Few moments in American history have so reflected a treasonous sentiment abroad in the republic against a key tenant of the Constitution as the speech in Houston this week by presidential candidate Mitt Romney to a largely Republican audience did against the separation of Church and State. Romney, a Mormon, felt compelled to give a speech to satisfy the requirements of what is essentially a religious test many Americans would like to make a requirement of candidates in America, supposedly the "land of the free."

The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for holding office. But the religious test as it exists now is not something written into law; rather, it is a reflection of two facts, one of which is worrying as it elevates religion too much into political and governmental affairs.

From the Office of NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson:

[Comptroller Thompson] had mentioned [recently] resistance from Micron Technology to adhering to a shareholder vote and adding new language to protect LGBT members of its workforce from discrimination.

As a result of pressure from Bill and the New York City Pension Funds, Micron Technology Inc. has notified us that it is reversing its stance and has now agreed to add language pertaining specifically to s-xual orientation to its anti-discrimination policies....
The Advocate has just posted the development on its web site. You can view this - and our official statement on the matter - at http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti d45001.asp

The Republican fund-raising machine is back to some old tricks: the bogus, telemarketed "National Leadership Award" pitch/scam dating back to at least 2002 and ethically-challenged former Congressman Tom DeLay.

A friend of mine in the corporate world received this voice mail in mid-March 2007, as related to him by e-mail from his administrative assistant:

Heather Yolan from Congressman Tom Cole's office called and said they would like to recognize you with a National Leadership Award, and would like to talk to you about a press release ASAP...their number is 1-877-213-0603.

The Pentagon fires 2 gay people a day: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network estimates there are 65,000 gay Americans in the Armed Services. The AP reports that a 2005 "government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of" the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

And yet, when on March 12, 2007, the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff deemed same-sex sex as immoral, effectively equating it with "sleeping with somebody else's wife" and saying, "We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," the silence among Democratic Congressional leaders was profound.

Elizabeth Drew in the a recent issue of The New York Review of Books gives as convincing of a narrative concerning the nature of the Democrats' victory in November 2006 as I've read anywhere. There are some important observations in the Drew's article.

First, the situation for the GOP going into the elections of November, 2006:

In an interview, the astute Republican lobbyist and activist Vin Weber said of the Christian conservatives, "They really are to the Republican party what labor or African-Americans are to the Democrats--similar in numbers and impact." Weber told me, "The evangelical vote is simply larger than that of other Republican constituencies."

The Rove "genius," his daunting get-out-the-vote machinery mobilizing Republican activists on the ground, as well as his ability to frame issues from gay marriage to fighting terrorism in a way that puts Democrats on the defensive, added to the mystique of Republican invincibility. But Rove's real innovation was to develop a far more sophisticated "targeting" operation-- figuring out, for example, where the Christian right and evangelical voters are to be found, and making sure they get to the polls.

However, "Mechanics alone can't win elections," Drew rightly points out, and the American "electorate is closely divided." The result of the November 2006 election--that is, the Democratic Party's capture of the House and Senate--was because "59 percent of independents voted for Democrats--up from 49 percent in 2004." Why? In part because the "embrace of Christian conservatives has helped push the Republican Party far to the right, leaving more centrist and independent voters up for grabs."

But the even greater motivator of anti-Republican votes (which tended to be pro-Democratic only incidentally, except in the case of voters in their 20's) was the issue of Iraq.

Republicans say Democrats don't have a plan for fighting terrorism. Baloney! Here's the Congressional Democratic plan that Republicans buried--playing politics as usual with America's safety.

Democrats called for a change in Iraq policy. The current one's not working. Republicans don't like that commonsense thinking, either.

There is one thing Islamic radicals want more badly than a US pullout from Iraq: they want to grow radicalism in its size and influence. For the US to stay in Iraq is to give the terrorists what they MOST want: "proof" that we're empirial invaders and more footage of dead Americans (a record number in October) in order to keep the flames spreading of Islamic fundamentalism and its attendant terrorist networks.

Leaving Iraq is the first step towards a victory in what the prudent always realized was going to be a long, Cold War-like struggle for hearts and minds throughout the Islamic world.

Below and here are the words of experts, commentators, and even America's enemies who understand that staying in Iraq is making things worse for America. (Links are to quotation sources.)

Fifty years ago today (Oct. 29), Israel attacked Egypt in collusion with the UK and France; in early November, the UK and France entered the conflict militarily, as had been secretly agreed among the three allied nations. UK forces seized the Suez Canel ( photo), which all along had been the real purpose of the three-nation assault on Egypt.

This invasion of an Arab country was in defiance of international law and world opinion. The US did not support the invasion. In fact, the US response forced the UK troops to withdraw in humiliation. Recently, Geoffrey Wheatcroft of The Boston Globe wrote about this in light of the invasion of Iraq.

What's a liberal, what's a progressive, what's a populist? I'm not always sure. But, some concerns about Democratic candidate for Senate (TN), Rep. Harold Fold, Jr., has me thinking about that.

From the Salon.com article, "How Would Jesus Vote?"

On the [senatorial] campaign trail, [Democratic Rep. Harold Ford] portrays himself as a moderate, saying he opposes the politics of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, endorses the House Republican immigration plan, and supports a state ban on gay marriage. To prove his point, Ford's get-out-the-vote rallies often double as prayer meetings. During a recent debate with his Republican opponent, former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, Ford repeatedly asked state residents to give him their prayers along with their votes. On his Web site, under the banner "My Faith Is My Guide," Ford writes that he is running for Senate "to put my faith and beliefs into action."

In light of only the Salon.com article there is no difference between Ford's stated policy positions and those of most members of the Religious Right.