Tuesday, December 23, 2008

What's all the hubub, Bub???

Controversy of the week, President-Elect Barack Obama's choice to invite conservative pastor Rick Warren of the evangelical megachurch, Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, California, to give the invocation at the inauguration.

This issue is particularly causing an uproar among the gay community because in addition to his generally conservative ideology, Rick Warren advocated for the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage in California and has even gone so far as to compare same-sex marriage to incest. Considering Warren's ideology, the fact that a progressive like President-Elect Obama (who was often described as the most liberal senator in the United States Senate) has invited him to the inauguration has left most folks scratching their heads wondering WTF?

Many have voiced the proposition that, to give a platform to a man like Rick Warren is to legitimize or provide a public endorsement to what pastor Warren stands for: namely anti-gay sentiment. Others have seen that this is a centrist move by Obama to reach across the aisle to those of differing viewpoints. I submit that when considering an issue it's always important to look at the facts.

First, Pastor Warren invited John McCain and Barack Obama to his church in California where he hosted the Presidential Civil Forum Discussion that effectively provided America with the first Presidential debate between the two candidates.

Second, Obama has consistently characterized his administration as one taking a 180 degree departure from the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to talk to or work with any and all people who think differently from the administration.

Third, Rick Warren is not being offered a cabinet position, is not being asked to swear Obama into office (that job goes to conservative Chief Justice Roberts), and he is not being invited to share his ideology to the crowd that will be assembled on Inauguration Day.

That being said, I submit that the controversy over Rick Warren, while understandable, is misplaced. Inviting Pastor Rick Warren to give an invocation is not an endorsement of this person's views anymore than Columbia University could be accused of hating America for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak.

I futher submit that in America, we pride ourselves on our diversity of thought and as such, should excercise tolerance (not to be confused with acceptance) towards those who think differently from ourselves. Should Obama's inauguration only involve those who Obama agrees with? There's a party going on, and Warren is invited to give an invocation and sit his ass down. No more, no less. To attribute much more to his invitation is to confuse his invitation with an endorsement of his beliefs.

People have every right to protest Warren on the basis of his ideology but I would challenge everybody to distinguish between accepting his ideology and his right to have his ideology unto himself as he commingles with the rest of us.

Most importantly, Obama said he was going to do this thing differently from the Bush administration, so let him do it. Doing things differently from the Bush administration means NOT firing U.S. Attorneys who belong to a different party than your own, NOT hiring people on the basis of whether they share your party affiliation, and NOT surrounding yourself with yes-men who think, believe, and act exactly the same way as you do.

But this whole controversy speaks to an underlying point which I think we're going to have to come to terms with which is the fact that there will be times when Obama's administration will have to do something that will be unpopular with the Democrats/Black Community/Minority Community/Liberals/etc. I, for one, am ok with that as long as our interests are being looked out for. I don't expect Obama to make every executive decision from the viewpoint of the black community. That's ok. But I can guarantee that there will be many folks within the black community, democratic community, etc. who will be up in arms over the next 4 years over some issue when an Obama policy departs from what WE think he should do just because he's black or because he's a Dem or because he's a liberal, etc. I think some people's expectations are a little unrealistic and dismissive of the fact that Obama is the President of whole United States, not just the Black states, not just the Liberal states, and not just the Democratic states.

So in the great words of the Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want...but if you try sometimes, you get what you need."

Monday, December 8, 2008

Conspiracy Theory #314,159,265: Obama Is Not a U.S. Citizen

A few notes ago I wrote a piece on what happens when you drop seeds of fear and hate into people in a post-9/11 American society. Well, behold as one of those seeds has come into fruition in the form of a lawsuit seeking to stop Obama from becoming the 44th President of the United States on the basis of his citizenship. Yes it is true, somebody actually went there.

Article II of the Constitution defines the Presidency. In the first section of Article II it states:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

So in order to be President you gotta be (a) born here; (b) be 35 or older; and (c) have lived here for 14 years.

