Did you examine the evidence, or is article enough? nm

• New documentary about 9/11 - PK
  • All of this has been debunked! Link inside. sm - MT
    • Did you examine the evidence, or is article enough? nm - LVMT
  • Coincidental events an understatement. - LVMT
    • No thanks. - Passing thru
  • Knowledge is a beautiful thing...and can be eery too.sm - Democrat
  • Thanks for posting. I will watch this when I get time. nm - Democrat
  • No thanks. - Passing thru
    • Closed minds don't get nourished and thus can't grow. nm - Democrat
      • I know all I need to. I see no point in this. - Passing thru

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

From the Conservative board.

The toxicity has become so potent that some of the cooler heads on the Left are starting to notice. Richard Cohen, writing in his Washington Post column  today, describes his email, traffic after a mildly critical reference to Stephen Colbert’s unfunny performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age—which I am—I am simply out of it, wherever “it” may be. All in all, I was—I am, and I guess I remain—the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation. [….]

But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble—not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before—back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations.

mounts.  Can't wait till this breaks.  Lying about your promiscious daughter.  That counts for 2 sins, does it not? Sometimes breeding with people too close in your family tree can produce birth defects.  I' m just sayin . . .

are going to be given to people who are not paying tax.  Show me what in his plan describes a refundable (AKA non-wastable) tax credit.  So far, all I can see is that sam does not understand the basic concepts of socialism, Marxism, tax cuts and tax credits.  Tax cuts are a reduction in taxes, based on lowering a tax rate.  You cannot reduce a rate on tax in the absence of tax due.  Tax credits for the most part are paid against TAXES DUE.  The 2 exceptions in the US are the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit 

So show me where Obama has said that his tax credit would be a refundable/non-wastable credit.  Also, naturally, I am still waiting for sam's answer to my original question on how it is that progressive tax reform is only socialist when it is Obama reform but no other president who has reformed the tax structure is a socialist?  Please answer that question and the one about the refundable tax credit.  Direct answers would be very much appreciated. 

really does need that teleprompter to get it right . . . What's this I hear about him being such a great orator?  Sorry, but I think not.   

Obama apologizes for gaffe on Special Olympics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has apologized for a gaffe in which he described his bowling skills as akin to participants in the Special Olympics, a sports program for people with intellectual disabilities.

....but MUST be from a nonpartison source absolutely.  Actually I thought it was just as much the case with the Republican party, but I freely admit that I have no concrete statistics at this point to back that up. 

by Gretyl Macalaster

PORTSMOUTH - The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night.

McGovern, who provided daily briefings for former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as other high ranking officials during his 27 year CIA career, said he has witnessed a "prostitution of his profession" as the Bush administration lied to the American people about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"Don’t let anyone tell you the President was deceived by false intelligence … they knew," McGovern said.

For the next 40 minutes, he relayed a series of events leading up to 9/11 which illustrate the President’s desire to go to war with Iraq well before 9-11, that reliable CIA evidence showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was presented to the administration and the "facts were fixed" in order to legitimize the invasion.

"The estimate which said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was prepared to the terms of reference laid down by Cheney in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002. It was the worst estimate of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions, but it was designed to do that," McGovern said.

McGovern has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s and since 2002 has been publicly critical of Bush’s use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The recent report detailing Iran’s stopping its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is an example of how the administration knows it can no longer hide such "incontrovertible evidence" from the American people in the fallout from the misinformation they received on the Iraq War, McGovern said. He added that he had almost given up on believing their were people still working at the top with a conscious and enough people at the top willing to let analysts do their job and accept independent analysis.

In late 2005, Congress requested an estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities.
"My former colleagues got really good, incontrovertible evidence that the program, such as it was, has been ordered stopped since 2003. The evidence was such that not even Cheney could deny it. That’s why the report was not produced until three weeks ago," McGovern said, adding that the Bush administration has been putting "spin" on their rhetoric ever since.

McGovern also addressed the reasoning he believes is behind the threat of war with Iran. He said he believes Israel thinks they have a pledge from the White House to deal with Iran before Bush leaves office and relayed the story of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked by the Israelis in 1967 and covered up by the United States. Thirty-four U.S soldiers were killed and about 170 were seriously injured.

"It seems to me, that on June, 8, 1967, Israel realized it could literally get away with murder," McGovern said.

