rightistwrongs.com, a secular liberal conservative view

“Open letter to Mr. Obama,” you are barred from holding the Office of President

Tina Righter — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:19:00 GMT

It’s over. McCain lost. Obama won. But a tax-protesting group known for filing frivolous lawsuits has now turned its attention to President-Elect Barack Obama.

The group known as the “We the People Foundation” purchased a full-page in the Chicago Tribune for 2 days to publish their letter which brings up the old (and I thought, resolved) issue of Obama’s birth certificate.

This complete waste of money (“tens of thousands of dollars”) shows the true colors of the “Foundation.” The letter makes the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is fake, he was not born in the US, and therefore is not eligible to be president because it would be a violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the US Constitution. The letter uses inflammatory language and makes bold accusations which are accompanied by immediate demands with due dates! Don’t they think he has enough to do?

Click here to view letter.

The group demands Obama give their “team of forensic scientists” access to his original birth certificate this week! Prior to the election, a judge had already thrown out a similar challenge saying its arguments were frivolous. So it seems the media was the only route left to bring back the issue. Where is the money coming from? And oh by the way, they are also soliciting donations for approximately $20,000 for the forensic team. Someone needs to track Cindy McCain’s finances veeeeerryy closely.

Florida Judge rules gay adoption ban, unconstitutional

Tina Righter — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:40:00 GMT

On Tuesday November 25th, a Miami-Dade circuit court judge overturned Florida’s gay adoption ban, stating there is “no rational basis” to prohibit gays from adopting. This is the second case of its kind in two months to rule against the law and permanently place foster children with gay adoptive parents.

Florida is the only state in the US that prohibits any gay or lesbian, single or coupled, from adopting children. It’s an antiquated law left over from the 1977 anti-gay campaign led by Anita Bryant to repress gay rights. Some states effectively bar potential LGBT parents from adopting with laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas just voted to enact such a measure this month.

It’s obvious that these oppressive measures recognize that there is no basis to keep gays and lesbians from parenting. Gay foster parents are allowed to care for their foster children for years, but are prevented from forming stable families through adoption. “The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” the judge said in her 53-page decision. She also stated the law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.

The Florida Department of Children & Families and the state attorney general’s office argued for the ban to remain in place. They have the support of Gov. Charlie Crist who is yet another republican firmly against gay rights but widely rumored to be a deeply closeted gay man.

The two young brothers were placed with 47-year-old Martin Gill in 2004 by a state child abuse investigator involved in their case. Gill and his partner, who the boys refer to as “dad,” see no reason the situation shouldn’t be permanent and the judge agreed. “They’re a good family,” the judge said in her ruling. “They’re a family in every way except in the eyes of the law. These children have a right to permanency... in the home where they are thriving.”

Attorneys for the state said they would appeal the ruling and the case is expected to go to the Florida Supreme Court. But the odds do not appear to be on their side. In a separate case in September, another Florida judge ruled against the law. A 13-year-old boy was permanently placed with his gay foster father, who had raised him since 2001. Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr. said in his ruling that the gay adoption ban violates the Constitution’s separation of powers by preventing family court and child welfare judges from deciding case-by-case what is best for a child.

1.2 million fake New York Times issues distributed

Tina Righter — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:45:00 GMT

In an effort to help the American public visualize the future of the US, the NY Times paper was spoofed. Wednesday morning, liberal pranksters handed out over a million free “newspapers” on streets and at subway stations around New York and select US cities. The headline read “Iraq War Ends.”

The 14-page paper was dated July 4, 2009 but surprised many commuters who assumed the free copies were legit. Other headlines read “Maximum Wage Law Succeeds, Ex-Secretary Apologizes for W.M.D. Scare, National Health Insurance Act Passes,” and my personal favorite, “Courts Indict Bush on High Treason Charges.”

A group called the Yes Men claimed responsibility for the hoax saying “We’ve got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do.”

It doesn’t appear that the expensive and elaborate prank was effective in getting attention. Outside of New York, most folks have not heard of the Yes Men or their handy-work. I would have thought this type of spoof would have gotten much more press or blog coverage or at least would have made the rounds at the water-coolers.

Join the Impact: Protest Proposition 8's passing November 15

Tina Righter — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:17:00 GMT

The night of Election-Tuesday was a bitter-sweet celebration. We came together to witness the first black man who will become our president, yet watched in bewilderment as Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California all voted down equal rights for all citizens.

This is not a four-state issue. This is an issue of equality across America. Stand up and make your voice heard! Visit www.jointheimpact.com to learn more.