As we all know, on November 4th of this year Barack Obama became the new President-Elect of the United States by a decisive 365 to 173 electoral vote victory, earning the largest popular vote in U.S history with 66.8 million votes to McCain's 58.3 million. As we also know, the President-Elect does not officially become the President until the BCS-like electoral college physically reports each state's electoral votes to Congress allowing the President-Elect to then be officially sworn in on January 20th.

That being said, Obama opponents see the gap between the election and the inauguration as an opportunity to achieve in the court room what they were unable to achieve on election day. In a very Terminator 2 type fashion, if they can somehow invalidate Obama in the courts before he officially becomes the President then it will be as if Obama never existed, and if he doesn't exist then he can't lead the rebellion against the machines in the future. Sweet!

In order to achieve this goal, Skynet has sent two types of lawsuits through the time portal: (i) lawsuits that allege Obama was not born in America; and (ii) lawsuits that allege that even though Obama was born in America, he is not a citizen because he lived abroad.

A lawyer from the Dirty Jersey by the name of Leo Donofrio filed a law suit of the second flavor against the NJ Secretary of State entitled Donofrio v. Wells. It made its way to the United States Supreme Court which, as of this morning, officially denied Certiorari to the case (refused to hear the case).

But they don't stop there. There are a number of other suits filed against Obama as we speak that are working their ways up the appellate ladder. There are two other cases at the Supreme Court right now, however neither of them have been scheduled for consideration yet. The case most talked about on the conspiracy theorist blogs was filed by Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania. Even though Hawaii state officials have confirmed Obama's birth certificate and citizenship, Berg's lawsuit argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. In the alternative, Berg's lawsuit argues that Obama may have renounced his citizenship as a boy in Indonesia, where he lived for a time with his mother and stepfather.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court's action today sends a clear message to these and other conspiracy theorists that it refuses to even entertain these types of arguments. Let us further hope that it can maintain this position until January 20th, lest we undo the votes of 66.8 million people in the nation that proclaims that every vote counts. Nevertheless, if this is any indication of the resolve of those who just can't stomach an Obama Presidency then you can bet your sub-prime mortgage that it's only a matter of days before these same folks will try to impeach him once he takes office. You heard it here first folks.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Church, State, and Prop 08

In the wake of the first black president I find myself in a daze still walking around in disbelief and feeling devoid of purpose like a soldier after a war has ended. However, while we were all captivated by last Tuesday's presidential election that reflected the decisive victory of progressive ideology over conservative ideology on the national stage, the conservatives still managed to win one battle on the state level with a little piece of legislation called Proposition 8. Prop 8 is an amendment to California's state constitution that bans gay marriage. It states: “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The amendment, which ended 18,000 same-sex marriages, was in response to an earlier ruling from California's State Supreme Court. In that ruling, the court held that citizens of California had a fundamental right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

Before I dive into the analysis of this issue I have to acknowledge my influences for this piece: first and foremost I am a Christian who believes in God; I am an African-American who believes in equality; and I am an attorney who believes in the United States Constitution. That being said, I submit that, regardless of how we may feel about same-sex marriage, the passage of Prop 8 is problematic for two reasons: (i) it is a violation of the separation of church and state; (ii) it is state-sponsored discrimination against the citizens of a state on the basis of sexual-orientation.

I. Church & State

Prop 8 is emblematic of the problem that is created when we mix church and state. The separation was crafted by America’s forefathers for a very good and simple reason: we don’t want the government to run our church, and likewise we don’t want the church to run our government. History has taught us again and again that if we violate this core principle, very bad things happen. Religious wars are waged, religious freedom becomes impossible, people die, etc. See 8th grade History Book in your parent’s garage for further details.

Even though the concept of state marriage is deeply embedded into our society, I submit that the State needs to get out of the marriage-making business altogether. Marriage is a function of the Church, and as such, falls squarely outside the control of the State. Opponents of same-sex marriage often cite to the Bible to prove that marriage is between one man and one woman. They are absolutely correct in arguing that the Bible provides ample support for the proposition that marriage is between man and woman (and between man and many women if we’re reading the Old Testament but that' s a different debate for a different day). However, the fact that this support exists in the Bible, and not the Constitution, only proves the point that this is an issue for the Church and not one for the State.

