POPE RATSY - THE SEQUEL

By: Thomas Mckelvey Cleaver

For all those who were scandalized yesterday by my comments about Pope Ratsy's cowardice during the Second World War:

From Catherine Pepinster, editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Tablet:

This was a European, after all, who was both steeped in Bavarian piety, and as a child had grown up in Hitler's shadow.

After, reflecting on the war and on Nazism, he had rejected the lesson drawn by other German theologians, who perceived that its central lesson was the dangers of blind obedience. Instead, he decided that only a faith based on a Church with sound doctrinal values, and a strong central authority could withstand a hostile culture.

POPE RATSY - THE POPE OF "SIEG HEIL"

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

So, the first Pope of the Inquisition takes office. Yes, he headed "The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith." That's today's name for The Inquisition. Pope Ratsy was The Enforcer who spent the past 25 years of his life silencing or driving out of the church anyone who actually believed that the ministry of Jesus Christ had anything to do with ameliorating the lives of the poor, the people who spend their lives dealing with the crimes of those who support this moral scumbag whose ministry will be devoted to comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, in which he will join all the other fundamentalists of all religions in their war against human progress.

Poor boy, young Ratsy was "forced" to join the Hitler Youth at age 14. Never mind that at the same time he was "rendering unto Caesar" because he could do no else, that the young German Catholics of the White Rose were actively and publicly refusing to collaborate with the anti-Christian Nazi scum, at risk of their lives, which they willingly gave up to the guillotine as the price of opposition to Hitler and his out-of-the-gutter murdering scum. No, even in a village where other boys found ways not to participate in the Hitler Youth, young Ratsy knew that "I was only following orders" would define his life. Never mind that at the same time he was collaborating with the devil, a young man only six years older - Karol Wojtylik - was committing what was defined by the collaborator government of Poland as an act of treason: committing himself to become a Catholic priest.

So much for the moral underpinning of Pope Ratsy.

This pig spent his entire career as a priest attacking those who wanted the Church to take its place beside the "wretched of the earth" to whom Christ first preached, or defending those perverts who used their positions of authority to defile and destroy the faith of those who they were supposed to protect and defend.

Once again, the Catholic Church reveals itself as the single worst institution in existence. Pope Ratsy stands tall in the tradition of demagogues like Clement of Alexandria - later raised to Pope for the crime of destroying the Library of Alexandria and plunging Western Civilization into a thousand-year dark age. Pope Ratsy would have voted to execute Galileo for the crime of believing what the evidence of his study revealed - that the earth revolves around the sun. Indeed, for the past 25 years, Pope Ratsy ha demanded of the faithful that when the knowledge of the experience of their lives conflicts with the teachings of his church, the knowledge of reality is to be thrown aside.

This scumball says that people like me who believe in Buddhism are "the new Communists," to be rooted out and destroyed. Allow me to express a very non-Buddhist hope: may you receive the "justice" your predecessor missed in 1981, you Nazi-collaborating pig. Once again, the Catholic Church is at war with modernity, as surely as they were when they prosecuted Galileo.

No wonder George Bush, son of a Nazi collaborator who financed Hitler's rise to power and only avoided prosecution and imprisonment under the Trading With The Enemy Act by getting himself elected Senator, finds this Nazi collaborator and fellow enemy of modernism a "spiritual leader." Scum of a feather flock together.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SMELL THAT?

by
Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Five U.S. Army troops returning from an anti-terrorist/anti-drug assignment in Colombia were busted on Tuesday for bringing back 35 pounds of cocaine.

Colombia has asked for their extradition to stand trial for smuggling, under the bi-lateral extradition treaty we have with them. In the ten years since
the Colombian government re-instituted an extradition treaty with us, 200 Colombians have been extradited to the United States under this treaty for
drug-related crimes.

The American ambassador told the Colombian government that our soldiers were immune to prosecution under the terms of this treaty.

I'm sure the Army will "prosecute its own" here. Let's see: killing an Iraqi and committing a war crime gets the usual trooper who does it (according to the latest "court-martial") a sentence of "time served" and a discharge from the Army. So what will smuggling 35 pounds of cocaine without killing anyone
be worth? Aweekend in the stockade? Partying with the guards?

To paraphrase a well-known line from the movies, "I love the smell of right wing hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like....Bullshit."

BOLTON VOTE DELAYED

Some Surprising News out of DC as the John Bolton confirmation suffered a setback today. The GOP must have been a bit surprised when George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel broke rank and sided with the Democrats in a move that will delay the vote on John Bolton.

As I said earlier, and as we have been reporting all along here at TAFM, Bolton does not belong in the United Nations. Recent allegations , if they are true, will clearly indicate a pattern of abuse by Bolton. I applaud Senators Hagel and Voinovich for listening to their conscience in a move that will hopefully result in Bolton's failure to represent America in the United Nations.

