Fancy that... DOJ DECLINES TO APPEAL RULING allowing religious proselytizing in National Parks

[Bluebear]

But, but, the administration MUST uphold the Laws Of The Land!!! :cry:

====

The Department of Justice has elected to let stand a court ruling which allows Christianists and other religious groups to demonstrate, preach, and proselytize in federal parks. The original case was brought by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund over a preacher who was made to stop handing out pamphlets at Mount Rushmore.

Servicemembers United comments:

"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. "Servicemembers United renews its call for the administration to withdraw its appeal of both the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' ruling and the injunction pursuant to that ruling."

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/doj-declines-to-appeal-ruling-allowing.html

[frylock]

1. but but but...... prezident palin.... medicare....blahblahblah

[Bluebear]

2. This is different, silly, God is in the mix.

:silly:

[foxfeet]

5. So are two eggs and a half-cup of oil, but they don't proselytize.

[vi5]

3. PRESIDENT PALIN!!!

PRESIDENT PALIN BLAH BLAH BLAH SOME OTHER FUCKING HORSESHIT JUSTIFICATION TELLING YOU YOU NEED TO CLAP LOUDER AND BE HAPPY BLAH BLAH BLAH.

[donco6]

28. snort! No shit. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

59. Oh, stop that, you silly old PUMA.

;)

[Touchdown]

63. But, but, but... Be rational for my hurt feelings.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. DISGUSTING! I guess progressive groups need to start proselytizing in the parks since it is

now permitted....

The obvious conclusions that can be drawn from the different reactions of the DOJ do not make this administration look very good to those of us who voted for it. Yet another disappointment...

[grahamhgreen]

118. Or gays! Get a few Gays in the parks and see what happens!

[MadHound]

6. But this was dealing with matters concerning GAWD

Can't let anything get in the way of GAWD, don'tcha know. This administration will do anything if it concerns GAWD.

But those godless gays, meh, not so much.

[Bluebear]

7. One of of commenters at Joe My God said...

something like "why on earth does anybody think Obama is Muslim? He acts exactly like any other homophobic Christian politician!"

[AndrewP]

10. That's what I've wondered for a long time

I'm not an Obama basher, but I am curious how anyone with an IQ over 2 could accuse the President of being a radical Muslim. He is just as willing to pander to Christian nonsense as any other politician I've seen.

[namahage]

66. "I'm not an Obama basher, but..."

Is that like "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not homophobic, but..."?

[AndrewP]

68. I'll draw pictures next time so as not to offend

It was to add context to the fact that I don't like his pandering to Christians, but I don't dislike the man.

Sorry if that was too complex to follow.

[namahage]

67. Delete...dupe n/t

[AlbertCat]

105. More Christian bashing!!!

Religion is under siege in this country! Secular government is out to make everyone an atheist! Christians just can't get a break....




oh wait......








never mind.....






(P.S. I hope Muslims will be in the park handing out Korans. And Hare Krishnas will be there too, and Scientologists, and Wiccans.... I hope it looks like that scene from "Airplane" where Robert Stack walks thru the airport lobby.)

[_ed_]

117. It must be so hard

to be in the 90+% majority of Christians in America.

[givemebackmycountry]

122. I know. Sucks don't it?

[lame54]

126. "How 'bout Buddism?"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Well THIS sucks --

I have to listen to crazy preachers in Yosemite and gay servicemembers are still stuck in the closet. :puke:

[Le Taz Hot]

95. Correct me if I'm wrong, HHNF,

but aren't you organizing a DU Yosemite trip next summer? There may be opportunities here . . . :evilgrin:

[ThomasQED]

9. I don't understand

National Parks are public property, no? So anyone should be able to practice free speech there?

As long as it's individuals and private groups, not the government doing it, I don't see why a preacher should not be allowed to hand out pamphlets.

[Bluebear]

17. I don't understand either. Why can't gays serve in the military?

[ThomasQED]

23. I'm not arguing that it makes sense for the DOJ to appeal the DADT ruling

I'm arguing that it makes sense for them NOT to appeal this one.