No communion for Obama supporters

Tina Righter — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:02:00 GMT

A catholic priest in Columbia, South Carolina has told his parishioners to skip holy communion if they voted for President-Elect Obama. Rev. Jay Scott Newman’s reasoning is that Obama supports a woman’s right to choose, which could possibly result in abortion so supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

Newman sent a letter to St. Mary’s catholic church parishioners telling them they would be putting their “souls at risk” if they take communion before doing penance for their vote.

During the 2008 campaign, many bishops were much more aggressive than ever before in telling catholic politicians and voters that the issue of abortion should be their most important consideration in setting policy and voting and that their “immortal soul” was on the line.

But is this just a symptom of a bigger problem? While it is almost impossible to imagine in 2008 that educated adults could be told how to vote by threats to their “immortal souls,” this tactic appears to be effective. There is a recent escalating surge of religious institutions using their influence in politics. We just saw the mormon church raise over $20 million to support Proposition 8 in California which removed the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

The law is very clear on this issue. IRS rules provide tax exempt status to non-profit organizations as long as they adhere to restrictions such as not endorsing specific politicians. But many are starting to push back against this rule citing freedom of speech. Sunday September 28th, was the Politics from the Pulpit exercise where churches in 22 states attempted to provoke an IRS investigation that they intended to contest in court.

These religious institutions have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech. They are certainly “free” to preach what they like, they are just not “tax-free”, if they violate these IRS rules. I personally believe that this tax-exempt status for churches is a significant mistake. This is a serious loss of revenue. The idea that non-profits are established for charity and to help those in need, is simply out-dated. This can easily be seen by the mormons spending over $20 million on advertising to remove civil rights from specific minorities.

Keith Olbermann video: Gay marriage is a question of love

Tina Righter — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:09:00 GMT

Nov. 10: In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann disagrees with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and urges people to accept love between people of the same sex.

The Woman Who Raised the First African American President, Dies a Day Before the Election

Tina Righter — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:03:00 GMT

Barack Obama’s white grandmother, Madelyn Dunham was born in a small town in Kansas and lived during the Great Depression and World War II. After his mother died, the widow raised her grandson. Last week, Obama left the campaign trail to visit with her where she lived, in Hawaii. At 86 years of age, her health was failing.

She was very involved in following his campaign and took great pride in his achievements. At a rally in North Carolina on Monday November 3rd, a tearful Obama announced that his grandmother had lost her battle with Cancer and died peacefully in her sleep.

I find it terribly sad that she didn’t live to see her grandson beat all odds to become the first African American President-Elect. Her sacrifice and struggle will appreciated by the American people.

1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back, Prop 8 Passes, Taking Away Marriage from Same-Sex Couples

Tina Righter — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:27:00 GMT

Just when it seems America is making giant strides for equality in electing an African American President, California votes to take marriage away from same-sex couples. In an unbelievable and unprecedented move, Californians voted to amend their state Constitution to add IN discrimination, based on sexual orientation. With about three-quarters of the precincts reporting, it appears that Proposition 8 is going to narrowly pass when all the votes are tallied. The measure appears to have 52% support; in California a simple majority is required to amend the Constitution.

California has gone back and forth on the issue of same-sex marriage with many couples marrying and re-marrying. In 1977, the civil code was amended to read marriage was a “contract between a man and a woman.” In 1999, Bill 26 passed to create a “domestic partnership” with limited rights. In 2000, voters passed Prop 22 with 61% support to change the Family Code to formally define marriage as “between a man and a woman.” In 2003, Act AB205 passed giving “domestic partners” almost all the same rights as married spouses but the legislature intervened to delay its enactment until January 2005. In 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the direction of major Gavin Newsom with almost 8000 people marrying. Later the California Supreme Court annulled all 4000 marriages. San Francisco then began a legal challenge. In 2005, an Act was passed by the legislature which would have recognized same-sex marriage in California but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. He vetoed it again in 2007 saying it was unconstitutional to make the change by legislative action instead of by court decision or vote.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Prop 22 was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution and that same-sex couples had the right to marry. In June, Prop 8 qualified for the November 2008 ballot and the Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry and same-sex couples continued to marry in California.

Prop 8 used the same language as Prop 22 but changed the Constitution instead of incorporating by statute (a statute can be overturned by the state Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment, cannot).

So now we wait for the next move in this ridiculous quest to ensure gay Californians cannot protect their families via marriage. Opponents of Prop 8 said it would “protect children” but what about the children of the same-sex couples who no longer will have two married parents. It is clearly not in the best interest of those children.