McGovern said he also believes Congress will be of little help. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted to learning about torture and illegal eavesdropping in briefings, but said it was her understanding when briefed, that she will not share the information with anyone else, including other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

McGovern called Pelosi out on violating her oath to uphold the Constitution "against enemies, foreign or domestic" by allowing acts in violation of the Constitution to continue by not saying "diddly."

He added that although an impeachment bill currently in Congress is gaining more support, Democrats are shying away because of the influence of lobbies and political analysts telling them to "wait it out" until the election.

Charges in the impeachment bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, are very detailed and "as good as any," McGovern said, and referenced the illegal eavesdropping of American citizens. He added that the President has "admitted" to this "demonstrably impeachable offense."

"The argument for impeachment is overwhelming," Randy Kezar of Kingston said after the event. "Impeachment is constitutionally required."

McGovern’s visit was co-sponsored by NH Codepink, Seacoast Peace Response, NH Peace Action, NH American Friends Service Committee, Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group, NH Veterans for Peace and Witness for Peace-N.E.

Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM

Bush declines to meet with border officials

Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

San Bernardino County Sun

President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.

In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.

Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.

The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States.

Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.

The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.

In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.

Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.

The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.

Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.

It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.

The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.

Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.

We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.

Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.

The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.

This whole Rove thing is not about outing anyone, it is about the uranium and Wilson finding no evidence that Saddam was trying to buy it.  Great article.  Link is below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17rich.html?incamp=article_popular

    Thursday 18 August 2005

    Cindy Sheehan is still waiting for Bush to answer her question: What noble cause did my son die for? Her protest started as a small gathering 13 days ago. It has mushroomed into a demonstration of hundreds in Crawford and tens of thousands more at 1,627 solidarity vigils throughout the country.

    Why didn't Bush simply invite Cindy in for tea when she arrived in Crawford? In a brief, personal meeting with Cindy, Bush could have defused a situation that has become a profound embarrassment for him, and could derail his political agenda.

    Bush didn't talk with Cindy because he can't answer her question. There is no answer to Cindy's question. There is no noble cause that Cindy's son died fighting for. And Bush knows it.

    The goals of this war are not hard to find. They were laid out in Paul Wolfowitz's draft Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance in 1992, and again in the neoconservative manifesto - The Project for a New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses - in September 2000.

    Long before 9/11, the neocons proclaimed that the United States should exercise its role as the world's only superpower by ensuring access to the massive Middle East petroleum reserves. To accomplish this goal, the US would need to invade Iraq and establish permanent military bases there.

    If Bush were to give an honest answer to Cindy Sheehan's question, it would be that her son died to help his country spread US hegemony throughout the Middle East.

    But that answer, while true, does not sound very noble. It would not satisfy Cindy Sheehan, nor would it satisfy the vast majority of the American people. So, for the past several years, Bush and his minions have concocted an ever-changing story line.

    First, it was weapons-of-mass-destruction and the mushroom cloud. In spite of the weapons inspectors' admonitions that Iraq had no such weapons, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and Bolton lied about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush even included the smoking gun claim in his state of the union address: that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger. It was a lie, because people like Ambassador Joe Wilson, who traveled to Niger to investigate the allegation, had reported back to Cheney that it never happened.

    The Security Council didn't think Iraq was a threat to international peace and security. In spite of Bush's badgering and threats, the Council held firm and refused to sanction a war on Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors asked for more time to conduct their inspections. But Bush was impatient.

    He thumbed his nose at the United Nations and invaded anyway. After the "coalition forces" took over Iraq, they combed the country for the prohibited weapons. But they were nowhere to be found.

    Faced with the need to explain to the American people why our sons and daughters were dying in Iraq, Bush changed the subject to saving the Iraqis from Saddam's torture chambers.

    Then the grotesque photographs emerged from Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad. They contained images of US military personnel torturing Iraqis. Bush stopped talking about Saddam's torture.

    Most recently, Bush's excuse has been "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people." On June 28, 2004, he ceremoniously hailed the "transfer of sovereignty" back to the Iraqi people. (See Giving Iraqis What is Rightly Theirs). Yet 138,000 US troops remained in Iraq to protect US "interests."

    And Iraq's economy is still controlled by laws put in place before the "transfer of sovereignty." The US maintains a stranglehold on foreign access to Iraqi oil, private ownership of Iraq's resources, and control over the reconstruction of this decimated country.

