Federal court rejects Troy Davis’ appeal

Killer gets 30-day stay of execution to pursue appeals
By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thursday, April 16, 2009

I'm sure anyone reading my blog remembers this story, I've been following Troy Davis for quite a while. It truly amazes me how they can still be rejecting his appeals...

The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Thursday rejected death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis’ bid for a new trial on claims he did not kill a Savannah police officer in 1989.

In a 2-1 opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Davis could not establish by clear and convincing evidence a jury would not have found him guilty.

Davis’ innocence claims have attracted international attention. They rely largely on the recantations of key prosecution witnesses who testified at trial and on statements by others who say another man told them he was the actual killer.

In October, the 11th Circuit granted Davis a stay three days before he was to be put to death by lethal injection. It marked the third time Davis’ life was spared before his scheduled execution.

On Thursday, the two-judge majority noted that state courts and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles had exhaustively reviewed Davis’ claims and rejected them.

Judges Joel Dubina and Stanley Marcus said they agreed with those conclusions. “Davis has not presented us with a showing of innocence so compelling that we would be obligated to act today,” they wrote.

The judges said they view the recantations with skepticism and, after reviewing Davis’ claims, “remain unpersuaded.”

Judge Rosemary Barkett dissented. “To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proferred evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional,” she wrote.

The 11th Circuit kept in place its stay of execution for another 30 days so Davis can pursue his final appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court in October declined to consider a previous appeal.

Davis, 40, stands convicted of killing off-duty Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. The 27-year-old former Army Ranger was shot three times before he could draw his weapon.

Russ Willard, spokesman for state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said the 11th Circuit made the “correct decision.”

Tom Dunn, one of Davis’ lawyers, said he was disappointed, but would fight on. “Troy is innocent and this struggle is far from over.”

Lesbian mom saved from deportation by private bill introduced by California Senator Dianne Feinstein

Shirley Tan, who had received a temporary reprieve and was scheduled to be deported and separated from her partner of 23 years, Jay Mercado, and their two children on April 22, was saved at the last minute by a private bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein [pictured], according to a message sent out by the family's rep. Melanie Nathan:

Today Senator Feinstein introduced a very rare private bill on behalf of Shirley Tan; Shirley will not have to leave the USA for now and hopefully never. The essence of its introduction is that Tan does not have to leave the USA on May 10th, in terms of the voluntary order issued by DHS. This enables her to stay in the USA, legally, until the private bill passes (a rare occurrence)- and if it does not come up for a vote then she can stay for the duration of this Congress’s session, which has approximately a year and nine months left. However Shirley's ultimate saviour will be UAFA [Uniting American Families Act] and nothing else!

Family of boxer fights for pardon of 1913 racist conviction

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- To this day, Linda Haywood recalls the shame she once felt for her great-uncle.
Jack Johnson was convicted of transporting a white woman across state lines for "immoral purposes."

Jack Johnson was convicted of transporting a white woman across state lines for "immoral purposes."

"I could see from the expression on my mother's face that it pained her to tell me about him," she recalled, "but it wasn't just her. The shame was there for all the members of my family."

Haywood's great-uncle, Jack Johnson, shocked the nation in 1908 by becoming the first African-American world heavyweight champion. Yet the boxer was arrested not long afterward for taking a white woman across state lines for "immoral" purposes.

That case fell apart and the woman later became his wife, but then investigators charged him with a similar offense involving a woman he had dated years earlier. An all-white jury's decision to convict him in that case has come to be widely viewed as a symbol of racial injustice.

Now Haywood is working with Sen. John McCain and others to try to clear her great-uncle's name. McCain wants the Senate to pass a resolution urging President Obama to grant Johnson a presidential pardon.

It would represent a final vindication for Haywood, a 53-year-old seamstress in Chicago who now views her great-uncle with pride.

Her parents didn't tell her until she was 12 that she was related to Johnson, even though she saw his photo at school during lessons on black history.

"I remember seeing his picture on the wall of my sixth-grade classroom in Chicago in 1966," Haywood said in a voice tinged with sadness. "It was up there next to pictures of Sojourner Truth and George Washington Carver as part of a black history week my teacher put together. I didn't have the first clue who the man was. My parents didn't want me to know."

Her parents, she said, were trying to protect her from a legacy of racial injustice at a time when the country had yet to emerge from the long shadow of segregation.

Haywood was stunned when she learned her great-uncle's story.

Less than five years after winning the heavyweight title, Johnson was convicted for violating the Mann Act, which outlawed the transportation of women across state lines for "immoral" purposes.

Johnson was black and the woman was white -- enough to get even a champion imprisoned in early 20th century America. Justice Department lawyers decried it as a "crime against nature" for him to have a sexual relationship with a white woman.

Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis, later to become the first commissioner of Major League Baseball, set Johnson's bail at $30,000 -- the equivalent of more than $660,000 today. When a bail bondsman showed up, Landis jailed him, too, according to an account that filmmaker Ken Burns relays in his documentary, "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson."

An all-white jury convicted Johnson in less than two hours.

"Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but ... it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks," one of the prosecutors later said.