[woo me with science]

72. +1 nt

[grahamhgreen]

119. The point is that they are appealing the ruling that those who elected them

Are for, and not appealing the one we are against - ie - they are working against us

[COLGATE4]

93. National Parks are not public property. They are the property

of the U.S. Government, and the government is free to exclude people from them as they choose. So, it's permitting proselytism of a specific religion in a U.S. Government-owned property, which can well be a violation of the First Amendment.

[Starckers]

94. UH

The US Government is the People.   Therefore.........  No they
cannot exclude groups.  Can they ban Jews?  Christians? 
Blacks?  Puerto Ricans?  Don't be silly.

[Fla Dem]

125. This wasn't a case of excluding a people of a certain belief as I understand it, it was the

proselytizing of their religion. So essentially any group now has full access to any federal park as their soap box for any cause, religion or belief. Will certainly make a walk in the park interesting if not downright annoying. Imagine standing waiting for "old Faithful" to erupt and you have someone or many someones come up to you trying to sell their religion and pressing pamphlets into your hands. Annoying as all get out.

[ThomasQED]

111. I don't think you're right

I don't know if there's a legal distinction between public property and property owned by the U.S. government but in either case I would think the 1st Amendment still applies.

And I don't think they are permitting only one religion. The ruling would have to apply to all.

[BzaDem]

11. That's because in that case, there was no plausible defense of the statute under current doctrine.

In the DADT case, there is direct and on-point circuit court precedent that it is constitutional. While I hope this precedent will be overturned, that doesn't mean it does not exist at the moment.

[readmoreoften]

15. Exactly! In this case, there is a plausible defense of DADT!

:eyes:

[BzaDem]

34. There is a plausible defense of DADT under current precedent, WHETHER OR NOT we like current

precedent or hope we will overturn it. A court heard the arguments and ruled in favor of upholding DADT last year. The inquiry ends there (as to whether there is a plausible defense).

[sabrina 1]

110. There is no plausible defense of a law that has been ruled by a

Federal judge to be Unconstitutional. If there is, let's hear it. Gays are U.S. citizens and the Constitution forbids discrimination of any particular class of people. In fact discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation has already been addressed by the Supreme Court:

Equal Protection Clause

Classifications Involving Sexual Preference

In Romer v. Evans, ___U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1620, L. Ed. 2d (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a Colorado state constitutional amendment that prohibited any branch of the state or local governments from taking action designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation." The immediate effect of the amendment, known popularly as "Amendment 2," was to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and governmental policies that barred discrimination based on sexual preference. Under Amendment 2, state officials and private entities would have been permitted to discriminate against gays and lesbians in a number of areas, including insurance, employment, housing, and welfare services.

The state of Colorado defended Amendment 2 by arguing that it did nothing more than place homosexuals on a level playing field with all other state residents. The amendment, Colorado submitted, simply denied gays and lesbians any "special rights." The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause because it "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board," which is something "unprecedented in our Jurisprudence."

Writing for a six-person majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that "Equal Protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities." The associate justice said that "espect for this principle" demonstrates "why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare." Amendment 2 is unconstitutional, Kennedy concluded, because any law that generally makes it "more difficult for one group of citizens than all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense."

So, the law itself is unconstitutional. The above ruling was made in 1996. DADT passed in 1993. The military is funded by tax payers, that includes citizens whose sexual orientation varies. If Gays eg, are not to receive equal protection and representation then why are they not excluded from paying taxes? Wasn't this country founded on the premise that taxation without representation was not acceptable?

[Renew Deal]

12. Wouldn't arguing against this case be an argument against the first amendment?

It seems like they are "defending the law" by letting it go.

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

18. You have got to be kidding. It's a LAW! Constitutional scholars must uphold the law!

If you want the law changed, Congress has to do it!!!!1

[Renew Deal]

20. But they are upholding the law.

Unless I'm missing something.