    For months, Bush hyped the August 15, 2005 deadline for Iraqis to agree on a new constitution. But as the deadline came and went, the contradictions between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds over federalism came into sharp focus. The Bush administration admitted that "we will have some form of Islamic republic," according to Sunday's Washington Post.

    So much for Bush's promise of a democratic Iraq.

    The constitutional negotiations are far removed from the lives of most Iraqis. When journalist Robert Fisk asked an Iraqi friend about the constitution, he replied, "Sure, it's important. But my family lives in fear of kidnapping, I'm too afraid to tell my father I work for journalists, and we only have one hour in six of electricity and we can't even keep our food from going bad in the fridge. Federalism? You can't eat federalism and you can't use it to fuel your car and it doesn't make my fridge work."

    Fisk reports that 1,100 civilian bodies were brought into the Baghdad morgue in July. The medical journal The Lancet concluded in October 2004 that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the first 18 months after Bush invaded Iraq.

    Unfortunately, the picture in Iraq is not a pretty one.

    Bush knows that if he talked to Cindy Sheehan, she would demand that he withdraw from Iraq now.

    But Bush has no intention of ever pulling out of Iraq. The US is building the largest CIA station in the world in Baghdad. And Halliburton is busily constructing 14 permanent US military bases in Iraq.

    George Bush knows that he cannot answer Cindy Sheehan's question. There is no noble cause for his war on Iraq.

By John Yewell/City Editor

With Cindy Sheehan gone home to take care of her stroke-stricken mom, President Bush can enjoy the last week of his Texas vacation free of the distraction of her encampment outside his ranch. But a grieving liberal mom whose son died in Iraq demanding an audience may not be Bush’s biggest problem.

His biggest problem may be my mom.

My mother is a lifelong Republican. She got it from her father, a yellow-dog Republican if ever there was one. As unofficial GOP godfather of Fillmore, Calif., he collected absentee ballots every election for his large family and marked them himself. No sense in taking chances that someone might vote for a Democrat.

So when my mother called me the other day and told me she was considering registering as a Democrat, I was, well, stunned. Somewhere in a cemetery plot near Fillmore a body is spinning.

For the last year or more my mother has been gradually expressing ever greater exasperation with President Bush, the war, and the religious right. “Have you heard about this James Dobson guy?” she asked me on the phone, referring to the head of Focus on the Family. “If they overturn Roe vs. Wade, that’ll be it for me,” she said.

Then she mentioned Cindy Sheehan.

For all the efforts to discredit Ms. Sheehan, what she accomplished in drawing attention to the human cost of the war, if my mother’s opinion is any indication, crossed party lines. There’s a Mom Faction in American politics, and while it isn’t a monolithic Third Rail, it’s at least and second-and-a-half rail. When their children are dying on a battlefield of choice, you touch it at your peril.

My mother has her fingers on the pulse, and scalps, of many such women. She’s a hairdresser with a clientele that has been coming to her regularly for decades. Now grandmothers, these women were moms during Vietnam, in which over 50,000 American sons and daughters died. They worried then about their kids’ safety, now they’re worried about grandkids - theirs or someone else’s. Most are pretty mainstream, most Republican, and most, my mother tells me, pretty much fed up with George Bush.

There is other evidence of trouble on the Republican horizon. According to the latest compilation of state polls produced 10 days ago by surveyusa.com, of the 31 states Bush won in 2004, he now enjoys plurality job approval in only 10. This includes a 60 to 37 percent disapproval rate in the key state of Ohio, and a 53 to 44 disapproval rate in Florida.

A recent assessment from the influential and scrupulously nonpartisan Cook Political Report reads: “Opposition to and skepticism about the war in Iraq has reached its highest level, boosted by increased American casualties, a lack of political progress inside the country and growing signs of an imminent civil war. Given the centrality of the Iraq War to the Bush presidency and re-election, a cave-in of support for the president on the war would be devastating to his second-term credibility and influence.”

If Republicans are wondering where Cook is finding this “cave-in of support,” they could start looking in worse places than my mother’s one-chair salon, where Cindy Sheehan found sympathetic ears.

According to various reports, Bush and his team concluded that granting Sheehan an audience would only have encouraged other malcontents to demand similar attention from the president. Whatever the rationale, the decision alienated the clientele of Natalie’s Beauty Shoppe.

In the end my mother decided against changing her registration. Any criticism she might have of Bush, she decided, would be more credible if she stayed in the party, a sophisticated conclusion I admire and applaud.

