when we finished it exactly one year ago this week.


And this is how the deck looked yesterday. I took my flower boxes down during the last storm and haven't put them back up, and we have an umbrella now, but otherwise these shots are just like the Olsen twins - identical...and a bit boho.

Oh, and one side note - I failed to sweep sufficiently before I took these pictures so enjoy the real life shots. And if you are disgusted by my lack of sweeping, the public flogging is tomorrow at noon.

I am happy to report that we are thrilled with our decision to use Restore Deck Liquid Armor Resurfacer.  (I see that this is a Rustoleum product which might explain why it is so awesome. Rustoleum, I'm happy to become your spokeswoman and I'm not above wearing a spray paint costume on the streets to sing your praises.)

Our deck is pummeled on an hourly basis by several 100+ year old oak trees, a small sanctuary full of birds (thanks to my neighbor and his damn bird feeder) and at least a pound of sidewalk chalk. And it is as if we just painted yesterday.


The color is gray for the many that have asked. And yes, it is just 'gray'. I even double checked the box to make sure. I guess I have gotten used to Benjamin Moore and their snazzy paint names, I'm not used to such a straight forward paint color.


Many have also asked how the texture feels on bare feet. I will tell you that initially there was a bit of a pebbly feel to the floor but quickly that hard texture softened and over time it has just gotten more and more comfortable. As someone who is barefoot as much as the law allows from March to October, I would never allow something that I walk on several times a day to be scratchy or uncomfortable. And Eve has spent a fair amount of time with her bare bum on that floor this week (again, potty training) and has been nothing but smiles. How's that for a ringing endorsement.

That texture is also a help in the rain and ice as it gives you just enough traction to prevent slipping. And it also stays nice and cool to the touch. A very big deal in a place where we have 90+ temps for months on end.

That hard candy shell also does a great job of protecting the finish. Over the past year we've had a few hard storms that have sent pretty big branches straight onto our deck and there is not one mark to show for it. We also kept our table on it throughout the winter and when we picked it up to move it for the party there was not one mark on the deck. Super durable is an understatement. There has been no chipping, peeling, bubbling or any other 'ing'.

The only negative I can come up with is that it does seem to trap dirt a bit in high traffic areas. But it is nothing that a strong hose can't handle. We've power washed it twice and both times the dirt came up with no problems. In fact, when I was at Home Depot the other day I noticed Restore now has a cleaning solution. Fancy. I haven't tried that out yet but I have plans to over the holiday. Do I know how to celebrate America or what?

Oh, and for all of those that were crazed over the fact that we didn't put the stair railings back up...


happy now?

We got that up right before the hospital stay/party. The other side of the railing will come, someday.

So to recap - Restore Liquid Deck Armor is aces. I give it two thumbs up and I would recommend it to any and all of you.

Have you tried any new products lately? Any plans to update your deck? Any ideas on how to hide my neighbors bird feeder?

Senator Wendy R. Davis

A man walking his dog along lake Michigan in Cudahy's lakeshore finds pitbull shot multiple times and left for dead.

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Courtesy of Melanie Capobianco Veronica in 2011. She should not have been taken from her adoptive parents, the Supreme Court ruled.

A child given up by her natural parents and placed in the home of of responsible white people (who were in the process of adopting her) was returned to the "father" (IE: the sperm donor dude) who had signed his rights as father away at birth, giving full legal rights to the child's mother. Subsequently the "mother" (IE: the egg donor women) gave up her rights and placed the child up for adoption.

The "father", or sperm donor dude, upon hearing the mother, or egg donor women, had signed her rights away suddenly decided he wanted the child back. This of course without regard to the reality that the only family the child had known were the people (real parents) that were attempting to adopt her.

Please read the following text. I have more comments following.

New York Times - An American Indian child being raised by her biological father should not have been taken from her adoptive parents, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, saying that a federal law devised to keep Indian families together did not apply in the case.

The 5-to-4 decision, which reversed a ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court, found that the case represented an exception to the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law that made it more difficult for American Indian children to be removed from their families. That landmark legislation effectively ended the practice of taking Indian children from their homes and placing them in boarding schools and foster care.

