Sunday Open Thread | John P Kee | Praise & Worship

John P Kee.Pastor John P Kee (born John Prince Kee on June 4, 1962) is an American gospel singer and pastor.

John P. Kee was born the 15th out of 16 children in Durham, North Carolina. At an early age he began to develop his musical talent both instrumentally and vocally. He attended the North Carolina School of the Arts in Winston-Salem and at 14, he and his brothers Wayne and Al moved to California where he began attending the Yuba College Conservatory School of Music in Marysville, CA. During this time, he began playing with various groups such as Cameo and Donald Byrd and the Blackbyrds. After having a hard time adjusting in California, he left and moved to Charlotte, North Carolina only to find himself living in a part of the city known for its violence and drug activities. After watching one of his friends being murdered in a drug deal gone bad, he rededicated his life back to God during a visitation to a revival meeting.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Current Events, Gospel, Inspiration, Music, News, Open Thread, Politics, Praise, Worship and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Sunday Open Thread | John P Kee | Praise & Worship

  1. rikyrah says:

    #1 at the box office this week:

    IRON MAN 3-175.3 MILLION

    #2 at the box office


    7.6 million


    • Ametia says:

      Hubby & I saw Iron Man 3 this afternoon. It was entertaining. I’m looking forward to seeing Star Trek, Wolverine, and Thor!

  2. rikyrah says:

    Progressive Ed Markey gears up for a tough Senate race

    Posted by Greg Sargent on May 3, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    I just got off the phone with longtime Congressman Ed Markey, the newly-minted Dem Senate nominee from Massachusetts, and it’s clear he’s expecting a very tough and hard fought race against his GOP challenger, former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez.

    Markey is preparing to go after Gomez hard on women’s issues and on the need for more regulation of Wall Street (two themes that lifted Elizabeth Warren to victory last year). He will cast Gomez as an opponent of Obama’s agenda and will hammer his refusal to accept a “People’s Pledge” to keep outside money out of the race — which puts Gomez out of step with Scott Brown, who agreed to such a pledge.

    A new Public Policy Polling survey shows Markey leading by only four points, 44-40, with Gomez up among independents, 47-31.

    “There are going to be polls coming out every single day — you just can’t pay attention to them,” Markey told me when I asked if the poll suggested an uncomfortably close race. “I just won by 16 points three days ago in the primary. Not one poll had it right.”

    Markey – who has backing from national progressives because of his liberal positions on health care, energy, the environment, guns, and other issues — will aggressively attack Gomez for his work for an anonymously funded group of former SEALs and other military personnel behind a documentary that accused Obama of jeopardizing troop safety by leaking confidential information to take credit for Bin Laden’s killing — a potential liability in a blue state where Dems outnumber Republicans by three to one.

    “The vast majority of people in Massachusetts disagree with Gabriel Gomez on the work that the president did to kill Osama,” Markey said. “But I think it’s very telling that he is now aligning himself with the secret money that the Super PACs brought to the rest of the nation in 2012 but was kept out by Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren. By not signing the People’s Pledge, Gabriel Gomez is making himself the poster boy for politics as usual.”

  3. rikyrah says:

    May 05, 2013 1:10 PM
    The latest on Pete Peterson’s austerity front group, Fix the Debt: more shenanigans revealed!

    By Kathleen Geier

    You may have heard about a relatively recent player in the national debate over austerity-nomics. Fix the Debt portrays itself as a public interest group that is earnestly committed to fiscal responsibility and looking out for our children’s future (it always is about their touching concern for the children, isn’t it?) The group claims to support “a common sense solution to prevent disaster and renew America’s economic strength,” and it likes to give the public the impression that its membership is heavily made up of ordinary citizens and workers.

    But actually, what it is is another elite-driven Pete Peterson front group consisting of billionaire CEOs lobbying for reverse Robin Hood fiscal policies that enrich themselves, immiserate the rest of us, and continue to run this country’s economy into the ground. Last week, the Institute for Policy Studies and the Campaign for America’s Future released a report that reveals new information about the group’s hypocritical and self-serving agenda.