Its a small victory for the Dems and for America, and the battle isn't over, but this is a step in the right direction.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

MORE BOLTON PROBLEMS SURFACE

As the Senate Foreign Relations Vote on John Bolton approaches, new allegations regarding his past conduct have surfaced. This new information only furthers the point that John Bolton should not represent anyone, at anywhere, at anytime, especially when it comes to representing the United States in the United Nations.

Courtesy of The Washington Note, evidence that "John Bolton was actually voted down by senior partners of Bolton's law firm, Covington and Burling, where he worked before serving in the Department of Justice, because of concerns over his abusive behavior. An individual who would only speak anonymously shared the content of the super-secret partner's meeting with me yesterday.

In addition, after Bolton left the first Bush administration in 1993, he served on the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom and engaged in not only abusive behavior inside that government agency but also worked hard to have two people with whom he disagreed fired. The victims -- who now work at other institutions in Washington -- are reticent about making public claims because of Bolton's continued ability to cause negative consequences for them and their fear that he will seek retribution."

Somehow I do not think that the playground bully approach that Bolton seems to have used for years would ever really be effective in the United Nations. Furthermore, this "bully" policy will do nothing but weaken our ties with the international community.

Fortunately, more Republicans are beginning to speak out against Bolton. Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, gave an interview to the New York Times in which he said ""Under Secretary Bolton was never the formidable power that people are insinuating he was in terms of foreign policy, or blocking the policies that Secretary Powell wished to pursue," Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Mr. Powell's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.

"But do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not," Mr. Wilkerson said. "He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador."

Lets hope that those who get to vote on Bolton's confirmation do some real research and realize that Bolton would be nothing but a cancer in the United Nations.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

Crazy, Crazy for feeling......

Have you ever heard an idea that was so insane, that in the back of your head Patsy Cline's song "Crazy" started playing. Maybe I am the only one who does that, but this classic country tune certainly could have been applied to an idea that was proposed by Rep. Steve King.

Courtesy of The Carpetbagger Report, King is on record as saying "Congress can't lower judges' salaries or fire them ? provisions tucked into the Constitution by the Framers, who watched judges serve at the whim of King George III. But lawmakers can eliminate their positions altogether.

"We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court,? says Rep. Steve King. "It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table."

Unfortunately, King has said this type of garbage before.

"[Courts] have defied federal law. And this confrontation now is the confrontation between the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the will of the people and the judicial branch of government," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican. "Constitutional authority will either be imposed upon the judicial branch of government, or we might as well board up the Capitol and turn this country over to the whims of the judges."

Mr. King said he is planning a legislative strategy that will involve offering amendments to appropriations bills designed to "put the courts back in their appropriate constitutional place," but said it is too early to say exactly what he will pursue.

Is he crazy? Seriously?

I doubt that congress would ever reduce the size of the Supreme Court, but that does not excuse King from making comments like this. The unfortunate part, is that although it is unlikely that the GOP would try and reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court, it is not out of the question. The GOP obviously has no respect for the balance of power, as they try and eliminate minority filibusters as well as try and order Federal Judges what to do, most recently in the Schaivo case. Still think that the "Radical Right" doesn't exist?

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

GOP AND THE RACE CARD

I know that Senator Rick Santorum has been called the mad dog, why I do not know, but after reading his Op-Ed Piece in the Washington Post yesterday I am starting to think a new nickname may be in order. Idiot comes to mind, or maybe "race card player", although I doubt Santorum would go for either suggestions. Still, when you consider what he wrote, it is apparent that Santorum has no problem dropping the race card.

In his piece, Santorum compared two judicial nominees who had not yet been approved by congress. Now, just like in those "Highlights" Magazines from when I was a kid, lets compare the paragraphs written about the nominees and find the differences. The first nominee mentioned, is Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen. Santorum writes: "It has been almost four years since President Bush nominated Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Since then the Senate has held two hearings, conducted many days of floor debate, analyzed Owen's judicial opinions down to the last comma and attempted four times to invoke cloture so that debate could finally be concluded and the Senate could take an up-or-down vote on her nomination.

Not only has Owen withstood this intensive examination, she has shown time and again that the American Bar Association got it right when it unanimously awarded her its highest possible rating. She was also reelected with 84 percent of the vote in 2000 and had the endorsement of every newspaper in Texas. Owen has earned the support of a clear majority of senators."

Alright, that seems fine, now lets look at how Santorum referred to another nominee, Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

"This July will mark almost two years since the president nominated Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown started life as the daughter of a sharecropper in the segregated South and through hard work and determination became the first African American woman to serve on California's highest court. In 2002 she was called upon by her colleagues to write the majority opinion more often than any other member of the California Supreme Court. She was retained with 76 percent of the vote in her last election. In short, Brown has shown herself to be unquestionably trustworthy, highly intelligent and well within the mainstream, and she has earned the enthusiastic support of a majority of the U.S. Senate."

