By Jay Jordan Hawke

One of my favorite authors, Michael J. Bowler, who wrote the inspiring Children of the Knight series, recently challenged me to create a list of the top ten books that most inspired me growing up. This, of course, led to a non-stop barrage of nostalgic memories vying for dominance and battling to make the top of my list. It was truly epic! Needless to say, for me, nostalgia and melodrama often go together. In either sense, I was an avid reader growing up, so I found the task of creating such a list rather daunting. But alas, I finally settled upon books that I think are either rare, or are losing the immense popularity they once enjoyed and thus need to be rediscovered by a new generation. Hopefully one of my own books will appear on someone’s top ten someday. If not, I'll have to do a Top 11 next time with my book on it. With that in mind, here are my top ten.

10: Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes. A mentally challenged man, Charlie Gordon, is given an experimental serum that gives him a genius level IQ. The book is told from Charlie's perspective as a collection of progress reports from various stages of his mental evolution. It is enthralling as you witness Gordon slowly transform from a man with simple thoughts and words into a towering intellect with complex ideas and perceptions. And the first realization he comes to is that his friends really just use and abuse him. An interesting irony is that Charlie, in many ways, was happier when his IQ was only 68.

9: The Firebrand by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Many people are familiar with Bradley’s best-selling novel, The Mists of Avalon, in which she tells a very familiar story, the life of King Arthur, but from the perspective of a women. In one of Bradley's less familiar novels, The Firebrand, she does the same thing with ancient Greek legends, in this case examining the fall of Troy from the perspective of Kassandra, who is cursed with the ability to see a future that no one wants to hear. It’s an amazing read even if you aren’t familiar with the ancient Greek classics, but even more so if you already are. Highly recommended!

8. On a Pale Horse by Piers Anthony – I had a difficult time choosing my favorite book and series from Piers Anthony. I’m about the only Piers Anthony fan who has never ready any of his insanely famous Xanth novels, but that has allowed me to appreciate some of his less popular, but equally brilliant creations. I almost chose his wonderfully imaginative Cluster Series, about an intergalactic civilization that can transmit a being’s aura to other worlds where it occupies the body of other sentient beings. But alas, I finally decided upon The Incarnations of Immortality series, the first of which was On a Pale Horse. The book offers great advice to anyone who might be suicidal. Once you put that gun to your head, look for death, and then shoot him. In the Incarnations of Immortality universe, however, that means you take over his job. I also chose this book because it helped inspire the short-lived, but absolutely brilliant Showtime series, Dead Like Me.

7. Lilith: A Snake in the Grass by Jack L. Chalker – As with Piers Anthony, I had a challenging time choosing just one of my favorite books from Chalker's many brilliant works. It finally came down to either his “Saga of the Well World” or his “Four Lords of the Diamond” saga. But I chose Four Lords, because it was the first Chalker series I read as a kid. Beginning with Lilith: A Snake in the Grass, the Four Lords saga is about a secret agent for the Earth Confederacy, whose personality is implanted into four different condemned criminals for the purpose of investigating a mysterious alien threat. It takes place on the Warden Diamond, a group of four planets circling a single star, ruled by a microscopic symbiotic organism that infects and alters all who come to the planet. Once infected, a person can never leave the planet without dying, which is why it was chosen as a penal colony for the Confederacy. Each book then follows each of the different people the agent has been implanted into. In the first book, the agent finds himself on the planet Lilith, a tropical planet with a feudal style government, and unfortunately, he is a serf. He must learn to summon the powers given him by the Warden organism to carry out his mission. This series is wonderfully imaginative! I also had to choose it because Chalker started off as a history teacher before retiring to write full time, something to which I aspire.

