Ressurecting God, Guns, and Gays: KKKarl Rove

An excerpt from yesterday's SEC filing under the Halliburton ticker (other topics in the filing include Halliburton's efforts to dupe DoD auditors, and the Dick Armitage/Halliburton connections):

"Who is the closest relative of either Constitutional officer, or of any member of the President's Cabinet, who is actually serving in uniform today?"

"And please spare me the well-coifed, ill-informed Tony Snow piously trotting out the President's supposed 'service' in the Air National Guard. Mark Bingham, the gay rugby player on Flight 93, did more to protect America's skies than Dubya ever did in all his years of supposed service in the ANG. I'd rather have a real hero like Mark Bingham on my flight - someone who actually got the 'mission accomplished' - than a manufactured hero using the trappings of office, a flight suit, and an aircraft carrier photo op to prematurely declare 'Mission Accomplished'."

"How did 'Shrubya and Rove' repay Mark Bingham's heroics on Flight 93? By dishonoring his memory: by stepping up 'don't ask, don't tell discharges' - even against military personnel with critical foreign language skills. They made gay marriage the distracting wedge issue of the 2004 general election. This, despite the fact that the man Karl Rove knew as his father, the man who raised Rove to be the man he is today, was reportedly gay. Now there's a fact that Karl Rove conveniently failed to tell the heartland, as he railed about God, guns, and gays. Does Mr. Rove believe that the man who raised him was somehow less patriotic by dint of his orientation? Does Mr. Rove believe that the man who raised him was unfit to wear the uniform? Does Mr. Rove believe that the man who raised him was an unfit parent, or that he - Mr. Rove himself - was somehow irrevocably damaged by that man's parenting? If so, does that call into question Mr. Rove's suitability to serve as a counselor to the leader of the free world?"

Smith continues: "Rove didn't serve in the military either, maintaining deferments during the Vietnam War without ever completing his college degree. He's a self-described agnostic. He's been divorced once, married twice, and has a son of military service age. Is Rove's son serving his country? And what the heck is a college dropout like Rove doing advising the President on matters beyond his ken, with security clearances like his? Maybe the heartland voters should take a harder look at the marketing behind Rove's Gods, guns, and gays message: he doesn't believe in God, he dodged picking up a gun, and he was raised by a gay man."

To read the rest: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000011/shameonvirginiasenators.htm

Best to all,

- David A. Smith, Editor, HALwhistleblowers.org and BushBunglesBrigade.org
(not to be confused with David R. Smith, VP of Tax at Halliburton, my former employer)

Unnatural offences 377. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

While the law has been rarely implemented; and people caught under this law have been discharged with minor sentences; this law together with Capital Punishment remain as big blots of the Indian legal system and a bad reflection of the Indian society. Recently, 150 notable individuals from Vikram Seth, M J Akbar to Amartya Sen wrote a protest letter demanding the repeal of the law.

Societies worldwide are increasingly accepting the rights of same sex couples. Most European countries and a few US states have gone further ahead and legalized same sex marriages. Our Indian society is yet to grant the citizens the individual right to choose his/ her fantasies and practice. The law was passed in 1861 by a British government seeped in Victorian morality. While we refined many of these laws and even allowed males of certain sections to practice polygamy and instant divorce; we continue to treat consensual same sex couples as criminals. No government, society, or individual has the right to intervene in the bed room privacy of individuals as long as he indulges in mutually consensual practices with his/ her partner. And why should anything against the order of nature be punishable by law as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others? Do we lock up for 10 years physical disabled, mentally imbalanced and diseased people? After all their misfortunes are also against the order of nature. The law smacks of Nazi Germany when homosexuals were persecuted along with the Jews and Gypsies. Also, we follow a common law system where civil laws are based on traditional practices and customs of the society. And the majority religion in India never had anything against same sex relationships and activities. In fact, there are carvings in Konark depicting such activities; practices of worshipping idols of male genitals (linga) and picturization of male gods with feminine features also suggest permissiveness of same sex relationships in the majority religion.

And even if we ignore all these rationales; the law infringes upon basic human rights. The same sex couples not only have to bear the burnt of societies scorn; they also have to put up many times with police machinations. Though this law causes inconvenience to only a few; it can only do our society good if we strike it down. And yes, strike down capital punishment too.

How does one being loving another have any bearing on others in any way shape or fashion? India is not the only really backward nation on this issue..

If Aussie blokes - "real men" who make Rummy look like the Soliloquizing Sissy he really is - can maintain unit cohesion and morale with gays and lesbians serving proudly in their ranks, why can't the neo-con/Mastadons in my party figure out how to do away with "don't ask, don't tell," which offends every tenet of true conservatism?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/washington/15discharge.html?ex=1313294400&en=d8bc3953132861d7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

- Dave

P.S. My momma calls me her Prodigal Son. When she asks me why I don't "come home" to the Democratic Party, all I can do is shake my head and say, "Real Republicans are libertarians; we're progressives; we don't care to intrude into bedroom or reproductive choice issues; besides, we Real Republicans know that standing in an inward-facing circle and shouting 'ready, aim, fire,' is a sure recipe for losses at the ballot box. But if I can help my friends on the other side of the aisle learn how to regain their footing, develop and stick to an actual message, and campaign effectively in the red states once again, I think that's healthy for the Republic." Besides, I tell her, "I come home for a 'visit' often enough at the ballot box, and vote Democratic when that's the right thing to do. My party affiliation runs a distant second to my American birthright and my sense of duty. Sometimes that means holding my nose and voting for a Democrat who is the lesser of two evils, but there you have it."