[Bluebear]

24. The law is that individuals & small groups must obtain permits for religious activities

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 6 that the Park Service's regulation forcing individuals or small groups to obtain a permit for First Amendment-protected activities was unconstitutional. But the court upheld the agency's policy of setting aside designated park areas for larger demonstrations and the sale of printed material after applicants obtained a permit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407137.html

[izzybeans]

25. That is for all groups, not just religious ones.

Your ability to organize on public lands just got easier. The parks under Bush established an unconstitutional policy, which was the subject of the ruling, not the law.

[Bluebear]

26. That is obviously not the point. It's the hypocrisy which rulings are appealed.

I don't care about it being easier for me to demonstrate at Yosemite. I care about gay people being able to serve, but somehow that court ruling had to be appealed by Obama.

[izzybeans]

30. There is no hypocrisy there. They did not appeal the ruling because it was park

policy that was being reviewed not established law.

Look at it this way, when they finally get off their ass to repeal DADT and if and when the military gets sued when they continue policies of discrimination there will be no legal standing to appeal because the military acted outside the parameters of law, just like the parks did.

Your asking for the administration to appeal a ruling that protects your right to assembly.

[Bluebear]

33. LOL

That is all.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzybeans]

i do not tolerate lies.

I am no bigot.

[BzaDem]

43. What you are missing

is that in the national park case, there is no plausible defense of the statute under current precedent.

In the DADT case, there is direct, on-point higher court precedent saying it should be upheld. This means that there is a plausible defense for upholding the statute, whether we like it or not. This precedent can be overturned (and I hope it is), but the lower court ruling must be appealed.

It has nothing to do with whether we like the statute, or even whether or not we think it is constitutional. It ONLY has to do with whether a court said so in the past. That's it.

[izzybeans]

45. That is a more direct way of saying it.

I think this poster understands that distinction though. It just doesn't fit the rigid narrative.

[Renew Deal]

53. I agree

I think most people understand that.

[treestar]

116. thanks for explaining this

Even though you are trying to explain a complex reality to people who are bound and determined to use this as a support for their emotionalism.

[HughMoran]

100. There's the nub of it

The fact that the O/P chose to simply laugh at the truth is telling.

[woo me with science]

71. You want them to appeal a correct ruling

because they screwed up and appealed a correct one before?

[Bluebear]

88. sorry can't make sense out of that

[Renew Deal]

27. Sounds reasonable.

Why should I have to get a permit to worship? And why should I have to get a permit to visit a national park with my faith group?

Who's the kid in your signature? I noticed DSC has him too.

[Bluebear]

29. Why can't gays serve in the military? Why is Obama appealing THAT ruling?

The kid is Justin Aaberg, a recent gay suicide :(

[Renew Deal]

32. Gays can serve in the military.

DADT was and always will be a discriminatory policy. I knew it was unamerican when it passed. Why is Obama appealing? My best guess is that it has something to do with permanently getting rid of DADT. Also, this case seems much more cut and dry than DADT case.

[Bluebear]

35. Having fun spinning this?

[Renew Deal]

37. No spin at all

You're the one tying yourself into knots trying to make something of this.

[Bluebear]

40. /ignore

at long last.

[Renew Deal]

42. again?

What's new.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

52. I disagree

Bluebear is legit. I don't think he would be arguing about this stuff if he didn't believe in the issue. I'm not sure about some others.

[izzybeans]

54. .

perhaps, however I'm very skeptical of single issue posters, so my cynicism may be causing me to misplace that skepticism.

This argument doesn't seem honest to me.

[Renew Deal]

64. I can understand that.

There are certain people that are persistently negative and hostile to Obama. Many of them have been hostile going back to 2007. That is the root of some of it. But if you look around DU, there is a robust "gay" community. I was here after election day 2008 when Obama won and Prop 8 passed. Prop 8 was a shocking kick in the gut for many of us, particularly gay members. How could such a law pass in California? http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7811758&mesg_id=7811970

What many people learned after Prop. 8 was that they can't just sit and wait for something to happen. They need to ACT! Change doesn't just happen on its own.