Johnson's real crime, in the eyes of many, was committed three years earlier, when he successfully defended his boxing title against Jim Jeffries, a white boxer who came to be called the "Great White Hope" because many white fans saw him as the best chance to wrest back a boxing title from the African-American champ.

Jeffries, a former heavyweight champion, had come out of retirement intending to reclaim a title that many Americans believed Johnson had no right to in the first place.

Johnson beat Jeffries on July 4, 1910, before a stunned, almost entirely white crowd in Reno, Nevada.

Race riots followed.

More than 20 people were killed and hundreds were injured. Most victims were black.

So when they "couldn't beat him in the ring, the white power establishment decided to beat him in the courts," Burns said in his documentary.

Johnson fled to Europe in 1913 while free on appeal. But after years of fights overseas -- including the eventual loss of his title in Havana, Cuba, in 1915 -- Johnson came home. He turned himself over to U.S. authorities at the Mexican border in 1920 and served ten months in prison.

He died in a car wreck in 1946.

"Back then, if you were black and you were told that you did something wrong, you really had no recourse," said Haywood.

"You just accepted what was done because black people were basically powerless and voiceless. Jack may have been a rich boxer, but he couldn't fight the system."

Today, in a very different America, Haywood's family is seeking justice.

They've teamed up with Burns, McCain and Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, to urge the nation's first African-American president to grant Johnson a rare posthumous pardon.

McCain and King introduced resolutions calling for a presidential pardon in 2005 and last year. The House passed it, but the Senate did not.

The White House declined to comment when asked Obama's views on a possible pardon for Johnson.

McCain, who says he made a mistake by once voting against a federal holiday for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., sees the pardon as a way to right an old wrong.

"The Jack Johnson case is an ignominious stain on our nation's history," he said on the Senate floor this month, while introducing a new version of the resolution.

"Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. [The resolution recognizes] the unjustness of what transpired, and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Johnson ... deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction."

King, himself a former boxer, said in a written statement that Johnson was a trailblazer who became "a victim of the times."

For Haywood, the proposed pardon is also personal. It's about wiping the slate clean for future generations of her family.

"My mother used to say Jack was defiant," she remembered. "No disrespect, momma, but he was being his own man. And I'm so proud of him. To think -- of all the families in the world, God gave him to us."

Haywood has made sure her four children know the story of the country's first black heavyweight champion.

"They love him," she said. "Especially my oldest son. He was a bit of a pugilist in high school. He got into his fair share of scraps. I think we know where he got that trait."

Haywood says she'll go to Washington if Obama issues a pardon. With a bit of laughter, she promises to give a gracious, eloquent speech thanking him.

With or without a pardon, she emphasizes, the stigma and the shame are gone.

Well, 3 down, 40-something to go!!!

Three states so far have done the right thing, have insured that all their
citizens are equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to the right to marry. Let's hope it's like dominoes, once they start falling, they speed up and continue to fall until they've all been knocked over...

Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Gay marriage, seemingly the province of the nation's two coasts, is just weeks away from becoming a reality in the heartland and apparently it will be years before social conservatives have a chance to stop it.

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. Now gays and lesbians may exchange vows as soon as April 24 following the landmark decision.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," said a dejected Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage.

In the meantime, same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he feared without residency requirements Iowa would "become the gay marriage mecca."

Only Massachusetts and Connecticut currently permit same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

For gays and lesbians, meanwhile, the day was one of jubilation. The Vermont House of Representatives also passed a measure Friday that would allow same-sex couples to wed, on a 94-52 roll call vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Gov. Jim Douglas.

Gay marriage supporters hoped to convince a few Vermont legislators to switch when it comes to the override vote, which could be taken as soon as Tuesday.

In Iowa, hundreds cheered, waved rainbow flags and shed tears of joy at rallies in seven cities Friday evening. "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed!" read one man's sign at a gathering at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.

In downtown Des Moines, about 300 people gathered beneath rainbow flags to celebrate including Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie.

"We finally have equality in Iowa," said Harold Delaria, of Des Moines, who attended the rally and has two gay children. "It's kind of the last wall of legalized discrimination and it's coming tumbling down."

The Rev. Diane McLanahan of Trinity United Methodist Church in Des Moines acknowledged that many people of faith won't agree with the ruling. With that in mind, she said the court has reached a decision that "pretty much insists that this will not be a debate about religious rights but a matter of equality and fairness."

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," the justices wrote.

To issue any other decision, the seven justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

At a news conference announcing the decision, plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."

"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."

Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session. Without a vote by the Legislature this year or next, the soonest gay marriage could be repealed would be 2014.

Amendments to Iowa's constitution must be passed by the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, which each last two years, and then approved by a simple majority of voters during a general election.

Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.

___

Associated Press writers Nigel Duara in Urbandale and Marco Santana, Melanie S. Welte, Michael Crumb and Mike Glover in Des Moines contributed to this report.

___

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Another twist for the unemployed: Debit card fees

I hate to see how big companies and even the government take advantage of the poor...

By Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick
CNN Special Investigations Unit

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- If you're out of work like Steve Lippe, who was laid off from his job as a salesman in January, you know you already have problems. But looking at the fine print that came with his new unemployment debit card, he became livid.