The mormon church and other religious institutions spent millions of dollars to pass Prop 8. Clearly, this is in violation of the law and their tax-exempt status should be removed, but that is a whole different blog. They believe that those dollars were best spent on advertising rather than, say, maybe feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. They say it “protects marriage”. I say they should have spent their millions on marriage counselors. That actually might “protect marriage.”

As someone who grew up in California and went to a University of California, I’m gravely disappointed in Californians. Blacks and whites were not allowed to marry legally everywhere in the US until 1967. Just as we look back and see that law as flagrantly racist, history will show this vote to be bigoted, intolerant and hateful.

On “Election-Eve” the Presidential Election Looks Grim for McCain

Tina Righter — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:33:00 GMT

Tomorrow is the big election and it doesn’t appear there is any way Republican candidate John McCain can pull off a win. If we take the CNN electoral map and give all of the undecided states (FL, OH, NC, IN, MO, ND & MT) to McCain, Obama still wins by 44 electoral votes, 291 to 247.

John has proclaimed “the Mac is back” but it doesn’t appear to be mathematically possible, unless the Bradley Effect takes hold. The Bradley Effect is a theory of racism that addresses a significant difference between predictive polls and actual votes cast when whites and blacks run against each other. In 1982 Tom Bradley, an African American, lost the governor’s race in California although polls predicted him to be the favorite. The theory addresses people wanting to hide their racism when asked, but when voting in private, do not vote for a black candidate.

The Republican strategy in these last days before the election is very telling. The McCain campaign has been visiting states that should be firmly in the red, such as: Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. They have also ramped up their spending on advertising, to match that of Obama in key states. A comparison of the current electoral map to that of 2004 is interesting.

Was it a strategic Republican move to deliberately use McCain for this election? Before the Republicans picked a candidate, I had a theory that because of the state of the nation and the current administration’s approval ratings, this years candidate could never win. The Republicans needed to choose someone respectable who would not embarrass the party and who could essentially hold the line, but who had no real future aspirations. McCain was the perfect candidate. Because of his age (now 72), he would not make a viable future candidate, but would show well for the party and give the base a reason to vote so as not to loose too many congressional seats.

Obama has run a shrewd campaign. A relatively unknown candidate, he swiftly put together an organization that beat the Clintons at their own game. His campaign runs as a finely tuned machine and if his presidency is anything like it, this man will unite the nation. At this point, the republicans should be focused on the battle they may still be able to win: not allowing democrats to take a filibuster-proof 60 senate seats.

Palin may not understand the role of a VP but she has great rhythm

Tina Righter — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:48:00 GMT

Sarah Palin was a great sport this week in her appearance on Saturday Night Live. She dances along as a very pregnant Amy Pohler spews forth a rap song of jabs and slams. Highlights include Amy shooting a moose, back-up dancing eskimos and a special guest appearance of a dancing Mr. Palin in his snowmobiling suit. Watch the video and prepare to laugh!

John McCain’s American Icon: Joe the Plumber

Tina Righter — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:04:00 GMT

A man who asked Barack Obama about his tax plan while he was canvassing a neighborhood in Ohio, has had his 15 minutes of fame. “Joe the Plumber” said he was about to buy a business that makes $250,000 to $280,000 per year and Obama would end up “penalizing” him for his hard work and success, with taxes.

In the final presidential debate, McCain made Joe the American symbol who would be hurt by Obama’s tax plan. In the debate, Joe was mentioned by name two dozen times and was subsequently interviewed by Fox News, Good Morning America and others. Joe’s perspective is that Obama’s plan is unfair to hard workers, they should not have to pay three percent more on income over $250,000.

Joe the Plumber is the perfect symbol for McCain: he’s a liar and a hypocrite. Joe’s name is Samuel Wurzelbacher and he is not licensed as a plumber. “Joe” would stand to gain under Obama’s tax plan because he made $40,000 in 2007 and owes $1200 in back taxes. With Obama’s plan he would save $1300 per year, so he would have been able to pay his taxes.
The company he was referring to, actually made $100,000 last year, less than half of what he claimed, and would greatly benefit from Obama’s tax plan. Joe is in no position to buy this company and is struggling so much that he doesn’t pay his taxes. Joe is an Average-Joe and exactly the target Obama is trying to help.

So why would Average-Joe who made less than a sixth of the magic tax increase point of $250,000 be so focused on what his taxes would be once he increased his income by a factor of 6? He says he is focused on the “American Dream” and doesn’t think the tax plan is fair. Luckily, according to Politico.com, Joe is not even registered to vote.