    An earlier report on Fix the Debt exposed the group’s extensive ties to defense contractors. The new one looks at the ways that 90 publicly held corporations that are members of Fix the Debt exploit loopholes in the tax code to help themselves to taxpayer subsidies worth many hundreds of millions of dollars. They happily rake in the taxpayer cash at same time they’re crying wolf about deficits and trying to pick the pockets of the rest of us by inflicting an austerity agenda. It’s a hustle so brazen that it deserves the sincere admiration of professional con artists everywhere.

    The corporations in question are taking advantage of something known as the “performance pay” loophole. Seeking to rein in out-of-control CEO pay, in 1993, Congress capped the tax deductibility of executive pay at $1 million. But corporations quickly discovered a loophole: “performance-based” pay (mostly in the form of stock options) was exempted from the $1 million cap. And thus the madness of taxpayers’ subsidizing outrageous executive compensation continued.

    Here are some of the deets about how the Fix the Debt crew is weaseling out of paying their fair share of the tax burden:

    During the three-year period 2009-2011, the 90 publicly held corporate members of the austerity-focused “Fix the Debt” lobby group shoveled out $6.3 billion in pay to their CEOs and next three highest-paid executives.

    These 90 Fix the Debt member firms raked in at least $953 million — and as much as $1.6 billion — from the “performance pay” loophole between 2009-2011. The exact full value of corporate windfalls from this loophole will remain impossible to compute until we have more complete mandated disclosure for executive compensation.

    The biggest offenders include UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest HMO, which taxpayers have subsidized to the tune of at least $68 million in pay for its CEO, Stephen Hemsley; and Discovery Communications, which lined its pockets with $37 million in taxpayer subsidies for the pay of its chief executive, David Zaslav.

  4. Ametia says:

    I see the Sunday gabfests were all Benghazi bullshit

  5. Ametia says:

    PBO just wrapped up commencement address at Ohio State.

  6. rikyrah says:


    How Obama and technology changed the landscape on campaign finance
    Juliet Eilperin – writing in the Washington Post – is right. President Obama has abandoned his previous efforts at campaign finance reform. I’d also suggest that so have most other thinking adults. The reason: the entire edifice of campaign finance is changing as we speak. Previous efforts at reform are quickly becoming obsolete in the new arena being created by the dramatic changes that are the result of 2 things:

    Obama’s two presidential campaigns
    Technological innovations

    To demonstrate, it might be helpful to remind everyone that there are basically 3 ways that people can donate to federal political campaigns:

    Individuals can donate up to $2,500 to a candidate
    Individuals can donate up to $30,800 to a national party
    Individuals and corporations can donate an unlimited amount to SuperPACs

    President Obama’s two presidential campaigns demonstrated that the possibilities in #1 above had been previously untapped when it comes to small individual donors. He outraised both Clinton in the primary and McCain in the general election primarily on the strength of numbers of donors giving small amounts vs a few who were limited to $2,500. By doing so, he revolutionized campaign finance at the presidential level.

    Then along came Citizens United – which allowed #3. Everyone assumed that would change the landscape and give political campaigns back to the fat cats.

    But what we saw in 2012 was that no matter how much money Karl Rove or Sheldon Adelson raised and/or spent, it didn’t accomplish much. That’s where technology comes it.

    What the fat cats have always relied on when it comes to spending their millions of dollars is television advertising. No matter how much money they have – they still only get one vote. Their job is to use their money to influence other people’s votes. That has typically been done through advertising – and mostly on TV.

    Trouble is…people don’t watch television ads very much anymore. If you’re not watching ad-free paid TV, you’re streaming or recording minus the ads. And if you can’t afford that – there’s always channel-surfing or muting during the ads. So they’re pretty much a waste of money.

    Beyond that – new media has given everyone with a recorder on their cell phone the ability to both produce/distribute ads or record game-changing moments in a political campaign. Just take a minute to think about the one video that had the most impact on the 2012 presidential election…the one where Romney talked about the 47%. How much money did that one require? Zilch – nada.

    The other way the Obama campaign changed things is that they effectively used this new media to revolutionize the whole concept of “ground game.” But the bottom line was always person-to-person contact via volunteers. Money can’t buy that.

    So we’re in a period of HUGE upheaval when it comes to how political campaigns are organized and funded. Both the Obama campaigns and technology have upended the old assumptions about big money and what it can/can’t buy. Reformers might find that their time is better spent building on these changes rather than legislating the issues of the past. I think that’s exactly what President Obama had/has in mind.