"A $1.50 [fee] here, a $1.50 there," he said. "Forty cents for a balance inquiry. Fifty cents to have your card denied. Thirty-five cents to have your account accessed by telephone."

He was quoting fees listed in a brochure that goes out to every unemployed person in Pennsylvania who chooses to receive benefits via debit card. He was given the option when he filed for jobless payments: Wait 10 days for a check or get the card immediately. Like most of the 925,000 state residents who received unemployment benefits in February in Pennsylvania, he chose the debit card and only then, he says, did he learn about the fees.

"I was outraged by it," he told CNN. "I was very noisy about it. I just couldn't believe it. An outrage is just too weak a word. It's obscene."

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 30 states offer direct deposit cards to the unemployed. Many of the nation's biggest banks have contracts with the individual states. JP Morgan Chase, for instance, has contracts with seven states and has pending deals with two others, according to Chase spokesman John T. Murray. About 10 states, the Labor Department says, pay by check only.

The National Consumer Law Center says fees range from 40 cents to a high of $3 per transaction, if the debit card is used at an out-of-network ATM. Most banks give jobless debit card users one free withdrawal per deposit period, which averages every other week in most states. But consumer advocates, including the Law Center, say the unemployed "should be able to obtain cash and perform basic functions with no fees."

A key Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees bank regulation and theTroubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), told CNN she agrees wholeheartedly.

"Fees should not be attached to unemployment benefits that the taxpayers are paying to help Americans," Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, told CNN. "Particularly, these fees should not be attached by banks that are getting TARP money and are being supported by taxpayer dollars."

CNN asked some of the major banks involved in the debit card program for a response. Spokesmen for JP Morgan Chase, Wachovia, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all directed us to the individual state governments for comment.

The acting secretary of labor and industry for Pennsylvania is Sandi Vito. Via e-mail, her staff invited CNN reporters to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where she was taking part at a public meeting at an elementary school. Afterward, she said, she would answer questions about the debit card fees.

But when the meeting ended, her staff said she was too busy to talk.
Her spokesman, Troy A. Thompson, spoke with CNN after Vito left.

"The distribution system for people getting their benefits has been improved by the use of debit cards, way above and beyond the distribution by check," he said.

The U.S. Department of Labor provided what it called "talking points" to CNN when asked for comment on the fee structure.

"States can do a better job negotiating fees with banks," the department said. "Many states have obtained terms far more favorable to claimants than those described in media reports."

In addition, according to the talking points, the Labor Department said it was aware states are offering unemployment debit cards for good reasons:

• It is less expensive for claimants without bank accounts because they don't need to pay check cashing fees.

• Claimants can use the card free at merchants and therefore don't need to carry excess cash.

• Generally, these cards are safer and more secure than checks.

"We will be working with states as they gain experience with debit cards to resolve these problems related to fees," the Labor Department said.

Time to Clean Up The Catholic House in Brazil

I read this on Topix today, and I'm still shaking my head at the stupidity of some factions of so-called "Christianity"...

Brazil is the world’s most populous Catholic country and The Roman Catholic Church welds a lot of power in here…

But in Brazil it is starting to look to many that the Roman Catholic Church in this country really needs to start getting the log out of it own eye before it gets the mote out of everyone else’s… And they need to do some cleaning of their house … before Brazilians come burn that house down for them…

This month the Archbishop of Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated a mother who gave her permission to doctors to perform an abortion on her daughter after the nine-year-old girl got pregnant as the result of being raped by her stepfather.

Doctors believed that the nine-year-old was too small to have twins and that going ahead with the birth would have put her life in danger.

The local Catholic hierarchy tried to stop the procedure anyway (which is allowed in Brazil only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother), but when it failed to do so, the local archbishop decided to excommunicate the girl’s mother and the doctors.

However, the archbishop didn’t excommunicate the stepfather who is in jail now.

Archbishop Sobrinho defended his action and when asked why he did not excommunicate the 23-year-old stepfather, Sobrinho said: “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.

And the Catholic Church tells me as a lesbian I am immoral?
Helloooo… did these palhaços miss the part that said a nine year old child was RAPED and would DIE?

Read full story from lezgetreal.com

For more on this story, read Abortion Saves Raped 9-Year-Old Girl's Life: Vatican Excommunicates, Furor Among Brazil's Catholics

Muslim Head Scarf Raises Concern at Bank Woman asked to bank in back room

I don't understand how a woman's head scarf would require the bank employees to have her go into a back room. It would be different if she were wearing a veil, but they don't ask women wearing a head scarf over their curlers to go into a back room!!!

Updated 8:15 AM EDT, Tue, Mar 10, 2009
A woman's muslim head scarf leads to problems at a Maryland credit union.

CALIFORNIA, Md. -- A Muslim woman said employees at a southern Maryland credit union asked to serve her in a back room because her head scarf violated the institution's "no hats, hoods or sunglasses" policy.

Kenza Shelley, of Lexington Park, said in the 10 years she has used the Navy Federal Credit Union in the California area of St. Mary's County no one complained about her scarf, which covers her hair, until February.

Shelley said she complied the first time, but on Saturday she demanded to be served like everyone else and left.