6. Foundation by Isaac Asimov. It’s ridiculous how badly this needs to be made into a TV series or movie! The novel follows the exploits of Hari Seldon, a mathematician from an intergalactic civilization that has long since forgotten its planetary origins. Seldon unfortunately hits upon a mathematical method for predicting the future -- only mass events though, not the fate of individuals. In the process, he discovers a disturbing fact. His intergalactic civilization is about to fall. What to do when no one will listen to you? Set up a special colony, of course, that will preserve the knowledge of their civilization before its inevitable collapse. If done correctly, his equations predict, he can reduce the dark period from 30,000 to a mere 1000 years. Foundation is a fascinating reminder that though we think of ourselves as being at the pinnacle of civilization, many other pinnacles have long since collapsed. Unfortunately, the science in the book feels rather faddish today, as Asimov chose nuclear energy to power his intergalactic civilization. That aside, it’s a fascinating read.

5. Anubis Gates by Tim Powers. I was probably way too young to fully understand this novel when I first read it, but not young enough to appreciate its brilliance. Suffice to say, if you like the British Romantic poets, some steampunk, a few Egyptian gods here and there, and maybe the occasional werewolf, you will absolutely LOVE this masterpiece.

4. The Education of Oversoul Seven by Jane Roberts. This is a little gem that most have probably never heard of. I’m glad to see that the trilogy is still available from Amazon in one special edition. This is the first and best of the Oversoul Seven Trilogy and it tells the enthralling story of an average, everyday, multi-dimensional being trying to come to terms with his many incarnational selves, who are trapped in the simultaneity of time. It's a mind-bending take on everyday reality, reflecting a cosmology where humans create their own reality and live again and again until they get it right. This creative and inspirational read explores the mysteries of consciousness and will have you wishing it were all true, and maybe even wondering if it is.

3. Way of the Peaceful Warrior by Dan Millman. An accidental encounter at a gas station with an enigmatic gas station attendant with special powers, sets a young college student on a path toward enlightenment. This semi-autobiographical novel serves also as a brilliant introduction to the lessons of Buddhism.

2. Panther in the Sky by James Alexander Thom. Panther in the Sky tells the story of one of the most intriguing characters in American History – Tecumseh.  It’s unfortunate that his story is often ignored. Maybe we need a Tecumseh Day, but alas, we rarely get right the true heroes. For those who don’t know, Tecumseh was a Shawnee leader born in Ohio in the 1700s, who grows up to create and lead a giant confederation against the influx of American invaders pouring into the Ohio River Valley following the American Revolution. The book is told entirely from Tecumseh’s perspective, and by the end you are routing for him in every battle against the Americans. Not many novels have the power to make you switch loyalties. It powerfully demonstrates that history is not a matter of fate, and that many alternatives to American expansion and conquest came so very close to fruition. This novel is also exceptionally well researched and easily the best historical fiction I have ever read.

(1): Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. What do you do when you wake up one day to discover that your best friend is an alien, and that an intergalactic demolition team is about to destroy your planet to make room for a hyperspace bypass? Well, you grab a towel, and get ready for the imaginative ride of a lifetime! This book is a pure manifestation of British absurdity from beginning to end. To this day, I can’t get the “Infinite Improbability Drive” out of my head. The founders of quantum theory would be proud.

Jay Jordan Hawke is author Pukawiss the Outcast, published by Harmony Ink Press.

Thanks to Unicorn Bell for the quick interview today about my novel Pukawiss the Outcast. Check it out!

Republican Presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, continued to demonstrate why we need more history education in this country, in his interview Wednesday night with Jon Stewart. 

Minnesota Representative, Michelle Bachmann, still holds the lead with respect to Republican ignorance of American History, with her comment that the Founding Fathers ended slavery. 

But Huckabee is a close second.  He started off the interview by reiterating his support for theologian, David Barton, a right-wing lunatic known for peddling his belief that separation of church and state is a myth to simpletons and the occasional white supremacist organization.

Huckabee says:

David is, I think, very much a historian, and I love his stuff, because he documents everything with source material, and he’s very specific about dates and times and he has a lot of original documents — Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence...