    Posted by Smartypants at 8:26 AM

  7. rikyrah says:

    The GOP Can Obstruct Obama, But It Can’t Obstruct Change

    By Susan Milligan
    May 2, 2013

    Politics isn’t supposed to be personal. It gets that way, of course, particularly in the heat of the waning weeks of a campaign, when candidates throw all sorts of personal (euphemistically called “character”) accusations against each other. But once the candidates get into office, there is a reasonable expectation that they will make decisions based on their own judgment, on the desires of their constituents or even according to the demands of special interest groups that have successfully pressured or intimidated lawmakers.

    It really just seems too craven and childish that a member of the House or Senate would cast a vote based on frustrating the success of a U.S. president for its own sake. But that, according to a Republican senator, is precisely what happened when the Senate failed last month to extend gun purchase background checks to people who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet. Said Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, according to the Times-Herald:

    In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it.

    Later, Toomey walked back his comments a bit – but the walk-back is only more disturbing in terms of what is says about our political dialogue. It wasn’t just GOP senators, but rank-and-file Republicans across the country who feel this way, Toomey said, explaining, “The toughest thing to do in politics is to do the right thing when your supporters think the right thing is something else.”

    The theme has been percolating for some time. The practice on the Hill to deny the president even the most non-controversial things – such as nominations for U.S. Marshalls – shows that there is more going on here than an effort to stop some wildly liberal agenda.

    Republicans repeatedly use the word “fail” in their characterization of this president and this administration, hoping, perhaps, that is will become inexorably linked with the word “Obama” in history. This was petty, but somewhat understandable, when the GOP had a political goal in mind – the defeat of Obama for a second term. But now that he’s back, what is the point? And why?

    Most of us would like to believe it has nothing to do with race, that Obama’s election by definition means that the country has evolved past that sort of visceral bigotry. And yet it is impossible not to consider race as a factor.

    It’s not that Congress, or even the country, is full of a bunch of rabid bigots who hurl racist epithets or walk around in white sheets on their days off. It’s more subtle than that. There are people, on and off the Hill, who clearly still have a hard time seeing Barack Obama as president. They talk about Obama not being a “grown up” – coming dangerously close to referring to the first half-African-American president as “boy” – and show none of the deference historically afforded to the person holding the office.

    Some of it is also a growing disenchantment and disrespect for people in public service, a sentiment that has gone beyond the public at-large and into the halls of government itself. And some of it has to do with Obama’s relative youth; it’s indeed hard, understandably so, for some of the senior members of Congress to deal with the fact that someone who was in the U.S. Senate for just a few years managed to make it to the Oval Office.

    But there is another level of resentment going on, manifested in a number of ways. The criticism of Obama as “arrogant” and “distant” carries an entirely different tone than the characterizations by the left of George W. Bush as “swaggering” or inelegant with his language. In Obama’s case, “arrogant” suggests he’s not staying in his proper place. Paradoxically, Obama is also accused of not being a “strong leader,” a role that tends to require a certain level of confidence and pushiness. Maybe even “arrogance.”

    Do Republicans in and out of Congress really hate Obama? Or do they just hate what he represents, a country that is undergoing dramatic demographic and social change? Vying to make Obama fail may succeed in tainting the legacy of the first mixed-race president. But it doesn’t stop the changing face of America. Latinos, other minorities and women are becoming more powerful, both in numbers and in political representation. Gay marriage is becoming more acceptable. That may be world-shaking for social conservatives. But making Obama fail won’t halt the trend.

  8. rikyrah says:

    Injustice For Most: Our Two-Tiered Justice System Is In Desperate Need of Intervention

    By: Deborah Foster
    May. 5th, 2013

    One would have to be exceptionally naïve to believe that the American criminal justice system doles out punishments fairly. Justice is supposed to be blind, but the reality is that your economic status, the color of your skin, where you live, and who you hire as an attorney are more likely to determine your fate than the facts of your case. A series of cases juxtapose how the system behaves toward the wealthy criminal versus how the system treats the less advantaged members of society.

    First, there is the case of Roy Brown, a homeless Black man, who entered a bank in December 2007 and pretended to have a gun. He held up a teller for $100 although she offered him more. The next day, Mr. Brown was overcome with guilt over what he had done, so he surrendered himself to the police. He explained to authorities that he had needed the money to stay in a detox center. He had nowhere else to go and he was hungry. Mr. Brown was sentenced to 15 years in prison for first-degree armed robbery.