A Navy Federal security official defended the policy to the Washington Post, saying there was a significant increase in bank robberies last year and the policy was designed to prevent armed robbery and identity theft.

Tom Lyons, senior vice president for security at Navy Federal ... said it would not be unreasonable for bank employees to ask customers who refused to take off their hats to move to a separate room so they could be identified.

"We want to be able to clearly identify who you are and make sure the transaction is safe," Lyons said. "This is a policy that applies to everybody in the branch. She wasn't singled out. . . . We tried to accommodate her and help her with her transaction and move on."

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations disagreed.

"Navy Federal's policy on head coverings clearly forces bank employees to impose a 'separate but equal' status not only on Muslim women who wear hijab, but on all those who wear religious attire," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin.

"The banking industry needs to come up with a standard policy based not only on security needs, but also on the religious and civil rights of customers," Rubin said.

Copyright Associated Press / NBC Washington

Sudan soldier: 'They told me to kill, to rape children'

If we (USA) must be in a war in another country, fighting someone else's battles, why isn't it somewhere like this? Why aren't we stopping atrocities like this from happening?











A woman left homeless by conflict in Darfur walks along railway tracks.

By Nic Robertson
CNN Senior International Correspondent

(CNN) -- I wanted to believe the man in front of me wasn't a rapist. I knew he was a former Sudanese soldier, I knew he wanted to talk about rape in Darfur. A humanitarian group working on Darfur issues had introduced him to us. They told us his testimony was important to hear.

Last year in Darfur aid workers told me children as young as five were being raped in the huge displacement camps that are home to several million Darfuris. In some camps, they told me, rape had become so common that as many as 20 babies a month born from rape were being abandoned.

As I sat inches from Adam --not his real name -- I feared the revulsion I knew I would feel at my own questions as I asked about rape and his involvement. I have interviewed rape survivors in Darfur. I have two daughters. I am a human being with a conscience. It would be hard to listen to his replies.

He told me he was conscripted by force in to the Sudanese army in the summer of 2002. He thought he was being taken for six months' national service and then would be released.

The conversation was slow going at first. We were both holding off from delving into the sordid details he'd come to discuss. His answers were short, he told me he got no pay from the army, only food and drink.

He said he was rounded up in an army truck from a market in Darfur and trained to kill. He said he was armed with Kalashnikovs and told to "shoot targets." Video Watch ex-soldier describe brutal attacks on children to Nic Robertson »

Then, he says, his officers told him "we will be taken to a patrol and then soon after that we were asked to join other people to go and burn and kill people".

That's when he says he realized he wasn't getting national service training, that in fact, he was being forced into war against his will, with his own people. "They are black," he told me, noting the difference between the lighter skinned rulers of Sudan and the darker farmers of Darfur. "I am black," he said, "this shouldn't be happening."

But, he said, worse than being told to kill his own people, was that if he tried to resist, he himself would be killed. "The order is that the soldiers at the front, and there are some people who are watching you from behind, if you try to escape or do anything you will get shot. The order is that we go to the village, burn it and kill the people."

It felt as Adam was beginning to open up a little -- not easy, given the topic, and the lights and cameras all around us. He was beginning to talk a bit more, answer questions with more than one or two words. But it was following a pattern: I'd have to lead the way. We were both waiting for the inevitable. How he came to know of rape in Darfur.

And that's when he said it. Video Watch warrant being issued for president »

He brought up the rape by himself. He was talking through a translator but his voice was quiet. I thought I heard anger, heard him slow and his voice drop: "I had no choice," he said "but I will say that I didn't kill anybody but the raping of the small children, it was bad" I knew this was going to be difficult and now it had begun.

What happens with the children, I asked. "They cry out," he answered. "And what happens when they cry out?" "Two persons will capture her while she is crying and another raping her, then they leave her there," came his reply.

Silence. "What do I ask now?" I thought. Be forensic. Get the story. This is important testimony, I reminded myself.

And so we continued, Adam describing in detail how soldiers raped girls as young as 12. How officers ordered them to do this to make people flee their villages, run away and never come back. Through all of this, Adam didn't once mention whether he actually had been directly involved in the raping.

He said he tried to desert the army as soon as he could, but was caught and tortured. He showed me the scars where he said he was tied down beneath a tree and officers set fire to tires above him, dripping burning rubber on his body.

Eventually, he said, he did get away, went to his sisters, tried joining the rebels to fight the army. But even there, his troubles were far from over. Incredibly, he said, the rebels didn't trust him; he was kept at their camp and only escaped when it was bombed by the army.

The end of his story, but we weren't really done. One more question.

Had he been forced to rape children?

"Yes I did, they were government orders," came his reply.

How many? "Well it didn't feel like raping, I was feeling very bad but as I was ordered, I had to do something. What I did was take off my trousers and lay myself on top of the girl but I didn't feel like raping, so I lay there for about 15 minutes."

I want to be sure I understand him. "So you didn't actually penetrate the girls?" I ask. No, he says, "because I had no feeling for it, my penis didn't actually wake up, so there was no actual penetration," he replied.