[dsc]

77. try watching 9 kids die in a month

and nothing being done, might make you single issue too.

[glitch]

106. Except for a little thing like Constitutional Law, like Habeas Corpus.

That's where their argument falls apart.

[JustinL]

83. appealing the DADT and DOMA rulings is also arguing against the constitution n/t

[readmoreoften]

13. When Obama does something that's good it's good, and when Obama does something that's bad, it's good

Don't you get it? Why do you hate Obama?

[Bluebear]

19. I notice only one ignored response so far. Plouffe & Axelrod must be busy.

No tweets or faxes sent out yet :)

[displacedvermoter]

51. You aren't alleging anything are you?

I keep getting messages deleted for alleging about posters who always come in right on time!

[Hannah Bell]

14. jesus h. christ.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

134. "jesus h. christ" and... guns.

I can't even go for a hike in a National Park without "worrying" about some nut with a gun. I'm not worried about a nut with an anti-gay pamphlet, however, I'd have TREMENDOUS fun with that.

[Swamp Rat]

16. COME ON GRIZZLY BEARS!!!! .... DINNER TIME!!! YUM! YUM!

Time to lay out bloody, cheap rib eye steaks on certain trails... :evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

22. lol

:spank:

[Behind the Aegis]

58. You've heard the joke haven't you?

A missionary was deep in the woods. While gathering sticks for a fire, he came upon a large grizzly bear. Panicked, he ran. The bear gave chase and cornered the man near a rock face. The man prayed: "Dear G-d, please make this bear a Christian." Suddenly the bear stopped charging and dropped to its knees, forepaws clenched together. Then the bear spoke: "Thank you, O Lord, for this food for which I am about to receive. Amen"

:)

[Swamp Rat]

62. LOL!!!!

:rofl:

[Renew Deal]

65. lol

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

21. I guess they do have free will

They must actually want to appeal the DADT case after all. Just goes to show where their priorities lie.

[Hosnon]

31. Le sigh. nt.

[VMI Dem]

39. Rec.

[Bluebear]

46. Notice those arguing upthread in favor of this ruling?

Evidently it's OK if you disagree with the law being struck down in the courts.

[VMI Dem]

48. Obviously many people think that DADT does not violate the Constitution.

[Bluebear]

49. You're absolutely right.

Before I put on of them on ignore, because really I can't do this anymore, they asked "well why should I have to go get a permit to pray with my group"?

Exactly! It all depends on whose ox is being gored with these half-baked types. To me, we're not free until we are ALL free.

[VMI Dem]

50. See my link below to another law that was found unconstitutional and not appealed.

That argument is fast morphing from the have to appeal to they should appeal.

[BzaDem]

70. Actually, it depends on what higher courts have said about the law in question.

Not "whose ox is being gored."

The fact that you put people on ignore who disagree with you shows you really have no argument.

[mitchtv]

129. why you.. you

single issue voter. of all the nerve

[glitch]

107. This administration couldn't care less about violating the Constitution.

If they did they would have restored Habeas Corpus rather than broadening its dissolution.

[Renew Deal]

56. I think you missed the point.

I disagree with this "regulation" about the parks AND with DADT. But there was no basis to defend the regulation. It was a Bush era policy. I also think there's no basis to defend DADT, but that is a law passed by congress. DADT will be gone soon whether you like it or not.

[JonLP24]

41. Dictator!

[VMI Dem]

47. By the way, add this to the list:

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/justice-department-refuses-defend-congress-legal-battle-over-law-censoring-marijuana

[Unvanguard]

61. That is a much better example.

Because it deals with a Congressional statute rather than an agency regulation, and explicitly justifies a failure to appeal in terms of viewing the law as unconstitutional.