Notice that Huckabee incorrectly calls Barton a historian, but I'll let that pass, since it's normal for Christians to confuse theology with history.  But, I will point out that Barton has zero history credentials.  In fact, he barely even has academic credentials, since his degree is actually in religious eduction from Oral Roberts University.

What Huckabee likes about Barton is that Barton  challenges the belief that the Founding Fathers intended to separate church and state.

Huckabee states:

There’s a perception among many that this is a completely secular nation and that the Judeo-Christian worldview was not a very significant part of our creation. I think it was, and that’s what I believe he’s trying to do...Separation of Church and State was a phrase that didn’t appear until a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in [1802] 1804, and it was written to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

This is an argument frequently used by Republicans.  The logic seems to be that since the phrase wasn't used until after the constitution, then the constitution couldn't possibly have meant to separate the two. 

This is a preposterous and nonsensical argument.  Jefferson used the phrase to easily sum up what Madison established with the First Amendment.  Actually, we know that Madison, who authored the First Amendment, wanted to go much further than what the amendment actually states.  Madison wanted to disestablish religion at both the federal and state level - the amendment only separates the two at the federal level.  The 14th amendment later did it at the state level.

Huckabee, not really understanding the constitution, tried to change the subject, and turned to an earlier document for support.

Well, listen: take the Declaration of Independence, which was the establishment of our nation as an independent country.

Oops, he got the wrong also.  The Declaration of Independence did not establish our country, the constitution did. 

He continued:

When it says, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,' if you read the early state constitutions, the states — and originally our government was supposed to be a rather weak, limited, and local form of government, with not a whole lot of power at the federal level.

Incorrect again.  Yes, the states were suppose to have more power and the federal government less power, but that was not "our government," it was the Confederation.  Huckabee conveniently forgot that we corrected that mistake with the constitution, which created a completely different government - the United States of America.

But in the state constitutions, there are some surprising things regarding the establishment of the government, to make sure that there was a Christian — or a Judeo-Christian — there were often these very explicit languages in the constitutions of states in New England that would probably not recognize those constitutions today.

Yes there are some very surprising things in those state governments.  Things like no Jews, Catholics, or Atheists. Is that what Huckabee wants to return to?  Which of those groups would he like to eliminate?  I'm sorry, "eliminate" is too harsh.   I meant, which of those groups would he like to reduce to second class citizenship?  I know how PC Republicans like to be.

Thankfully, the 14th Amendment prohibits that today.  How inconvenient that must be to Republicans - although it was Republicans who passed it following the Civil War.

Huckabee continued with an extended rant:

Now, what we’ve done over the past 240 years is, we have moved more and more power to the federal government. Let me be fair: this isn’t a Democrat / Republican thing, because Republicans have been just as adamant about moving that power more and more toward the federal government and away from cities and states. The danger is that, the closer you are to the people being governed, the more likely you are to get it right, because when you govern more locally, and in a more limited way

Madison disagrees with constitutional scholar Huckabee.  Madison and the Founding Fathers were actually highly suspicious of democracy, precisely because the people would trample on the rights of minorities.  It's why Hamilton saw democracy as "mob rule."  And it's why Madison wanted the federal government to be able to veto laws passed by the states.

Jon Stewart rightfully called Huckabee out for his support of Barton.  Stuart challenged:

But you’re gonna run for President and you call him a historian who you think should teach our children in public school. Now, that is the intersection of state and religion that makes some people — non-evangelical Christians — uncomfortable.

Huckabee responded with more gibberish that was edited out of the broadcast:

Some of us, Jon, are uncomfortable with the idea that we have history books today in which there is more material about, let’s say, Madonna, than there is about George Washington. That’s the thing.

Wow, I'd like to see that book.  It's a common Republican tactic.  When confronted with logic and reason that you can't respond to, make shit up.