There were other people in the room, the translator, a cameraman, our producer Jonathan Wald, but I had forgotten they were there. My thoughts were entirely locked on Adam.

What more could I ask? I was emotionally drained. There was no way of knowing whether he was telling me the truth. Only in the measure of his voice was there a clue.

Here, sitting on an office chair, thousands of miles away from Darfur, the memories come flooding back. The many, traumatized women and children we've interviewed, distraught families, unable to protect themselves. The pain we put them through, to recount, to relive, their nightmares.

Each time, I've asked myself can I justify the suffering these questions cause? Each time, I tell myself it is only their own accounts that can cast light on the darkened corner of humanity they inhabit. Only their own accounts that can help break their cycle of suffering.

Time and again, though, it seems telling the world their stories has little tangible impact on their reality of their lives. And now I'm face-to-face with a man who says he was part of the suffering, albeit by his own account not complicit and not guilty.
advertisement

I am left with the thought perhaps Adam's words carry even greater power. If his story is true -- and it mirrors other accounts emerging from Darfur -- then it implicates the government in these terrible crimes.

He says he has trouble sleeping at nights. I can understand why. He is not alone. Aid workers say millions of women in Darfur not only have trouble sleeping at nights, but live in fear of rape 24 hours a day.

I AM HOMOPHOBIA

I found this posted on another blog....

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the p*****tute working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I survived the attack that left me in a coma for three weeks, and in another year I will probably be able to walk again.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the man who died when the paramedics stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I didn't have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don't believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

Homophobia is wrong.

Author - Unknown

Holocaust-denying bishop returns to UK

I really hate to play the 'race card', but in this case I think it's warranted. When Jeremiah Wright said something about white America, it was all over the news, it was all over the Internet, people on the street were talking about it; how much publicity has this gotten? How many are even aware of it? Here is a white Catholic priest proclaiming that the Holocaust did not happen; he is denying that there were gas chambers and that millions of Jews were killed on purpose! Why aren't there daily blog posts proclaiming what a racist and a hater he is? Why is it okay for him to voice his opinion (at least to the public, the Catholic Church isn't having it!) but not for Jeremiah Wright? Because Bishop Williamson isn't associated with the President? I don't think so; but that's just my opinion of course.


LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British Roman Catholic bishop who was ordered to leave Argentina because of his inflammatory comments about the Holocaust has returned home.

Bishop Richard Williamson flew into London's Heathrow airport from Buenos Aires where he was met by a police guard.

Williamson was ordered to leave Argentina on February 19 within 10 days after he denied the Nazis had systematically murdered millions of Jews during World War II simply for being Jewish.

In an interview with Swedish television, Williamson said, "I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.

"I believe there were no gas chambers," he said.

The United Kingdom's Home Office, which is responsible for policing among other duties, said Williamson had a right to return home and implied he did not face arrest on his return.

"We understand and respect the fact that some countries ban Holocaust denial, but there is a consensus within the UK that this is not an approach that we should adopt domestically," the Home Office said in a statement.

"Instead, we believe that such behavior should only be criminal if it incites violence or hatred by reference to color, race, national or ethnic origin and is carried out in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner."

Williamson is under investigation for Holocaust denial in Germany, where it is a crime.

Williamson made headlines in January when he and three other ultra-conservative bishops were welcomed back into the Roman Catholic Church more than 20 years after Pope John Paul II excommunicated them on a theological question unrelated to the Holocaust.

Williamson's rehabilitation sparked condemnation from Israel, American Jewish leaders and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, among others.

The Vatican has pointed to several statements by Pope Benedict XVI condemning the destruction of European Jewry. The pope also has said he did not know of Williamson's views on the Holocaust when he lifted the excommunication.

The mainstream Catholic bishops of England and Wales have condemned Williamson's views on the Holocaust as "totally unacceptable" and say the lifting of his excommunication was for unrelated matters.

A spokesman for the Catholic bishops conference of England and Wales told the Press Association on Wednesday he had "absolutely no idea" where Bishop Williamson was going following his arrival in Britain.

The Vatican has said Williamson will not be allowed to perform priestly functions until he recants his Holocaust denial.

Williamson has apologized for the "distress" his remarks caused the pope, but he has not retracted them.

A Voice Against Proposition 8

When the Proposition 8 campaign was going on, one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal was children's education; "Same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools." The proponents of Proposition 8 blasted this all over TV and radio, and in newspapers, trying to convince people that if Proposition 8 failed to pass, the next day the teachers would be in schools teaching kindergarten students on up about homosexuals getting married, and what a terrible thing this is. They also claim that homosexuals are incapable of being monogamous or of giving a child a stable home; (From Contraries, by Margot Schulzke on August 13, 2008)

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing: In Sex in America, called by the New York Times “the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports,” Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex. …

While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

Where do they get this garbage from??? Who are these heterosexual husbands and wives claiming to have never had extramarital sex? How many was it 90% and 75% of?

Here is an article from someone that we rarely heard from during that whole Proposition 8 campaign: one of the children. This is the kind of thing we should have been hearing more of!

"My moms are amazing."