Once the Church has issued a marriage, the State’s roll should then become very simple. The State’s only concern at that point should be making sure it properly administers joint tax returns and tax benefits, visitation rights in hospitals, estate distribution and inheritance upon the death of one of its citizens, child custody rights, and other normal state functions. The State should not, however, involve itself in the decision of who actually gets to become married. That decision should be left between the people and their respective Churches lest we involve our government in the regulation of our religious beliefs.

II. State-Sponsored Discrimination

Putting the separation of Church and State debate aside, Prop 8 poses a problem because it creates state-sponsored discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that “[n]o state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In other words, each state is free to make up its own laws that effect our daily lives so long as those laws are administered equally among the citizens of the state. When a state law treats one group of citizens one way, and another group of citizens a different way, that law violates the Equal Protection Clause and may be struck down by the Court as unconstitutional.

In the instant case, the State of California has passed a law that allows one group of citizens to become married, while denying that same right to another group of citizens. The law separates the two groups of who can and can’t marry based upon their sexual orientation. By doing this, it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. California’s law also discriminates on the basis of sex because its rational basis is rooted in the enforcement of gender roles and gender definitions. The Constitutional problem with Prop 8 is further exacerbated when we consider that the right to marry has long been well established as one of the fundamental rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment for all citizens to enjoy if they so choose.

Since Prop 8 is an actual amendment to California’s state constitution, the only way it can be overturned is upon order of a federal court (namely, the United States Supreme Court).* Given the growing controversial nature of this issue, I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that we’ll probably see a case from California make its way over to D.C. sometime in the near future.

* - CORRECTION: Marsha stated an assumption that I made that is worth noting. That is to say, there are actually 2 ways that a state constitutional amendment can be overturned, one is by an order of a federal court saying that it violates the federal constitution as I noted above, but the second way is for the people to actually put another amendment on the ballot that repeals this amendment. I assumed that the people of California would likely vote the same way if there was a "do over" but I could be wrong so it's worth mentioning the second way for accuracy's sake. *

III. Conclusion

Whether or not we personally agree with same-sex marriage, state-sponsored initiatives like Prop 8 are not sound policy. My Christian faith teaches me that we are all God’s children, that God lives in each of us, and that we should do unto others and we would have them do unto us. How then do we justify creating laws that deprive the rights of others but do not deprive our own rights? As an African-American living in the United States, I am painfully aware of the struggle that my community has gone through and is still currently going through in order to seek equality, despite this historic election. How then do we justify creating laws that would block equality for others? As an attorney, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution to the best of my ability. How then do we justify laws that we know allow states to discriminate against certain groups of people in violation of the Constitution?

I know this one is controversial so I'm looking for a lively debate.

Monday, October 13, 2008

The Trouble with Casting the Spell of Fear & Hate

In one of the old Disney classics "Fantasia," there is an episode entitled "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" in which Mickey Mouse (the apprentice) is charged with carrying buckets of water and dumping them in a well within the Sorcerer's chambers while the Sorcerer is out doing whatever it is that Sorcerers do when they go out. So instead of doing it by hand, Mickey Mouse decides it would save time if he takes the Sorcerer's magic hat without permission and brings a broomstick to life in order to do his dirty work for him. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Only one problem: he doesn't know how to make it stop. He attempts to ameliorate the situation by chopping the broomstick with an axe, but it does no good because the remaining splinters from the walking broomstick, in turn, become walking broomsticks themselves and before he knows it, he has an entire walking broomstick army that completely disregards his pleas to stop. End result: they walk over the very person who brought them to life and they flood the entire place against his wishes.