I have no problem with people being ignorant about history.  People have lives.  They don't have time to read all the scholarship that's been produced on the subject.  But at the same time, people who don't have the time to be smart, shouldn't pretend they know something, shouldn't run for president, and certainly shouldn't cite pseudo-historians, who preach to white supremest groups and Nazis.

Copyright © By Jay Jordan Hawke, April 7, 2011.

Jay Jordan Hawke is author of "A Scout is Brave," a novel about anti-gay bullying.

Recently, "Rev." Keith Ratliff Sr., president of the Iowa -Nebraska chapter of the NAACP, expressed his contempt that gays are demanding civil rights, as though they are actually human beings or something. 

According to an article in the Des Moines Register, Ratcliff stated that gays are "hijacking the Civil Rights Movement," and emphasized that there is "no parallel" between the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the gay rights movement.  Making such a comparison is "an insult" to black people.  He concluded that “Deviant behavior is not the same as being denied your right to vote.”

His words tarnished an organization that has tried, unsuccessfully, to damper the homophobic bigotry that is so pervasive amongst minority groups.  The most recent expression of it was President Obama's election day victory.  As throngs of minorities flocked to the polls to vote into power a minority candidate for president, those same minorities also voted in California to strip the gay community of their right to marry. (Proposition 8)

But alas, I'm not going to denounce "Rev." Keith Ratliff Sr.  I'm actually going to agree with him in some respects.  It is simply a fact that the oppression gays experience is nothing like what ethnic minorities experience.  It is, in fact, much worse for gay people.  Gay people are decades behind in gaining their god-given, inalienable rights. 

Blacks got the right to serve their country in the 1940s.  Actually, that's only when the military was desegregated.  They've actually served since colonial times.  Gay people only got that right in the past couple of months.  Black people got the right to marry in 1967, when the supreme court ruled in "Loving v Virginia" that interracial couples cannot be denied the fundamental right that is marriage.  And again, they could actually marry long before this - just not to white people.  Gay people have only had marriage rights in a small handful of states for a few years - and these marriages are still not federally recognized.

Blacks have had the right not to be harassed and murdered by hate groups since the passage of the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law.  It was considered to controversial to add gay people to that law, until the recent passage of the Matthew Shepard Act.

And while it is still legal to fire someone for being gay, discrimination in employment based on race has been prohibited since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

So gay people are very far behind.  And the kind of discrimination gays face is quite different as well.  When a black kid comes home from school after having been called a "nigger" by some racist white kids, he can talk with his sympathetic parents about it - parents who very likely know exactly what their son or daughter is feeling.  When a gay kid comes home after having been called a "faggot," he keeps the incident to himself, less his or her parents send him to a concentration camp to be tortured by religious bigots.  [Oops, sorry, that should read "conversion camp."]

Has a black kid ever been sent to a conversion camp?  Has a black kid ever had his minister tell him that due to his race, he is an abomination before god?  Has a black kid ever been kept from his prom, because the school doesn't want to encourage that "lifestyle choice?"  Does a black kid have to sit in class and listen to his fellow students debate whether or not he should have the same rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys? 

Furthermore, black kids know about their own oppression.  They can learn about slavery by reading their American History textbooks.  Where do gay people turn to learn that Hitler targeted them in the Holocaust, and forced them into the death camps?  Not in history textbooks, as it's too controversial.

So, I'm sorry that "Rev." Keith Ratliff Sr. feels all offended that someone has compared the humanity of gay people to the humanity of black people.  I'm sure when Matthew Shepard was being bludgeoned to death with a pistol, hung to a fence, and left to freeze to death in the middle of the night, he was thinking: "Gosh, I hope the gay community doesn't make this into a big deal.  After all, blacks should get their rights first." 

"Rev." Keith Ratliff Sr. should be ashamed of himself. And if the NAACP wants any street credibility as it reaches out to the gay community, it can start by denouncing and firing "Rev." Keith Ratliff Sr. 