Unconstitutional to Deny Gay Marriage, says Connecticut Supreme Court

Tina Righter — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:04:00 GMT

It is amazing how history repeats itself. Apparently we have discovered yet again, that separate is not equal. The state of Connecticut had previously provided Civil Unions as an option for gay couples but did not allow marriage. That has now changed as the Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision in Kerrigan and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public Health, legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority: “We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm."

Connecticut joins California and Massachusetts as the only three states in the union who provide full marriage benefits without discriminating on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. The three states allow out-of-state couples to wed which introduces legal complexities for citizens of states that have laws prohibiting such actions. In Wisconsin, same sex couples who marry out of state, face fines up to $10,000 and nine months in prison! This is a law from 1915, five years before women had the right to vote and is clearly just as outdated.

In the words of our founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Seems pretty clear to me.

Presidential Debate 2 Fact Check, the Lies Continue

Tina Righter — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:25:00 GMT

With one month until the elections, the gloves have come off and the candidates have resorted to what continues to work: distortions, misleads and outright falsehoods. In the beginning McCain was spewing misinformation but now it seems Obama is catching up with his own distortions.

The non-partisan FactCheck.org put out an immediate accuracy-check on last night’s debate. Watch videocaster Emi Kolowole with the straight story.

Unfortunately, even the courts have ruled it is perfectly legal to lie in politics. A year ago, the Washington State Supreme Court struck down a 1999 law that banned political candidates from intentionally lying about their opponents, saying it was an affront to free speech.

I have talked to countless voters who are still undecided, some who are frustrated and may abstain this year and others who are simply misinformed by clinging to the sound-bites. So how does the average-Joe-low-info voter know who’s lying and how to cast his vote? He doesn’t – and that benefits no one.

VP Debate Report Card on Accuracy: C

Tina Righter — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:43:00 GMT

The VP debates last night didn’t give most Americans the gaffe-fest they were looking for, but the commentary didn’t stay rooted in the facts either.

According to FactCheck.org, the following “facts” were twisted by Palin:

Iraq troop levels have returned to pre-surge levels FALSE
Obama voted to increase taxes on families making $42,000 FALSE
McCains health care plan is budget neutral FALSE
Obama’s plan would increase taxes on millions of small businesses FALSE

The following facts were twisted by Biden:

McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the troop funding bill FALSE
McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the “tax increase on singles making $42,000 FALSE

In addition to the skewed facts above, there was misleading information put out by both candidates. Final grades: Palin C, Biden B. But the American people gave solid feedback that this debate was much better than the Presidential debate last week. Voters noted the candidates were friendly, professional and appeared to be having fun in comparison to the Obama McCain debate. It seems Americans like a spoonful of sugar while they are swallowing their politicians lies.

Senate socks it to the taxpayers - increases $700B by 16%

Tina Righter — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:32:00 GMT

Last night the Senate passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 by 74 to 25. But they added another $110 billion to the price tag to entice the House to pass the bill. There are some good albeit costly provisions but most should disgust American taxpayers!

The FDIC insurance top was increased from $100,000 to $250,000. This is a limit that had not kept with the times and was overdue to be increased. But many tax breaks were included and this may lose democratic votes in the house. It’s hard to comprehend an Emergency Economic Stabilization that substantially increases the deficit with its pork.

Some of the ridiculous items added to tempt the house nay-sayers:

$6 million in excise tax exemptions for wooden arrows added by Oregon Senators to benefit manufacturers in their state (then Senator Wyden voted against it)
$100 million in write-offs to the owners of racetracks
$192 million refund of excise tax to Rum manufacturers
$49 million in taxes stays with the Alaskan plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez litigation
$148 million in duty reductions on wool products for fabric and clothing manufacturers
$478 million in tax deductions to Hollywood film makers to encourage filming in the US

When the economy is the worst our generation has ever seen with tent-cities popping up in places like Reno, unemployment growing, families losing their homes, and most Americans facing the reality of a significantly decreased quality of life, what do our elected officials do? The most powerful people in the country close ranks to ensure the rich get richer in this deal.

Do not underestimate Sarah Palin’s appeal to voters

Tina Righter — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:38:00 GMT

As the VP debate fervor is mounting in anticipation of tomorrow’s entertainment, I think there will be some surprises – namely the result. The media has been spreading anticipation throughout the public around the coming spectacle. People know that Joe Biden has years of experience in politics and Sarah Palin is a newcomer to the national scene. But do not underestimate Palin’s natural appeal.