The court’s majority held Tuesday that the case, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, No. 12-399, did not involve removing a child from an Indian home because the girl’s father had relinquished his parental rights before the girl’s birth and her biological mother had agreed to allow the South Carolina couple to adopt the girl.

Four months after the child’s birth, the father, Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee tribe, changed his mind and sought custody of his daughter. He said he had not realized that his former fiancée was going to put the child up for adoption.

The girl was in the process of being legally adopted by Matt and Melanie Capobianco, a white couple who raised her for 27 months before South Carolina courts ruled in favor of Mr. Brown. The child, now nearly 4, has been living with Mr. Brown in Oklahoma for the past year and a half. The state courts found that both the Capobianco family and Mr. Brown had provided the girl with safe, loving homes.

The Baby Veronica case, named for the girl at the center of the dispute, has stirred powerful emotional responses from child welfare groups, adoptive parents and Indian tribes, all of whom have sought a clearer legal standard of how the Indian Child Welfare Act should be applied when it appears to conflict with state law. In the Baby Veronica case, for instance, South Carolina law would have allowed the toddler to remain with the Capobiancos, but that state’s courts found that Mr. Brown’s parental rights under the federal law trumped state law.

The Supreme Court ruling however, decided the case along fairly narrow lines.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court’s majority that the Indian Child Welfare Act “does not apply where the Indian parent never had custody of the Indian child.”

Instead, Justice Alito wrote, the federal law “was designed primarily to counteract the unwarranted removal of Indian children from Indian families,” not as part of a custody dispute in which “an Indian child’s adoption is voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent with sole custodial rights.”

Justice Alito was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer. Justices Thomas and Breyer concurred separately.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who agreed in part with the dissent, wrote that the court’s majority opinion “needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood,” and added: “This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection.”

Mark D. Fiddler, a lawyer for the Capobianco family, said the adoptive parents burst into “tears of joy” when the ruling was announced. They planned to return to the South Carolina state court system, which Mr. Fiddler said needed to figure out how to ease Veronica’s transition back to the Capobiancos and address a pending adoption.

But when, or even if, Veronica will be sent back to the Capobiancos is far from clear.

“This is his daughter, his whole life,” John Nichols, one of Mr. Brown’s lawyers wrote in an e-mail on Tuesday. “He will fight for her right to stay with her family. He loves her and she loves him, and he’ll do whatever it takes to keep his daughter.”

Mr. Brown said in a statement that he was “very disappointed” with the decision and that his daughter was part of a happy and loving extended family.

“I would not want any other parent to be in this position, having to struggle this hard and this long for the right to raise their own child,” he said. “I have fought for my daughter and will continue to fight for her and her right to be raised by her family.”

Family courts ordinarily base custody decisions on the best interests of the child before them. Joan Heifetz Hollinger, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who filed a brief in support of the child’s interests, said that if the State of South Carolina holds a custody hearing for Baby Veronica that “there would be strong presumption that the child’s best interests are to allow her to remain where she is, absent evidence of abuse or neglect by dad.”

“If, however, the court resumes the original adoption proceeding,” she said, “the outcome is likely to be in favor of a return to the adoptive parents.”

What I find most interesting, or perhaps more accurately stated reprehensible, is that the primary issue here is, or should be the child. Yet is not. Front and center is the legal aspect and a bunch of belated bullshit about the sperm donor dude who belatedly decided, for whatever reason, he wanted the child he gave up over two years prior back.

Having experienced similar circumstances when I was about five years old (when my egg donor women "biological mother" gave up her right's as a mother) I somehow understand how this young Indian girl must feel. Something like a football I imagine. Yet the legalities will keep her in a state of uncertainty and emotional distress while the courts and the state decide what is best for her. Someone should be asking at what cost to this young and tender child who has an adoptive family (pending) who loves her and took care of her for over two years.

SCOTUS got it half right. What the High Court SHOULD have decided is the adoptive couple posses sole and exclusive parental rights, and the "sperm and egg donors" by their actions shouls have none.

By the way, on my MOTHER's 65th birthday my brother and I "adopted" our mother so she was recognized as our "legal" mother as well as the REAL mother that she was for over forty eight years. She passed almost five years ago. I still miss her and always will.