    Contrast his case with that of Paul R. Allen, representing your average wealthy, white collar criminal. In 2011, he was found guilty of $3 billion in securities fraud. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to mislead investors. This was the result despite the fact that at least 2000 people lost their jobs as a result of his actions. His sentence was reduced, because he agreed to testify against a co-conspirator. Nonetheless, the justice doled out to Roy Brown and Paul R. Allen reflects just how unjust the system really is. Some crimes receive disproportionately harsh sentences, particularly if their perpetrators fit a certain profile. Other crimes, particularly white collar crimes, harm thousands of people in one act, yet receive relatively light sentences.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Calgary Comic Expo, April 27th 2013, Wil Wheaton gives a message to my daughter on why it is awesome to be a nerd.

  10. rikyrah says:

    Does anyone here watch Orphan Black on BBCAmerica.

    Two people in the last week have given it rave reviews…

  11. rikyrah says:

    The First Lady did an interview with CBS…

    see if you can get it.

  12. rikyrah says:

    The Green Lantern Theory runs rampant
    By Steve Benen

    Fri May 3, 2013 5:06 PM EDT

    Clearly, the phenomenon needs a name. There are so many Beltway pundits blaming President Obama for Republican intransigence so often — for reasons that vary from strange to stupid — that there must be a label to describe this runaway meme.

    Greg Sargent has been using a name that makes a lot of sense: the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power. (I’ve always been more or a Marvel guy than a D.C. guy, but never mind.) Even if you’ve never heard of Green Lantern, it’s easy enough to understand the concept: Beltway pundits seem to think the president has supernatural “leadership” powers that he can use to bend Congress to his will. Party, ideology, policy, elections, history, legislative procedures — none of this matters under the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power. The pundits believe Obama has this magical ability, and if Congress is failing to enact the White House’s agenda, it’s necessarily proof that the president is failing to use his mystical powers effectively.

    As the argument goes, President Obama is the Man In Charge — of the executive branch, of Congress, of the legislative process, of all federal policymaking — and if he’s not getting his way, well, he’s the one wearing the supernatural ring, so it’s only fair to blame him.

    Why does anyone in professional political commentary believe this child-like Green Lantern Theory? I honestly have no idea, but the number of pundits fully embracing the bizarre idea appears to be growing.

    Peggy Noonan, today:

    “[I]f you’re a leader you can lead right past it.”

    Maureen Dowd, Wednesday:

    “Actually, it is [Obama’s] job to get [congressional Republicans] to behave. The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It’s called leadership.”

    Ron Fournier, Wednesday:

    “Great presidents rise above circumstance…. Obama needs a coach to look him in the eyes and say, ‘Mr. President, I’m not excusing the other team. They suck. But you need to beat them, sir. That’s your job.'”

    Dana Milbank, Tuesday:

    “Obama is correct about the dysfunction, and the difficulty of passing even uncontroversial bills. But his stance was frustratingly passive, as if what happens in Congress is out of his hands. It’s the president’s job to lead, and to bang heads if necessary.”

    This is really only a small sampling, and it only reflects the pundits who’ve been making the argument in print. Many more have been pushing the same Green Lantern Theory in broadcast media, too.

    I don’t imagine I’ll persuade those who believe the Green Lantern Theory to change course, but I hope they’ll keep a few simple observations in mind.

    1. Be specific. Media professionals who use their platforms to give the president advice — “lead right past it,” “bang heads,” “somehow get Congress to do stuff” — should be prepared to fill in the gaps. “Lead more” is not an example of serious, mature commentary on public affairs. “Here’s what the president should do to get his agenda implemented….” is more constructive. Those who believe there’s more Obama can do should actually say what more Obama can do.

    2. Be mindful of history. Obama has tried schmoozing. He’s tried embracing Republican ideas. He’s tried bringing Republicans onto his cabinet. He’s tried pushing ideas that his base hates. He’s tried meeting Republicans more than half-way. Republicans don’t seem to give a damn and continue to refuse to compromise. With that in mind, constructive commentary won’t blame him for failing to try to get something done.