In the meantime, I sure hope that "Rev." Keith Ratliff's kid is not gay, because if he is, he has a much greater likelihood of committing suicide due to the pervasiveness of hatred and bigotry against sexual minorities in this country.  I'm sorry if that fact disturbs, insults, and demeans the good "reverend." 

Copyright © By Jay Jordan Hawke, March 20, 2011.

I'm not sure I entirely understand the sacredness of the First Amendment to the constitution in America.  As far as I can tell, it is simply a tool used by the cruel and bigoted majority to harass, torture, and terrify a minority.  Maybe my lack of appreciation for fundamental rights comes from the fact that I am a minority and hence don't know what it's like.  I've never experienced the joy of being able to call someone a name, and relish the power I have over them as they begin to cry.  If I called someone a "breeder" in the town I grew up in, I wouldn't be here today.  If I expressed even an inkling of my true beliefs, life would have been even more intolerable for me than it was. 

Alexis de Tocqueville expressed in best in his class work, Democracy in America.

He wrote:

Chains and executioners: such were the crude instruments on which tyranny once relied. But civilization has today brought improvement to everything, even to despotism, which seemed to have nothing left to learn.  Princes made violence a physical thing, but today’s democratic republics have made it as intellectual as the human will it seeks to coerce. Under the absolute government of one man, despotism tried to reach the soul by striking crudely at the body; and the soul, eluding such blows, rose gloriously above it. Tyranny in democratic republics does not proceed in the same way, however. It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you… You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.

Not surprisingly, de Tocqueville coined the phrase "tyranny of the majority."

Several recent news stories in the past couple of weeks have reinforced my fear and suspicions of the exalted First Amendment.  A high school newspaper in Wichita, Kansas, published an opinion piece calling on gay kids to be executed.  School and district officials defended the piece by appealing to the almighty First Amendment.  Case closed.  Discussion over.  About a week later, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment was so sacred that anti-gay demon, Fred Phelps, could spew his hatred at a soldier's funeral.  And yesterday, the Advocate published an article about a school in Arizona that arrested a bullied gay 5th grader for saying he wished he had a gun to use against the bullies who ruthlessly savage him on a daily basis. 

When the law protects the cruel and the vile, and exonerates such abominations like Fred Phelps and other anti-gay bullies, then I will not worship it.  I'm a second class citizen in this country.  A piece of filth like Fred Phelps has more rights than I do.  So, forgive me if I don't give a crap about his civil rights being violated right now.  When I am at least equal to his ilk before the law, then maybe I'll start to worship the precious First Amendment.

And before anyone slams me with the obvious irony that I'm in fact exercising my First Amendment rights on this blog to denounce the First Amendment, I say - well, I'll just keep my thoughts to myself on that one.  I don't want to violate Weebly's terms of use.

Read the article that sparked today blog here.

Copyright © By Jay Jordan Hawke, March 12, 2011.

Last week was a victory, a big victory, for hate in this country.  The Supreme Court of the United States has stooped to an all time low.  In "Snyder v Phelps," they ruled in favor of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Cult.  The vote was 8 to 1.

Straight people generally don't know much of what the Westboro Demon Cult is all about, but most gay people do.  The Satanic leader of the Christian cult is Fred Phelps, who is infamous in the gay community for maintaining the website, "God hates fags." 

Phelps is also notorious for promoting his hatred by gathering up his minions and picketing the funerals of gay kids.  His most high profile protest was in response to the brutal murder of gay teen, Matthew Shepard.  Phelps and his ilk carried signs outside Shepard's funeral proclaiming that Matthew Shepard was now burning in hell.

Of course, that's not what got Fred Phelps in trouble with the courts, as the courts didn't really care about that.

What got Phelps in trouble with the courts is that he started going after straight soldiers.  In March 2006, a 20-year-old Marine, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in a motor-vehicle accident in Iraq.  Phelps thought it would be funny to show up at Snyder's funeral with signs like:

"God Hates the USA," "Thank God for 9/11," "America is Doomed," "God Hates Fags," and "Fags Doom Nations."