Now, can you spot the difference? If you said that Santorum's bit about Owen seemed to make her case based on her credentials alone, but his piece on Owen played the race card, then you win. Of course, you probably do not feel like much of a winner as you probably feel some level of disgust towards Santorum. That is a common reaction when dealing with the "Mad Dog".

The Bush Administration has nominated numerous minorities to different positions, including Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice, however I think a persons gender or skin color is far less important than their political record. Opposition towards Alberto Gonzales did not come about because he was , rather it came about because he played a key roll in when it came to the torturing of "enemy combatants."

The Gadflyer notes that on several occasions in which a minority was nominated by the Bush White House, other GOP leaders have made public comments which the candidates. Senator Trent Lott said that Migue Estrada's nomination was held up "because he's ".

Senator Orrin Hatch said in regards to Judge Owen that the nomination was being opposed "because she is a woman in public life who is to have personal views that some maintain should be unacceptable for a woman in public life to have." Hatch added that this sexism "represents a new glad ceiling for woman jurists, and they have come too far to duffer now having their feet bound up just as they approach the tables of our high courts." ? Graceful Senator Hatch, very graceful.

The is that the GOP knows that the people they have put forward would never be approved by the Democrats, and rather then go head to head with the Donkey on the issues, they would rather place the race card, or gender card, in the hopes of gaining sympathy for their nominations. However, when you read comments such as the ones made by Senators Hatch, Lott, or Santorum, you come to realize that the only time they care about race or gender is when it would help their party. The GOP is more concerned with their Right Wing Policy and Conservative Agenda than they will ever care about equality.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

The Arrogance of Power--GOP Style

You have probably heard by now that the bankruptcy bill, which benefits businesses at the expense of the people, has been passed. As appalling as this new bill is, considering it provides predatory lenders with the motivation to go out and try and take advantage of more Americans, the process in how this bill was passed through the house is even more absurd. Rather, I should say the lack of process.

From the Carpetbagger Report, word today that Tom DeLay and other Republicans within the House "limited the debate to just two hours and didn't even allow congressional Dems to offer an amendment to the legislation."

Carpetbagger reports "What kind of amendments are we talking about here? Pretty straightforward stuff: proposed provisions included expanded disclosure from credit card companies, limits on lender fees, identity-theft protections, and leniency for military personnel returning from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not just that Republicans were opposed to these consumer protections — though they were — it's that the GOP wouldn't even let Dems bring these amendments to the floor for consideration."

These actions by the House GOP are nothing short of arrogant, and although this happened in the house, I it makes a stronger case for keeping the minority filibuster in the senate. If Frist and the GOP are able to eliminate the filibuster get ready to see more laws passed and more judges appointed that will cater to the GOP Agenda: The Right and Big Business. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to unimportant to the GOP until election time comes around and they throw us a bone in the hopes of winning some votes. Regardless of any last minute offering from the GOP, let us not forget things like the passage of the bankruptcy bill, and the means in which it was done, because it truly shows that Republicans care more about helping Big Business then they do about helping the American People.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE

Yesterday I broke down some of the arguments regarding the minority filibuster rule in congress as well as giving some of my own thoughts on the issue. The Washington Post is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist "is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations.."

This decision by Frist could have many ramifications, as the Post speculates that a move to ban minority filibusters could create a situation in which the passage of President Bush's Agenda becomes much more complicated and difficult.

As I said yesterday, I support the filibuster law, as it prevents a tyranny of a slight majority. Although some other bloggers have been calling for the Democrats to give in and eliminate the filibuster, I can not say enough how much I disagree with that idea. Although the Democrats may face problems in the future when the tables are turned and they have a majority, their are enough Democrats in this country who want the party to fight for their beliefs even if they do not hold a majority in congress. If the Democrats abandoned the filibuster and simply rolled over on this issue it would end up eroding at the base of the party, and I costing more votes in the long run as life long Democrats will feel that their elected law makers have simply given up.

If the GOP wishes to use filibusters in the future to stall Democratic policy then so be it, they will deal with the consequences of their actions. Honestly, do you think if the tables were turned the GOP would simply give in and surrender the right to a filibuster? Absolutely Not.

Hopefully enough Republicans can concede the of a minority filibuster, and Frist's plans will never come to fruition. In the mean time, call your representatives and demand that they respect the filibuster as is.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

CHANGE IS IN THE AIR

How does it feel to know you made a difference? I pose this question to you, our readers, because as you may have heard, the FCC ruled today that TV Broadcasters must disclose the source of video news releases. So now, when you watch the so called "Fake News", you will at least be informed that what you just saw was not a news report, but rather a commercial embedded in the news. So I congratulate everyone who took the time to email the FCC and I thank you all for helping to make a difference. Lets keep up the good work.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com