    3. Recognize how different the status quo is. Those who believe there are two mainstream political parties that should be able to find some common ground on the major issues of the day are mistaken. Congressional Republicans are quantifiably radical, and the abandonment of congressional norms and procedures have reached a level unseen in American history. To argue, “Other presidents seem to have been more effective in working with rivals” is to overlook the fact that there is no modern American precedent for what’s become of the Republican Party.

    4. Acknowledge the burden of proof. When Fournier was asked on MSNBC yesterday what the president should do to “lead” that he isn’t already doing, he said, “Let me turn that question back on you.” No. Wrong. The burden is on those who believe the Green Lantern Theory to justify its power, not those of us who believe in Civics 101 to prove them wrong.

    5. Appreciate how happy you’re making Republicans. GOP policymakers are ignoring popular will, abusing the rules, undermining public institutions and the economy, and refusing to compromise, govern, or even act like responsible grown-ups. Pundits know this, and proceed to blame Obama anyway. They should probably pause one of these days to realize that they’re doing Republicans an enormous favor — what incentive do Republicans have to be responsible if they know the president they hate will be blamed by the political media establishment for their own intransigence?

  13. rikyrah says:

    Mr. Forgetful strikes again
    By Steve Benen

    Fri May 3, 2013 4:05 PM EDT

    House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) hosted a town-hall meeting in his district this week, and heard from a constituent who works for the Environmental Protection Agency. Racine resident David Novak explained that, thanks to the sequestration cuts, he’s lost thousands of dollars in income for no reason, and he’s set to lose even more.

    The constituent wanted an explanation. Ryan tried to give him one.

    “This was is something the president has done through the Budget Control Act. We didn’t like it so we passed two bills to replace it. Twice. I passed a bill twice. I passed a bill in December that said instead of doing the sequester, here’s how the government should cut to pay for it. They rejected it.

    “Then this last March we passed a bill funding the government and giving the executive branch the authority and flexibility on top to implement the sequester. The EPA chose to implement it this way to affect you as you described.”

    Now, I can’t say with certainty whether Ryan deliberately lied to his constituent, or whether the man with the worst memory in American politics simply couldn’t recall the truth well enough to given an honest answer.

    Either way, I hope the voters at the town-hall meeting weren’t fooled. President Obama didn’t want the sequester; Paul Ryan did. In fact, Ryan might not remember this, but he bragged about securing the sequestration cuts at the time. A politician can take credit for a policy or he blame someone else for it, but when he does both, there’s a problem.

  14. rikyrah says:

    In the Chicago Public Schools, promises are made to be broken
    The treatment of teachers at Lincoln Park High raises questions about Mayor Emanuel’s other school pledges
    By Ben Joravsky @joravben

    For the last few weeks, Mayor Emanuel has been promising parents and students at schools he’s closing that they’ll have everything from new air conditioners to new computers in the schools he’s sending them to.

    Not that any parent would doubt the mayor and his education team, but if you’re one of the many parents who’s doubting the mayor and his education team, you may want to consider the case of the eight teachers at Lincoln Park High School.

    They too had a promise from the Chicago Public Schools—in this case, that if they followed a designated process and met a designated standard, they would have jobs next year, even as the mayor changed their school’s curriculum.

    And now, poof! They don’t have those jobs, since CPS has sent them what’s become known as letters of rescinding. It’s the latest sign that what CPS giveth today, it can taketh tomorrow. And if you don’t like it, you can go teach in Detroit.

    Just so you know, Lincoln Park is a high-functioning school that’s been one of CPS’s success stories for the last few decades.

    At least, it’s one of the few truly integrated high schools in town, as its International Baccalaureate (IB) program brings in kids of all races and economic backgrounds.

    In addition to high test scores, it has a great music program and jazz band. Its theater program puts on wonderful plays, such as a rip-roaring rendition of Fiddler on the Roof that I saw a few years ago.

    All together now: if I were rich man, Mayor Rahm would love me.

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

    A few years back their boys’ basketball team—led by Michael “Juice” Thompson, who went on to star at Northwestern—gave powerhouses Simeon and Young a run for their money.

    And the girls’ soccer team is a perennial contender for the city championship despite the fact that they played on a mangled field that looks like it’s been a staging area for tanks.

    Yet the Park District built a soccer field for the private Latin School in nearby Lincoln Park. Oh, don’t get me started.

    In short, of all the problems Mayor Emanuel had to fix when he took office, Lincoln Park High was not at the top of the list, if it was on the list at all. Which, unfortunately, didn’t stop our mayor from trying to fix it.