A 16-year old supports her parents' right to marry.
Wed, 02/11/2009 - 9:34pm by Jeff

Adrienne is a student at The Urban School of San Francisco, and is a reporter for The Urban Legend. In the online PBS NewsHour Extra: Student Voice, Adrienne writes that same-sex couples like her parents should be allowed to get married.

My parents have been married twice and may have to get married a third time. I don't come from a broken family, my parents love each other and always have. The only problem is, they're lesbians.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples could wed. More than 18,000 same-sex couples, including my parents, were married.

In the November elections, however, voters passed Proposition 8, which amends the California constitution to "eliminate [the] right of same-sex couples to marry." Now a legal battle is being fought to determine if voters can alter the state constitution in such a drastic way.

'Misleading methods'

It is not only the attack on civil rights that is offensive to me, but also the misleading methods the supporters of Propisition 8 employed. Supporters of Propisition 8 used children's images in campaign videos without permission, and argued that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools. They used children, highlighting them continuously, but giving them no voice.

In reality, "nothing mandates teaching [same-sex marriage]," says Kate Belcsak, co-president of Urban High School's Gay-Straight Alliance. Unfortunately "there was no [public] response to the scare tactics," said Boone Epstein, GSA co-president. He added that children of gay parents need to "come out and say they are regular human beings, and not some devil's spawn."

Demonstrating against 'Prop 8'

After Proposition 8 passed, outrage generated demonstrations across the country. I went with my family to a rally in San Francisco. Protesters carried signs with slogans such as, "Don't mess with Dumbledore's rights," or "No more Mr. Nice Gay," and "Get your church out of my state." Members of Urban High School's Gay-Straight Alliance were at the rally. They came out on a Saturday for an issue that is more important than a day off from school.

Many families brought their children. I talked with a lesbian couple who are raising a child together and their love for the child was clear. Another heterosexual couple talked about the anger they felt that their gay and lesbian friends could have this basic right taken away. Their ten-year-old son called the Propisition 8 campaign "lies."

Urban High School Spanish Teacher Esteban Speier agreed, saying, "It was a scare tactic used by the right that we were going to teach gay marriage as a unit in social studies."

My moms are amazing, and I know how much it hurts them every time people are homophobic. I see this issue as simple. It's a civil right. My parents love each other, and they want to marry in a country that says everyone is equal under the law.

As their daughter, I am standing up and saying that there are no reasons that could be argued in a courtroom that could stand against the undeniable fact that we are a family, like any other.

Commentary: Don't be my Valentine

By Roland Martin
CNN Contributor

Editor's note: A nationally syndicated columnist, Roland S. Martin is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information.

Roland S. Martin says he doesn't buy all the hype associated with Valentine's Day, and I pretty much agree with him. Although it is actually based on a religious figure, (St. Valentine) what this day has become is totally outrageous. The difference between the price of roses during the rest of the year, and during this season is unbelievable; in some cases we're talking triple! Then to warrant that increase, they include a vase, which is usually one of those things that you can get a the dollar store for a buck. The hype made about Valentine's Day is, IMO, ridiculous. Not only should that love be expressed all year round, "Just because", but in this day of people losing jobs and homes, there are much better things that money could be spent on that would mean a lot more. You love me so much? Pay my utility bill and give me a receipt with "Happy Valentine's Day written on it. That gift will last a lot longer than roses would; and would mean a heck of a lot more to me.

(CNN) -- With retailers hurting and the U.S. president trying to encourage Americans to spend money to restore consumer confidence, what I'm about to say may seem like treason. But here goes: Please boycott Valentine's Day and all that is associated with this horrendous "holiday."

For several years I have ripped into Valentine's Day. Not because I'm against love and relationships, but mainly because the holiday is such a farce.

First of all, Valentine's Day is not built around a religious event like Christmas or Easter; nor does it have any special meaning to the nation such as Memorial Day or Veterans Day.

It is nothing more than a commercial holiday created by rabid retailers who needed a major shopping day between Christmas and Easter in order to give people a reason to spend money.

Now folks, I love my wife. She is truly an awesome woman who is smart, talented, fine, and, did I say fine? But do I really need a special day to show my affection for her?

I've long maintained that if I sent my flowers at other times during the year, why do I have to fall victim to peer pressure and send her some roses that have quadrupled in price leading up to February 14?

Why should I be inundated with mailings, e-mails and commercials to show her that I love her by buying jewelry or clothing? If we went shopping in June or September or last month, can I get some kind of waiver or "Get out of Valentine's Day" card?

As for this silly flower thing, it's even got to the point that any flowers can't do. Some years ago I planned on sending a woman some flowers that weren't roses, and the (female) co-workers were aghast. They felt that nothing mattered except roses.

First of all, I didn't have a lot of dough and felt a nice bouquet was sufficient, but they were appalled. So I told them to go to hell and I'll do what I want. I guess for them, the thought really doesn't matter.

Then there are the women on the job who measure the love of their men based on those flowers. You know how some folks are. If there are flowers on the desk of 10 other women, and one woman doesn't have anything, folks get to talking and whispering as if something is wrong in her relationship.

I've learned that even if you get the biggest-ever rose bouquet -- the relationship might be crumbling and you just refuse to admit it.