Recently, it has been getting ugly out there on the campaign trail. With less than 4 weeks to go, McCain decided to "go negative" on Obama's character by asking the question "Who is Obama really?" This question was followed up by Palin on the stump where she has portrayed Obama to her audiences as somebody who "sees America differently" because he "pals around with terrorists." (a reference to 60's radical Bill Ayers who, like many people during that time period, protested the U.S. Government's involvement in the Vietnam War)

[and the broomstick has been brought to life]

Of course, this is an election so we are willing to accept a high level of spin from a candidate when they are talking about their opponent. But there's a fine line between political spin and slander. Linking somebody to terrorism definitely flirts with that line. Especially in our society today post-9/11. Now, to Palin's defense she didn't directly say "Obama IS a terrorist," she merely said that he "pals around with terrorists." It's up to you to make the inferential step, which a disturbing number of Americans seem more than willing to do.

What got me though wasn't really the slander involved with linking somebody to terrorism, but it was the supercharged environment of hostility that it created. Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - the speaker should have know better. McCain and Palin had folks so fired up in the crowds that they were actually yelling out "Terrorist!!!" and "kill him!!!" Kill him? Kill a United States Senator? Really? Are you sure about that one? Which brings up another legal issue: criminal liability. For the sake of argument, let's say somebody actually goes out and kills Obama and the facts show they did so at the suggestion of Gov. Palin or Senator McCain during one of these rallies. Now you're talking about solicitation of murder.

Of course that would be a stretch under the current facts since McCain or Palin never directly said "you should go and kill Obama" but the fact that we're even having this discussion at all should be a wake up call that the Palin/McCain ticket has gone down the wrong path with this whole "who is Obama" strategy. When you ask a bunch of low-information country hick red necks* "who is Obama really" how did you really expect them to react? The outcome was reasonably foreseeable like a motherf*cker. If you couldn't foresee that all this negative backlash was the likely outcome, then you are either (A) incompetent or (B) lying. In either case, it is wrong.

I will commend Senator McCain for taking the microphone back from one woman in Minnesota who, in the middle of a town hall meeting, said that she did not trust Obama because he is, and I quote, "an Arab." End quote. Upon hearing this, Mccain immediately took the microphone away from her and corrected her by saying "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."

[McCain tries to stop one walking broomstick]

But unfortunately for McCain, and unfortunately for America, once you put this type of hatred and fear into low-information voters, it is difficult (if not impossible) to turn it off. In other words, taking the mic back from this one McCain supporter at this point may be too little too late. Even during that same town hall meeting, when McCain stated that "I have to tell you Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain himself was received with "Boooo's" from the audience for saying such a thing.

[ladies and gentlemen, the entire walking broomstick army now completely disregards his pleas to stop]

Here's a suggestion for Mr. McCain, between now and November 4th, just scrap the whole "who is Obama" strategy completely. You were doing much better without it. Instead of grasping for straws by playing on the insecurities of the terror-stricken mid-westerners* (who despite their overwhelming obsession with terrorism have never actually been attacked by foreign terrorism themselves by the way), go back to running a respectable campaign on the issues and take Obama to task on that. There are several policy differences that McCain could use to hammer Obama on if McCain were so inclined. The irony is that such a strategy would likely move McCain up in the polls, as opposed to the current strategy he has currently adopted. Leave the fear mongering to the experts like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. McCain is better than this...

...or at least he used to be.

* - I grew up in Kansas and Missouri so I reserve the right to talk about red necks and mid-westerners.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

How the Failure of the Bailout Bill Revealed McCain's True Colors

Ladies and gentlemen, we've been bamboozled, led astray, run amuck...I tell ya we've been had (at least some of us anyway). If there was ever any question as to whether Senator John McCain suspended his campaign last week for leadership purposes in an effort to go back to Congress and "work on the Bailout Bill" or simply as a mere political stunt to draw attention to his campaign, the aftermath of the bill itself has certainly answered that question for us. Indeed, proverbial hindsight once again proves itself to be 20/20 as America witnessed John McCain and Sarah Palin take to the Ohio campaign stage in a very un-suspended manner on Monday around 1 PM eastern time while the bill was still not yet resolved. By 2pm eastern, the bill had been defeated in the House of Representatives; 205 in favor, 228 against. 133 of the 228 nay votes (roughly 60%) came from the House Republicans, the very people that John McCain had supposedly gone back to Congress to "work" on.