The problem with it is that the statute at issue was plainly a content-based restriction of free speech--free POLITICAL speech at that--which by consistent Supreme Court precedent is pretty much doomed. It's hard to imagine any federal court upholding that kind of free speech restriction. The same, unfortunately, is simply not the case when it comes to anti-gay discrimination. Indeed, DADT has already been upheld in court.

[Unvanguard]

55. There doesn't appear to be a Congressional statute at issue here.

So if the agency decides it's okay with the change, there is no point in appealing. The circumstances are not comparable, because Congress hasn't yet made clear that it's okay with DADT repeal.

There may also be settled law here making a defense of the regulation at issue impossible. Not sure.

[mkultra]

96. the doj uses "constitutional muster" to determine wether it defends decisions

Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not protected in the constitution but free speech is.

[fascisthunter]

57. absolutely ridiculous... wow... right wing America

let's slide down further as a country... who cares about separation of church and state, that's antiquated BS, right? :crazy:

[Behind the Aegis]

60. I guess some "lifestyles" are worth protecting.

:eyes:

[terrya]

69. Sorry. I didn't see your post about this.

I'll ask the mods to remove mine on the same subject.

And I'm curious about this, myself.

Thanks.

[xchrom]

73. Two things are causing me a lot of amusement:

The Florida race and the notion 'the president must appeal..'

If I dislike teabaggers and I do -- I think I dislike centrists, moderates more -- but both are amusing.

[Bluebear]

85. at least the teabaggers are honest about their hates!

[treestar]

74. Was it not already established that it is not all cases, but those

without plausible arguments supporting them. This case fit that pattern.

[VMI Dem]

75. Just for my clarification, what is your plausible argument in support of DADT?

Not a hypothetical. Your argument.

[BzaDem]

82. The plausible defense is that the First circuit already decided the issue.

That's it. It has nothing to do with whether you or I think the argument is valid. It ONLY has to do with whether a higher court believed it is valid in an opinion (as the first circuit did in 2009), or if not, whether other precedent indicates the law should be upheld (regardless of whether we think the precedent is valid).

[treestar]

103. Once there are two different courts with different opinions, there's a

legal question out there - one with plausibility on both sides.

But for people who refuse to deal in subtleties, there is no way they can deal with the legal system. They just want what they want, crushed. They are like the client who refuses to listen to anything that might indicate a weakness in his case or a law that does not just hand him what he wants.

[treestar]

102. The DOJ thought there was one

This would involve analysis of case law. Not suitable for DU. Which is why this is all BS. No one is really interested in taking the time and doing the reading it would take to get the difference. We'd have to know the case law.

But it is not, as the OP tries to make it, a simple all or nothing approach. But most of the time, the DOJ does defend whatever law it is. OP simply found a rare case where it is not to insinuate it is all or nothing; when that is not so, there is a standard.

The OP could never deal with a thing like Rule 11, where the lawyer has to decide if the motive for filing the case is acceptable to the courts. These are not easy black and white questions as OP makes them out to be (in spite of being exposed several time to the facts).

[JustinL]

127. why does the DOJ think there's a plausible argument in favor of violating fundamental rights? n/t

[onethatcares]

76. they also affirmed the rights to carry concealed.

in the same parks that choice is up to you.:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

78. No matter what DADT doesn't have to be defended. Pure excuse making

[laughingliberal]

98. Correct. The administration is under NO obligation to appeal the ruling on DADT.

That argument is disingenuous and tired.

[RainDog]

79. hypocrisy or homophobia?

either way, this makes a lie of the arguments people have been making here.

[DainBramaged]

80. There goes another brick in the wall between the separation of Church and State

:wtf:

[Starry Messenger]

81. Maybe GBLT people should form a religious sect.

Everyone GBLT joins for legal cover and then start suing en masse left and right. It looks like that's the only thing that gets taken seriously.

[laughingliberal]

99. +1000 nt

[girl_interrupted]

84. K&R

[Touchdown]

86. BUt what if a Republican Prez wants to reverse this and ban...

shoving a big, think, hard and long religion down our throats?