And Valentine's Day really isn't even a two-way street. Men are utterly irrelevant except to serve as pawns in this commercial game, emptying their wallets in order to satisfy their lovers or those around them. Oh yea, retailers know the con game.

Most of these guys are hapless saps who have ignored their wives or girlfriends all year, so they buy the flowers and candy, and set a reservation at one of the city's most expensive restaurants, all to say, "Honey, I love you."

Ladies, and men, stop it! It's time to say enough is enough with Valentine's Day.

What do I want? How about men and women loving, caring and sharing the other 364 days a year? February 14 isn't the only time to send flowers to your woman (ladies, we wouldn't mind getting a surprise delivery as well!). How about dropping her a flower arrangement on May 14? And on that card you need to write, "Just because..."

Instead of men and women spicing up their sex life on February 14, make the effort to satisfy your mate the rest of the year.

If last Valentine's Day was the last time you took your significant other out to a really nice restaurant, you deserve to be in trouble.

Are you planning to treat your man or woman to a wonderful day at the spa this Saturday? Well, I'm sure he or she would thoroughly enjoy the same in June or July.

It's time that we all take stock of our relationships and learn that we are to be loving and fulfilled 365 days a year, and not reduce our affection to flowers, candy, jewelry, clothes and a meal on one day a year.

The people who plan their lives around Valentine's are like those who spend more time planning their wedding day rather than planning their marriage. The day is nice and wonderful, but what makes it last is what you do on the "non-special" days.

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of Roland Martin.

Gays who face persecution should be given asylum says EU

The European Commission has affirmed that persecution on grounds of sexual orientation is a legitimate justification for an asylum claim.

The question was prompted by an initial rejection in Cyprus of a claim by a gay Iranian asylum seeker, a rejection which was later overturned and the claim granted.

The Commission has confirmed that there is "an obligation on Member States to grant refugee status to persons who…. are found to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, including a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation."

The Commission was responding to a question from MEPs.

Sarah Ludford, who is Liberal Democrat European justice & human rights spokeswoman, said:

"I strongly welcome this robust statement by the Commission on the responsibility of Member States to uphold their international commitments to refugees and recognise persecution on all legitimate grounds including sexual orientation.

"Such persecution is very much a reality for gay and lesbian people from countries such as Iran.

"Iranians Mehdi Kazemi and Mr Bagherian were both eventually granted residence in the UK and Cyprus respectively but in both cases it was a struggle requiring a lot of lobbying.

"I hope that EU states will now heed the Commission and deal with future cases quickly and efficiently so that those who've been persecuted on the grounds of their sexuality can be spared further distress."

Gay activists in the UK have started a petition on the Downing St website calling on the Prime Minister "to stop deporting gays and lesbians to countries where they may be imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality."

Last week it was reported that the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) was to deport a man who claims he is gay back to Iraq.

His original application for asylum in 2001 did not mention his homosexuality.

Gay rights groups condemned the decision to deport the man, and the UKBA's assertion that he should be safe if he is "private" about his sexuality.

"Even if your client's homosexuality were to be established it is viewed that it would be possible for your client to conduct such relationships in private on his return to Iraq," the agency said in a letter to the man's lawyers.

"This would allow your client to express his sexuality, albeit in a more limited way than he could do elsewhere."

Iraqi LGBT says that more than 430 gay men have been murdered in Iraq since 2003.

In November a leading gay activist in Iraq was assassinated. 27-year-old Bashar was one of the organisers of safe houses for gay men in Baghdad and was co-ordinator of Iraqi LGBT in the city.

A UN report in 2007 highlighted attacks on gays by militants and religious courts, supervised by clerics, where homosexuals allegedly would be 'tried,' 'sentenced' to death and then executed.

WWII vet frozen to death leaves estate to hospital

This should not be allowed to happen in this country. 93 year old people do not freeze to death in their own homes in this so-called "land of milk and honey"!! And why was it allowed to happen? Because the utility company was a private one that was not subject to the rules and regulations that ALL utility companies should be subject to! The company being "private" in no way frees them from their moral and ethical obligation to put people before dollar signs.

(CNN) -- A 93-year-old World War II medic who froze to death last month in his Bay City, Michigan, home left his entire estate to a local hospital, an estate attorney told CNN Wednesday.

The attorney would not disclose the exact amount left behind by Martin Schur. But his nephew said his uncle indicated to family members two years ago that he had saved up more than a half-million dollars over the years. Schur and his wife, Marian, who died more than a year ago, did not have any children.

"I just know at one time he said he had over $600,000 in savings," said William Walworth. "That's what he told me and my brother, and he was proud that he was able to save and build his estate up to that."

Cathy Reder, an attorney negotiating on behalf of Bay Regional Medical Center and the Schur family, said she was filing paperwork in probate court Wednesday for the court to determine the validity of the will. A hearing has been set for March 17.

Reder would not specify the amount left to the hospital, other than to say it's more than $1.

"The will leaves everything to Bay Medical Center," she said.

The hospital had no immediate comment.

Walworth said his uncle was a frugal man who hadn't eaten at a restaurant for over 30 years. "He was very tight, and he was very frugal. But he did manage to save a lot of money."