But let's come back to that. Before we delve too deeply into the details surrounding the vote, let's back up and look at the facts surrounding McCain's decision to suspend his campaign. On Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, John McCain held a news conference where he said:

"Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday nights debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people."

There's no doubt that this move made national headlines. Further, the move created an immediate impression that McCain, himself a Senator, was taking the noble position of "returning to Congress" because he is, after all, a Senator and that's where Senators belong right? Not exactly.

More than likely we all learned about Congress in our middle school civics classes at some point. Congress has two halves: the Senate and the House of Representatives. And, apparently, they "write" the laws or something like that. However, what we often didn't learn in our civics classes is how that whole "writing the laws" thing actually works.

To make a long story short, when issues come into Congress, they are "worked on" by specific committees and then when the committee is ready, it presents the Bill to the floor for a vote. In the case of the Bailout Bill, it goes to the Banking Committee in the Senate and to the Committee on Financial Services in the House. The Senate Banking Committee is currently made up of only 20 of the 100 Senators. They are:

On the Democratic Side:
Christopher Dodd Connecticut (Chairman)
Tim Johnson South Dakota
Jack Reed Rhode Island
Chuck Schumer New York
Evan Bayh Indiana
Tom Carper Delaware
Robert Menendez New Jersey
Daniel Akaka Hawaii
Sherrod Brown Ohio
Robert P. Casey, Jr. Pennsylvania
Jon Tester Montana

And on the Republican Side:
Richard Shelby Alabama (Ranking Member)
Bob Bennett Utah
Wayne Allard Colorado
Michael Enzi Wyoming
Chuck Hagel Nebraska
Jim Bunning Kentucky
Mike Crapo Idaho
Elizabeth Dole North Carolina
Mel Martinez Florida
Bob Corker Tennessee

This is the entire list of every United States Senator who is actually responsible for "working" on this Bailout Bill and presenting it to the Senate floor. These are the Senators who are actually responsible for meeting, negotiating, and sitting down and putting pen to paper in drafting the actual Bill. These are the Senators who NEED to be in Congress right now. It is notable to observe that neither Barack Obama of Illinois, nor John McCain of Arizona are among the names listed above. So for either Obama or McCain to make the claim that they are suspending their campaigns in order to go back and actually "work" on the Bailout Bill in their capacity as Senators is not only odd and unusual, but it also has the virtue of being complete and utter bullsh*t. Furthermore, for McCain to say he's going "back to Washington" is especially misleading in this instance given the fact that the American people, by and large, have no idea how the Senate works. It is difficult to imagine that Senator McCain was unaware of this fact before he decided to announce this move on national television.

Nevertheless, let us assume for a moment that this was not Senator McCain's intention. Let us further assume that when Senator McCain announced his plan to suspend his campaign and "return to Washington" that he did so with the intentions of effectuating change in some way that did not involve the Senate Banking Committee. This would seem to comport with many news reports that McCain, in his role as the current leader of the Republican party ticket, was returning to Washington in order to rally House Republicans who had made it crystal clear from the onset that they had many problems with the Bill as it was written. That being the case, how did McCain do here? In his capacity as the current Republican ticket leader, the Republicans of the United States House of Representatives were so inspired by McCain's leadership that 60% of them disregarded his plea to pass the Bill and, in fact, voted against it, killing it on the House floor on Monday, September 29th, 2008. It is notable to observe here that McCain's entire delegation of Representatives from his home state of Arizona were among the 60% of Republicans who voted against his wishes when they voted to kill the Bill. How's that for leadership?