Although Democrats can’t count on being the automatic beneficiaries of such dissatisfaction, Bush’s refusal to acknowledge fault, his “because I’m the Daddy and I say so” attitude, doesn’t work for a lot of women anymore. Women resent being patronized, and that’s how many view the president’s treatment of Cindy Sheehan.

The next election may be 14 months away, but when my mom and a lot of others like her walk into their voting booths, they may well be reflecting on their children and their choices, and which party is less likely to put either in harm’s way.

John Yewell is the city editor of the Hollister Free Lance. He can be reached at jyewell@freelancenews.com.

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has inherent authority to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

It is important to understand, Gorelick continued, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches. The story began, The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise, Gorelick said. Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus.

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

Byron York--NRO

Book Says Bush Aides Dismissed Christian Allies

allay any of my doubts about SP.  If she were an 18-year-od college student, this would be a flattering piece.  As a VP candidate, shallow, uninformed, asking polite questions, flashing some gam.  No thanks. If you think she is qualified -- let the press ask her some questions!!!  If not, put her in a wet T shirt poster and be done with it.

okay, in going to the site you posted, and going to the subheading of what you'll pay in taxes, with Obama, I will pay $1118 less and with McCain only $325 less -

Now for me, that is a no brainer!  Of course if I am worried about the economy in general, and my household in particular, I would have to choose Obama!

In your other post above, you wrote: This country has laws to protect people from being murdered, from having their lives taken from them by another person.

Those "people" are called "citizens" under the Constitution, and the "phrase" you refer to that defines citizens is found under article XIV reads as follows:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As you can see, the words fetus, embryo, or twinkle in my daddy's eye are NOT included in the definition.  One must be born first in order to be a citizen and receive protective services.

IMHO, when life begins is mostly a matter of philosophical and/or religious belief and not something to be legislated.

What does this say for our future?  If what this writer is saying is true (or evenly remotely a little bit true) looks like a lot of hard times ahead.  What I found of particular interest is the paragraph that talks about unemployment (the last 3 lines are in all caps).  What would happen to this country if unemployment reaches 30-40 percent?  Would we be able to survive?  Are there any plans in the future that Obama had promised during his campaign that will turn things around.  He had a lot of plans/ideas during his campaign, but now all I hear him keep saying is "it's going to get worse" or "it's really bad", but not hearing of any of those plans.

Also, I didn't realize that there were so many people receiving welfare and food handouts in this country (11 million?).  There shouldn't be any reason for this.  Not well Wall Street execs, politicians, etc. are still flying on luxury private planes and certain politicians are staying in $9 million dollar ocean front homes.

I'm just wondering if people who read this are following along and believe a lot in this article may come true or could happen what are you doing to prepare? 

Anyway...just an interesting article.

http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=122176&t=01000619699519786208

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

http://stoosviews.blogivists.com/2008/10/30/obamaniacs-and-the-cult-of-obama-they-are-coming-for-your-kool-aid/

Here's what really stands out in this article - "Obama, on the other hand, is seeking to duplicate the failures of the president he is replacing, only on a far greater scale."

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2264&dept_id=581907&newsid=20224719&PAG=461&rfi=9

Okay, I'm outta here for the night.  Here's another read.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/13/the-terrible-danger-of-a-personality-cult/

just wanted to break the string.

Posted below is an article.  Please read.  No it is not gossip or made up, it is real and it is disgusting.  Obama has done nothing about this and will not.

Racism of the Congressional Black Caucus
President's spokesman cites 'membership policies' as explanation

"To your knowledge has the president ever disagreed with the expressed hope that children 'could live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character' as made by Dr. King," Kinsolving asked.

As WND reported, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., was refused permission to join the organization because of his race.

Kinsolving recently documented in his WND column how Anh ("Joseph") Cao, the Vietnamese-American Republican from Louisiana who defeated the re-election bid of New Orleans Democrat William Jefferson, expressed an interest in joining because the district he represents is predominantly black.

Charges of racism arose after posting of a video showing top Obama economic adviser Robert Reich saying he wanted to make sure economic stimulus money didn't go to just "white male construction workers."

Also as WND reported, Democratic Party strategist Donna Brazile admitted she swiped Obama's complimentary blanket from his inauguration ceremony and then joked it was not a criminal offense because, "We have a black president ... this was free."

Also, outrage erupted over the inauguration benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery, the 87-year-old civil rights pioneer, for asking God to help mankind work for a day when "white would embrace what is right."