Snyder, the dead soldier whose funeral was picketed, was not gay, so far as we know, but Phelps thinks American soldiers are being killed because America supports homosexuality.  So, in his own twisted mind, he is protecting American soldiers.  He is trying to convince America that it needs to be more Nazis-like, and then God will stop killing American soldiers. 

Well, this message didn't sit well with Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, who just wanted to bury his son in peace.  So he sued the Phelps' cult.  A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. ruled that not only does Snyder's father NOT have the right to bury his son in peace, but he must pay the cult leader, Fred Phelps, $16,500 in legal fees.  Of the countless things that should make you ashamed to be an American, this should be at the top of your list. 

But alas, thankfully we have the Supreme Court.  In the grand history of the Supreme Court, we have justices willing to imprison people for protesting war, but picketing dead soldiers to send the message that homosexuality is an abomination?  Free speech must be protected!

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the following for the majority:

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

I personally think the Supreme Court needs to come up with a much better definition of what constitutes free speech.  There is no reason why bigots have to flaunt their bigotry at some kid's funeral.  That's why god invented the internet after all.  Picketing funerals is nothing more than harassment and abuse.  It should not be tolerated in a society that believes in love, compassion, fairness, and justice.

Oddly enough, this means I mostly agree with conservatives on this one.   Liberals can't be bothered right now to denounce this case.  They are busy giving money to the health insurance industry.  But conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his sole dissenting decision.

"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims."

As the Supreme Court ruled in the 1942 case, "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:"

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Evidently, since it's now gay people who have primarily been insulted and profaned, the Court has had a change of opinion.

They instead are defending this statement from Fred Phelps:

God promised dire outpourings of very painful wrath, and there’s nothing more painful than killing one of your children and that’s what’s going on in Iraq. That’s what we’re preaching and the forum of choice to deliver such a message, obviously, is the funeral of the kid that’s been blown to smithereens.

"America is doomed," one of Phelps' signs reads.  In light of this Supreme Court decision, I think I actually agree with Fred Phelps on something.

Copyright © By Jay Jordan Hawke, March 6, 2011.

The Right Wing spin machine has been out in full force this week with the surprising announcement from the White House that they would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Fox News contributor Monica Crowley referred to Barack Obama's decision as "A form of dictatorship."  She said:

"It's beyond belief. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are governed by the rule of law. And what the Constitution says is that the president of the United States doesn't get to decide which laws he likes and which ones he's gonna enforce.... that is a form of dictatorship. That is Mubarak Obama."

Crowley went on to say that if W. Bush had done something similar, the left would be calling for his impeachment. [Note that Monica changed what Obama said from "defend" to "enforce."]

And the leader of the Republican Party, and part-time legal scholar, Rush Limbaugh couldn't resist a similar critique.  He said:

"Determining the constitutionality of a statue is not the job of the president, it's not the job of the attorney general. They can't do, legally, what they're doing here...These are the new left outlaws."

And the other leader of the Republican Party, Glen Beck had this to say:

"This guy thinks he can literally do anything he wants whether he has a legal way to accomplish it or not, and it is frightening."

And Fox News entertainer, Sean Hannity, agreed with Crowley:

"And I'm thinking, it's almost like, they don't -- do they not care about the rule of law? Do they not care about precedents?

And the entire right wing blogosphere is erupting.

There is only one problem.  Obama isn't doing anything new.  It's long-standing tradition for a president to decide not to defend an obviously unconstitutional law.  In fact, one of our Founding Fathers did it as president.  President Jefferson ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the Sedition Acts.  In fact, as Vice-President, he had authored a state law, which nullified it completely. 

And we don't even have to go back that far to find "dictators" in the White House. George W. Bush, in fact, ordered the Justice Department not to defend a law that withheld federal money from transit systems that had ads advocating the non-enforcement of drug laws.