[TexasObserver]

87. recommend

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr.Phool]

90. Change you can make believe in.

[MNBrewer]

92. now that's just plain creepy

[hobbit709]

91. Maybe we can feed them to the bears.

That will stop it short.

[Jamastiene]

124. That is highly possible.

See joke upthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9324728&mesg_id=9325543

:rofl:

[slay]

97. The Obama admin really is doing it's best to lose liberal Dem voters

i see no other explanation for their BULLSHIT regarding DADT. I've seriously about had it with them. This is NOT a good strategy right before an election. Well, maybe it is and they are just making it crystal fucking clear that us liberals really are idiots for voting for them and they don't give a shit about us or what we want - or what's right. at all.

[treestar]

104. So you are saying liberal Dem voters have no understanding of

the judiciary and no desire to learn about it? Sounds like freepers.

[slay]

130. Calling someone "like a freeper" on DU

is against the rules but I don't care. If that's the way you have decided to conduct yourself on this board I will just put you on ignore. Please kindly refrain from commenting on my posts in the future. EOM.

[glitch]

108. This administration is not up for re-election. Vote to keep the House

such as it is, since they are the only ones even trying to fight for the people.

[slay]

131. I agree w/you

but it doesn't change the fact that Obama sets the direction not just for the party but for the country. I would LOVE to see the house stay Dem - unfortunately I can only vote for one house member, who keeps voting to fund this horrible ridiculously long and expensive war in Afghanistan so I will not be voting for him. I will be voting for Elaine Marshall against Richard Burr (scumbag) for senate though - even if she is a long shot.

[glitch]

132. My philosophy is vote for the most progressive candidate you can, and keep working to improve your

choices (primaries where you can, third parties where you can't primary).

Work to make sure this administration has no excuse, plausible or otherwise, to move right.

[RedCloud]

101. Separate church and state morans!

[TwentyFive]

109. GOOD!! More chances for me to tell preachers, "GO F*CK YOURSELF"

If it's good enough for Dick Cheney, it's good enough for them...lol.

[meow mix]

112. SELECTIVE OMG!@!!111! holder doing hisJOB!!#@!!2@!

[femrap]

113. Those hypocritical

Xtians better hope I'm not around. I took a trip to a park this past spring. I was walking along and a conversation developed with a middle-aged couple. The man said he was 'sick and tired of taking care of other poeple.'

That just hit a nerve with me. Here I was in this beautiful park (paid for by taxes) and this asshole starts in on his selfishness.

I gave him both barrels. We were heading back to the parking lot. Everyone in the parking lot shut up as I tore him a huge new asshole. 'I bet Jesus would be so proud of you. Spitting on your community and someone who has lost their job from no fault of his/hers. You just keep your money...just like the moneychangers.'

I went on and on. The wife was scared to death. He was stunned. I was yelling full force. I got in my car, drove off, and then pulled over and had a good cry. I am so utterly sick and tired of selfish hypocritical Xtians. I literally want to thump them on the head with a Bible.

I have family members like those 2 I met in the park....so they were a straw that hit my back.

These Xtians better realize that WE HAVE FREE SPEECH AS WELL.

[Odin2005]

114. Oh, the HYPOCRISY!

:puke:

[Dappleganger]

115. *facepalm*

Will someone please wake me when this ride is over??

[Puregonzo1188]

120. Look, I know this admin isn't perfect, but

at least we're out of Iraq, the Bush wars are over, and everyone has healthcare. Thank how much worse things could be!

[Bluebear]

128. "and everyone has healthcare" - - bwahahahahahahaha

[WorseBeforeBetter]

133. "we're out of Iraq, the Bush wars are over" -- bwahahahahahahaha

This board gets nuttier by the day.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

123. this goverment no longer represents me or my best interests....

They champion denial of civil rights, the idiotic and wasteful war on drugs, a manifestly evil foreign policy, and religious insanity. I am utterly done with them.