Some have said blood is thicker than water. I can speak with authority when I say often water is can be thicker than blood and occasionally is infinitely SWEETER than blood.

That's my take. What's yours?

Via: New York Times

God Bless America
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
**************

Yes, Virginia, America WAS once FREE. 

Those of us born before the Second World War have fond memories of the halcyon days of America.  America stepped right from the Great Depression into a world war. In fact, the depression wasn't over at the time America entered the war.  After the war, after the world was "made safe for democracy," there were days of peace and prosperity for Americans. 

We are about just a few days away from celebrating America's birthday, the Fourth of July.  Once again, we will be celebrating a fraud. 

The movement to enslave America and make her citizens serfs to the state began on an April day in 1865 at a little place called Appomattox Court House, Virginia.  From that point on in our history Americans lost freedom after freedom, liberty after liberty through a process known as incrementalism. (A little bit at a time)   One hundred and forty-eight years later -- we are vassals of the state.

"Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free."  Those words were written by Jonathan Turley a Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.  They are from an article written by Professor Turley and published by the Washington Times on January 13th, 2012.

In the Article Professor Turley says: "Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?"  Source:  http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-13/opinions/35440628_1_individual-rights-indefinite-detention-citizens     

Professor Turley goes on to enumerate a few of the ways we Americans have lost so much of our liberty to the state such as: Assassination of U.S. citizens, Indefinite detention, Arbitrary justice, Warrantless searches, War crimes, Secret court, Immunity from judicial review, Continual monitoring of citizens, and Extraordinary renditions.  (Remember -- this article was written over a year before the most recent revelations of government overreach became public knowledge and congressional hearings began.   ...   Editor) 
Professor Turley points out: "An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will." SOURCE:  http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-13/opinions/35440628_1_individual-rights-indefinite-detention-citizens/3

"Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely," says Professor Turley.

We recommend you read Professor Turley's article in its entirety.  It is titled:  "10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free." You will find it at: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-13/opinions/35440628_1_individual-rights-indefinite-detention-citizens

I came across a video of the introduction of the great hymn "God Bless America" recently.  It is a clip from an old movie and it features that great American, Kate Smith, introducing and singing God Bless America for the very first time.  It brought a tear to my eyes as I watched and listened to a different time in this country. I also spotted an actor who would later become what many feel was the last REAL President of the United States.

Here is the link to that video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnQDW-NMaRs   

If you want to make your day, take a few minutes to watch and listen to that video.  Fair warning:  Get out the tissue and an extra handkerchief.

The patriotism portrayed in that clip was real.  We didn't wear our patriotism on our sleeves nor on our lapels -- we LIVED it!  It was alive in our hearts. We didn't mind if a tear trickled down our cheeks as we sang the National Anthem. It was the common honesty and integrity of men and women who loved their country to their core.

That was MY America -- and it is the America I miss sorely.

© J. D. Longstreet

Anne Frank House Muesum

Película en español "El Diario de Anne Frank" video


The Diary of a Young Girl (English version) video

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

A perfectly sensible and right decision by the SCOTUS... Even given the fairly obvious left bias throughout the article.

USA TODAY - WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court drew new limits on colleges' use of affirmative action Monday, saying that although racial preferences remain constitutional, they are permissible only if schools can first show that there are "no workable race-neutral alternatives."

The court's 7-1 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, suggests that public schools can use affirmative action only as a last resort for creating a diverse student body, and raises the prospect that colleges will face a tougher burden of justifying them in the future.

But the justices stopped short of issuing a broader decision either fully cementing or eliminating schools' ability to take account of an applicant's race.

Kennedy wrote that public universities could adopt affirmative action plans only if they can demonstrate that "no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the benefits of educational diversity."

The decision came in a closely watched challenge to the University of Texas at Austin's admissions policy that is based, in part, on applicants' race. But the justices declined to decide whether the university's program met that tough new standard.

Instead, they said that a lower federal court had acted too deferentially by, in essence, taking the university's word for the fact that such preferences were necessary. They instructed the lower court to hear the case again, and this time to require the university to prove that it had no other way to assemble a diverse student body.

"Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept a school's assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without a court giving close analysis to the evidence of how the process works in practice," Kennedy wrote. "The university must prove that the means chosen by the university to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal."

Kennedy was joined by the court's conservative justice and two of its liberals, Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.

Skip

The case hearkened back to 1950, when Heman Sweatt sued the university after being denied admission because he was black. As his attorney, Sweatt chose Thurgood Marshall, who would go on to become the high court's first black justice. He won the case, marking the first time the court had ordered a black student admitted to an all-white institution.

Since then, colleges and universities have become more integrated. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court's 5-4 decision upholding the Michigan law school's limited use of affirmative action, O'Connor predicted, "The court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

That case wasn't a slam dunk for the civil rights movement. At the same time, the court ruled 6-3 against the undergraduate school's more numerical system of racial preferences. And O'Connor's decision upholding the law school's racial preferences included a dissent from Kennedy, now the swing vote on the court.

"Preferment by race, when resorted to by the state, can be the most divisive of all policies, containing within it the potential to destroy confidence in the Constitution and in the idea of equality," Kennedy said then.

Four years later, in a decision that barred voluntary integration programs in the Seattle and Louisville public schools, Chief Justice John Roberts issued one of his most oft-quoted lines: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Two members of the court were being watched closely in this case: Justice Thomas, the lone black justice, who has written that his Yale Law School degree was devalued by racial preferences; and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the lone Hispanic, whose recent book, My Beloved World, credits affirmative action for giving her access to Princeton and Yale.

In the end, the ruling was so narrow that both Thomas and Sotomayor signed on.

Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was involved with it during her tenure as solicitor general at the Justice Department in 2009-10. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs-Tyranny


I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter, never have been. He was an inept president and he should, at least for the most part stick to what he does best. Humanitarian issues and his Habitat for Humanity.

Having said the foregoing I must acknowledge when the man is right he is right. His recent remarks on the on religion, most specifically the position of the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Islam with respect to for equality of women is, IMNHO, spot on. Of course there will continue to be those on the far right that will choose to take Carter's remarks out of context and twist them for political purposes. Fortunately there are more people who can think than there are those who can't.

TIME - Well, religion can be, and I think there’s a slow, very slow, move around the world to give women equal rights in the eyes of God. What has been the case for many centuries is that the great religions, the major religions, have discriminated against women in a very abusive fashion and set an example for the rest of society to treat women as secondary citizens. In a marriage or in the workplace or wherever, they are discriminated against. And I think the great religions have set the example for that, by ordaining, in effect, that women are not equal to men in the eyes of God.

This has been done and still is done by the Catholic Church ever since the third century, when the Catholic Church ordained that a woman cannot be a priest for instance but a man can. A woman can be a nurse or a teacher but she can’t be a priest. This is wrong, I think. As you may or may not know, the Southern Baptist Convention back now about 13 years ago in Orlando, voted that women were inferior and had to be subservient to their husbands, and ordained that a woman could not be a deacon or a pastor or a chaplain or even a teacher in a classroom in some seminaries where men are in the classroom, boys are in the classroom. So my wife and I withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention primarily because of that.

But I now go to a more moderate church in Plains, a small church, it’s part of the Cooperative Baptist fellowship, and we have a male and a female pastor, and we have women and have men who are deacons. My wife happens to be one of the deacons.

So some of the Baptists are making progress, along with Methodists. For instance the other large church in Plains is a Methodist church, and they have a man for the last eight years and the next pastor they get will be a woman. They’ve had a woman pastor before, before the Baptists did. And of course the Episcopalians and other denominations that are Protestant do permit women or encourage women to be bishops, as you know, and pastors.

In the Islamic world that varies widely depending on what the regime is in the capital. Sometimes they try to impose very strict law, misquoting I think the major points of the Qur’an, and they ordain that a woman is inferior inherently. Ten year old girls can be forced to marry against their wishes, and that women can be treated as slaves in a marriage, and that a woman can’t drive an automobile, some countries don’t let women vote, like Saudi Arabia. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

Days after La Cucaracha business deposit in San Fernando was singled out as a Zeta hangout by Valor por Tamaulipas on Facebook, gunmen went to the business and killed the owner and a client, the owner's son was injured in the shooting.