Clinton and Papa Bush are also on the list of Presidents who refused to defend unconstitutional laws.

So, when is Fox News going to start calling George W. Bush "Mubarak Bush?" 

Don't hold your breath.  Republicans have long ago won the hypocrisy award, and they don't plan on giving it up anytime soon.

Wow!  This has been a good week for the Tea Party.  There were so many foolish and blatantly ignorant things said on the national political stage this week that the Tea Party probably feels like they've already completely taken over the country.  First Michele Bachmann (R-MN) stated that the Founding Fathers spent all their waking moments trying to end slavery.  She sites John Quincy Adams as an example of one such Founder.

The Founders, she claimed, "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

Chris Mathews on MSNBC's "Hardball" responded by hammering Bachmann all week for not knowing any American History.  He corrected her by pointing out  that slavery was not eradicated by the Founding Fathers, and that it actually took the Civil War and the 13th Amendment to do that.  I think Chris Mathews was so busy correcting Bachmann that he failed to point out the obvious.  John Quincy Adams was not a Founding Father!  John QUINCY Adams was the SON of John Adams.  John Adams, not his son, was the Founding Father.  John Quincy Adams was only 9 years old when America declared independence from England.  He may have been a prodigy, but I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with our Revolution.

Well, I guess Sarah Palin got jealous that the retard spotlight had been taken away from her, because, after all, she had gotten so used to it.  So she chimed in on Barrack Obama's "State of the Union" Address.  Apparently she didn't like his references to Sputnik, and his declaration that this is "our Sputnik moment."  Obama brought up the historic reference to demonstrate that as a nation, we've been behind before.  The Soviets beat America to space with Sputnik.  But America went on to win the space race by getting to the moon first.  So, "Yey us!" was Obama's message, and let's beat those Chinese who own us, and everyone else, because "yes we can."  Well, Palin mocked the president on Fox News for not understanding that Sputnik destroyed the Soviet Union.  She said:

“That was another one of those WTF moments that when he has so often repeated the Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space. Yeah, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time, that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union, so I listen to that Sputnik talk over and over again, and I think we don’t need one of those.”

First of all, Sarah, points to you for using "WTF."  I'm sure that will sit well with your family values constituency.  And it will definitely get you the youth vote - at least, those young enough not to know first grade history.  Unfortunately, people that young can't vote, but Palin probably doesn't know that.  Secondly, a brief history lesson.  Sputnik occurred in 1957.  The Soviet Union didn't collapse till 1991.  WTF???  And I think she meant the arms race destroyed the Soviet Union, not the space race.  Oh well, who needs all that like learny education stuff anyways, eh Sarah?

Finally, Glenn Beck, current leader of the Republican Party, decided he wasn't going to let all the other retards in his party "out idiot" him.  So, he qualified Michelle Bachmann, by stating that the Founding Fathers ended slavery with the Three-Fifths Compromise.  WTF?  Meanwhile, back in reality, (pay attention to this Glenn) the Southern states were not going to join the Union, because they were concerned that the North would eventually use the powerful Congress created by the US Constitution to abolish slavery.  Southern delegates could already see the trend in the North.  The North had already began to pass "gradual abolition laws."  And slavery had already been banned in the Northwest territories.  Abolitionist sentiment was on the move.  So, to entice the South, and alleviate their fears about slavery being abolished, the North agreed to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which allowed the South to count their slave population as three-fifths of a person for deciding representation in Congress.  This would allow them to keep abolitionist laws from being introduced.  It furthered and ultimately increased slavery, Glenn; it didn't end it.  The Founding Fathers then went on to write a gag order into the Constitution.  They put a ban on Congress even discussing abolishing the slave trade for 20 years.

These are the people running the Republican Party folks.  They lack even the most basic knowledge of American History, and yet nearly every day they call their political enemies anti-American.  I'll accept such a criticism from Michelle Bachmann the second that she can even locate America on a map.