He said it's possible his uncle's estate could be less than $600,000, but he believes it's still "sizable."

"Knowing my uncle, that's him," Walworth said. "He loved his community. He loved Bay City, Michigan."

He added, "Hopefully his death is not in vain and we can learn from this, and he's still able to save lives. ... He was a very unique, special person in my life. I'm proud of what he was able to do in his life."

He said he hopes his uncle's message will spur others to "look out for their neighbor."

The size of the estate -- if it's as large as the nephew believes -- adds another tragic twist to Schur's death. The power company limited his electricity because he owed about $1,000. Video Watch neighbor say the death is "unforgivable" »

Schur's death last month shocked Bay City, a town of about 37,000 on Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay.

The World War II veteran's frozen body was found in his home January 17, just four days after a device that regulates how much power he uses -- installed because of failure to pay -- shut off his power. A medical examiner said the temperature was 32 degrees in the house when Schur's body was found.

The medical examiner told The Bay City Times that Schur died a "slow, painful death." "It's not easy to die from hypothermia without first realizing your fingers and toes feel like they're burning," Dr. Kanu Virani told the paper.

The Michigan State Police launched an investigation into Schur's death for possible criminal violations. "We have to do everything we can to make sure this doesn't happen again, whether it's Bay City or in any one of the cold weather states," Bay City Mayor Charles Brunner said last week.

The death has prompted a review of Bay City Electric Light & Power's rules and procedures for limiting or cutting off power. It also resulted in Bay City residents protesting Monday to the city about its handling of the whole situation.

A neighbor who lives down the street called Schur's death "unforgivable."

"This can't be allowed to happen in this country," said Jerome Anderson.

Walworth said he believes his uncle's death was "preventable."

"It should never have happened. It's a tragic loss," he said. "I had a lot of fond memories of my uncle, and that's the type of memory I don't want to have: Him freezing to death."

Utility officials said Schur owed about $1,000 resulting in a "limiter" being put on his home. Limiters are devices that cut power as a warning for people who haven't paid their bills. Limiters can be reset to restore a lesser degree of power until a bill payment is worked out. In Schur's case, the limiter was never reset, and it's unclear whether he knew how to do that.

Schur had been living alone since his wife died, Walworth said.

Unlike private utilities regulated by the state, Bay City runs and oversees its own utilities and therefore doesn't fall under Michigan's public service commission. By law, Michigan requires private companies to prohibit cutting off service to senior citizens between November and April. Seniors must register for the program.

The city has begun questioning whether its rules and procedures for limiting or cutting off power need a major overhaul. The utility has stopped its practice of cutting power to customers who don't pay their bills.

The utility also has removed all "limiters" on homes.

Walworth said someone should have looked at Schur's payment history and made direct contact to see whether something was wrong. He's hoping the nation will learn from his uncle's death.

"Hopefully, some good can come out of this. I'm still an optimist."

UPDATE: Vermont Judge Issues Stern Warning In Lesbian Child Custody Battle

Janet Jenkins in court
Here's an update on a previous story I posted; when is Miller going to give up? All Janet Jenkins wants is to see the daughter they had when they were together! I think Miller will be one who ends up leaving the country just to keep her ex from seeing their daughter. I hate to think of what this is doing to the child....



Vermont Judge Issues Stern Warning In Lesbian Child Custody Battle

A Vermont Family Court Judge has issued a stern warning to Lisa Miller of Winchester, Virginia telling her that she risked losing custody of her child if she continued to violate the court order granting Miller’s ex-partner Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven, VT visitation rights.

This has been a long and often bitter custody battle.

When their child Isabel was conceived by Miller via artificial insemination, they were both living in Vermont and had formalized their relationship in a civil union. This gave Vermont jurisdiction over the case.


When the couple broke up, the Vermont Courts granted Jenkins visitation, and had awarded Millet child support payments from Jenkins. Miller fled to Virginia and declared that she was no longer a lesbian and hired the Conservative Christian law firm, The Liberty Council, to defend her. Miller then went to court in Virginia, which does not recognize civil unions and has some of the most anti-homosexual laws in the country, to demand sole custody.

Jenkins fought the filing stating that the courts in Vermont had already ruled and the Vermont court declared that it had sole jurisdiction over the case.

In 2007, Virginia’s Supreme Court sided with the Vermont courts.

Liberty Council then appealed to the US Supreme Court which declined to hear the case.

The Liberty Council returned to the Virginia Circuit Courts to halt the visitation order, but the judge in that case stated that Virginia’s Supreme Court had already ruled.

The Liberty Council then again appealed to the Virginia’s Supreme Court which then sited the Parental Kidnap Prevention Act, which requires courts in other states to adhere to preexisting custody and visitation awards and refused to hear the case again giving sole jurisdiction to Vermont.

On January 28th, Vermont Judge William Cohen allowed Miller to retain custody, but ordered unsupervised visitation for four days in March, over the Memorial Day holiday and for five weeks in the summer, warning that this may be revisited shortly if Miller continues refuses to allow Jenkins visitation.

Vermont is one of the few states to have either civil unions or same-sex marriage laws.