    On December 12, the mayor announced he was turning Lincoln Park—along with Taft High School—into a “wall-to-wall” IB school. He’d already brought the program to Senn, Clemente, Hyde Park, and Back of the Yards high schools.

    It sounds great, except that I’m not quite sure what it means, and I don’t think the mayor does either.

    The existing IB program is a rigorous course of study best suited for the highest-functioning overachievers—the kind of kids willing to stay up all night, if that’s what it takes, to plow through the mountain of homework the program assigns them.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Bill Duke’s ‘Dark Girls’ Headed to OWN; More Films in the Making

    *Bill Duke’s mind-blowing film, “Dark Girls” is headed to OWN this June.

    The documentary first emerged in 2011 at the TIFF and had great promise of becoming something bigger and better. But it never turned up as a national theater release and continued to tour across the country.

    Bill announced in 2012 at the Pan African Film Festival in Los Angeles, that he was in the middle of developing two feature documentaries as follow ups to “Dark Girls.”

    “Yellow Brick Road” will look at the ‘colorism’ issue from the perspective of light skinned Black women. The other documentary, “What Is A Man?” will explore masculinity and manhood as it has transformed from the beginning of time to present day. Filming for the project has already begun and it turns out he’s been interviewing people from all around the world.

  16. rikyrah says:

    Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Clarence Thomas’ Race Hit on Obama No Surprise

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did the seemingly impossible. He turned from court mute to a hit man on President Obama.

    In an interview at Duquesne University Law School in April, Thomas snidely rapped Obama for being the darling of the “elites.” To Thomas that means liberals, progressives, intellectuals, and the supposedly hopelessly liberal media.

    Thomas punctuated his slam of Obama by plopping the race card in the indictment, saying that these “elites” embraced him because he was their kind of black man, presumably in distinction to Thomas. This was a play on the tired conservative charge that liberal whites are supposedly so guilt ridden on race that they’ll latch onto a black to salve their conscience.

    This stunning turnabout for a jurist who brags and takes pride that he doesn’t say a word on the bench, and not much else in public is not really a surprise. Race has always lurked just below the surface in Thomas’s calculus. When the birther issue took flight for a hot minute a few years ago, Thomas was anything but silent. He took the almost unheard of step of reopening the issue by agreeing to put the matter to a conference vote of the judges. Thomas’s ridiculous lone wolf effort to arm-twist the justices to examine the birth certificate issue made no sense to most legal experts.

    But it fit perfectly in with his jaundiced interpretation of law and its practice and his private vow to get revenge on his liberal and especially black tormentors. Obama was the perfect target. When Obama was asked at a joint church gathering with Republican rival John McCain during the 2008 campaign which justice he wouldn’t have nominated to the Supreme Court. He didn’t hesitate. He named Thomas. And he told why.

    “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time, for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution.”

    Even if Obama hadn’t ripped Thomas publicly he still would have been in his sights. This is where his “elites” synonym comes into play to knock Obama. He is the polar opposite of Thomas. He’s a moderate Democrat, a former civil rights attorney, and community organizer. He backs expanded government, affirmative action, abortion rights, a severely restricted use of the death penalty, and to the absolute horror of Thomas and hard line conservatives, he backs a broader interpretation of legal precepts.

    Obama almost certainly would have joined the swollen chorus of civil rights and civil liberties groups that pounded Thomas during his High Court confirmation fight in 1991 for his anti-affirmative action, anti-abortion, and anti-prisoner rights views. The Senate confirmed him by the narrowest vote of any high court judge in recent confirmation history. The rebuke stung deeply, and Thomas didn’t forget or forgive. In an American Enterprise Institute lecture in 2001, he wrapped himself in the martyr’s garment and said that he expected to be treated badly for challenging liberal opinion.

  17. Good morning, everyone.

    Praise the Lord!
    Praise God in his sanctuary;
    Praise him in his mighty heavens.
    Praise him for his acts of power;
    Praise him for his surpassing greatness.
    Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
    Praise him with the harp and lyre,
    Praise him with timbrel and dancing,
    Praise him with the strings and pipe,
    Praise him with the clash of cymbals,
    Praise him with resounding cymbals.
    Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
    Praise the Lord!

    Happy Sunday!

  18. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone! :-)

Leave a Reply