Now many of you reading this may ask "well what about Obama" or "well what about the Democrats." What role did they play in the Bill's failure? Well let me first say, I'm not arguing that either side of the aisle is without blame for Monday's killing of the Bailout Bill. After all, 95 House Democrats contributed to its demise. And let me also say for the record, that despite the aforementioned facts, I honestly do not feel that it is Senator McCain's fault that the Bill was defeated. Not at all. The vote that went down Monday was going to happen whether McCain injected himself into the middle of Congress or not. In short, McCain had no role here, be it one of self-proclaimed leadership or otherwise.

But that is precisely my point - that John McCain "suspended" his campaign, drew massive amounts of attention towards himself in the name of the Bailout Bill, created an image of somebody who is "presidential" and a "leader" who can solve America's crisis in Congress, and in the end none of it turned out to be true. His campaign was never suspended. He appeared at the debate with Barack Obama anyway despite making the claim that he would not debate until the Bill was resolved. He continued to campaign in Ohio on Monday, September 29th, 2008 while the Bill was still not yet resolved. He is not a member of the Senate Banking Committee who actually worked on the Bill. And he had no effect in garnering the requisite number of House Republicans needed to vote for the Bill's passage. And by the way, while on the campaign trail in Ohio on Monday, he made it a point to tell the crowd that he "went to work" while Obama "sat on the sidelines" in reference to working on the Bill that he didn't work on (a true leader working purely for leadership's sake would not feel the need to point out their leadership to the masses - it should speak for itself). The totality of these circumstances confirms to us beyond a reasonable doubt that McCain's decision to "suspend" his campaign and return to Washington was, in the end, merely a political stunt.

Friday, June 6, 2008

I, too, am America.

Over 200 years after Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution directed that Blacks be counted as three-fifths of a person, a Black man and a Black woman took to a different type of stage in Minneapolis, Minnesota than the type those who came before them were sold on. They embraced, displayed a loving fist pound of support, and announced that on that night, June 3rd, 2008, what would have literally been impossible upon the founding of this Nation has now come to be reality - Barack Obama has become the Democratic Party Nominee for President of the United States.

The United States of America has reached a new stage of maturation, and the world is watching us in admiration.

Upon its inception, this Nation declared that "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," however equality has been something that America has struggled with ever since those words were written. And it still does today. However, the significance of this moment has not gone unnoticed by the billions of people both here and around the globe who have wondered if America, home of the free, land of the brave, could ever really live up to this self-proclaimed creed of equality that it announced in its Declaration of Independence from England in 1776.

I am happy to say that America has taken one huge step towards answering that question in the affirmative. Now don't get me wrong, even if Obama becomes President, that doesn't mean bigotry will magically shrivel up and die. With a nation as diverse as ours, there will always be ideological differences, prejudices, and "isms" of every shade. That is a given. Nevertheless, what this signifies going forward is that AS A NATION, we now have evidence that this country has progressed to a new plateau of understanding which favors embracing each other for our differences instead of segregating ourselves because of them. The scales have tipped, ladies and gentlemen, and it's about damn time.

Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or none of the above, you can still share in this historic moment and give America a well deserved pat on the back. And we should not just be proud because of Barack Obama the individual, even though he is an outstanding and well accomplished brother who has come so far from so little. No, this is bigger than brother Obama. We should be proud of America because when it was asked the question "who do you want to lead you?" and it was presented with a person like Barack Obama, instead of judging him by the color of his skin or the sound of his name, the entire nation of 50 states, one by one, instead chose to judge him by the "content of his character" to borrow a phrase from the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (well... I don't know about West Virginia and Kentucky but you get the point)

Thus it seems only fitting that on August 28th, 2008, exactly 45 years to the day that Dr. King addressed this nation and announced his "I Have a Dream" speech in Washington, D.C., America will answer that call with yet another historic milestone as a man who was judged by the content of his character will officially accept the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.

Even though it is my personal hope that Obama goes on to win the white house, notwithstanding the work that still remains, I still recognize that whether Obama wins or loses, it is notable to observe the progress that this Nation has made toward the goal of equality. Good job, America.


The Janitor, Esq.
The Great Great Great Grandson of Somebody Who Was Three-Fifths