Let’s face it. Most Americans are low information voters. They don’t spend hours listening to the pundits, many will not have seen or heard the candidate’s speeches and some won’t know where the candidates stand on the issues. Many vote on who they “like” for the job. This is influenced my many things but is always influenced by who the voters think understands (or even shares) their problems and fundamental values.

The biggest voting block in the country is women, yes, the watchers of “The View.” While politicians focused for many years on hiding their flaws and pretending to be the perfect representation of strict moral values in action, Palin steps over these tired hypocrites and puts her unmarried pregnant teen daughter on stage for all to see. She is a proud mother with an imperfect life and ain’t hidin’ it. This appeals to many voters who also have an imperfect life.

Saturday Night Live has been getting more attention than ever by satirizing Palin. Even though the humor may be sharp they hit the nail on the head when they say “it seems when cornered you become increasingly adorable...”

She didn’t know the name of the “Bush Doctrine” and she has no foreign policy experience. Voters don’t care. Just 16 years ago Bush Sr. accused the Governor of Arkansas of having no other international experience outside what he got “at the International House of Pancakes.” Bush may have been right but Clinton still won.

$700 billion Rescue Plan fails, stock market loses twice that value

Tina Righter — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:09:00 GMT

After the financial bailout plan was voted down in the House, the Dow plummeted 777 points. This was the biggest drop in history, larger than the drop after the 9/11 attacks that triggered a closure of the market. This represents a loss of 7% worth about $1,300,000,000,000 (thats $1.3 trillion) which is about twice the cost of the Rescue Plan.

The bill was defeated by a narrow margin, 228 to 205. Two thirds of democrats voted for it and two-thirds of republicans voted against it. However, the McCain campaign is blaming its failure on Obama.

"Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill. ... This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," Doug Holtz-Eakin said, a senior policy adviser for McCain. Yet Obama’s party delivered 140 “yes” votes, while McCain’s delivered 65 “yes” votes.

Congress was warned this would happen but after delaying a week to improve the bill, they failed to pass it. President Bush urged them to move swiftly. McCain stuck his neck out and “suspended his campaign” to drop into Washington and get involved. But even with the republican leadership pleading for action, only the democrats delivered.

Palin resurfaces on SNL, fightin’ terror-lovin’ terrorists

Tina Righter — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:15:00 GMT

Tina Fey does it again. She nails Sarah Palin’s mannerisms in this skit of the Katie Couric Interview. While not as laugh-out-loud funny as her first shot at Palin (you can watch by clicking “monthly archives” 9/14), it’s dead-on target when it comes to Palin’s performance (Couric’s too).

Katie gives her one more chance on foreign policy and realizes “when cornered, she becomes increasingly adorable.” SNL does a good job of getting back on the Repub’s good side, just in case...

The candidates are spreading misinformation --- because it works

Tina Righter — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:42:00 GMT

It is endlessly frustrating to me that the candidates can look at the American people and LIE. I’m not talking about a misspeak or a confused statistic or a slight exaggeration, I’m talking about flat-out deliberate dissemination of misinformation.

Unfortunately, it works. When McCain repeatedly says “Obama will raise taxes on people who make as little as $42,000 per year” in debates, ads and any media-op, the American public begins to believe. It’s not true. FactCheck.org, the nonpartisan, nonprofit, “consumer advocate” for voters, has verified the tax increases are on families making over $250,000. But people remember this claim and believe it.

Obama claims his policy would cut taxes for 95% of Americans. According to FactCheck.org, the figure works out to be 81% of households. Do 95% of people live in these 81% of households? Maybe, but probably not.

While the “whopper-telling tally” seems to show that Obama exaggerates and McCain deliberately misleads, it’s unacceptable. Freedom of speech is one thing but after the “let’s go to war because they have WMDs” debacle, Americans should demand the facts from their candidates.

Politics from the Pulpit, Church vs. IRS

Tina Righter — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:19:00 GMT

This Sunday many pastors have decided to violate IRS rules and endorse specific political candidates from their pulpits. Approximately 30 churches in 22 states will take part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” in an effort to trigger an IRS investigation that they intend to contest in court.

IRS rules provide tax exempt status to non-profit organizations as long as they adhere to restrictions such as not endorsing specific politicians. But some disagree with the constitutionality of this rule. “The IRS does not have the role of censoring speech from the pulpit” said a baptist pastor from Georgia who states he backs McCain for president.

Clergy from fifty-five Christian and Jewish organizations have strongly condemned the initiative and filed a complaint with the IRS. The IRS is aware of the issue and is investigating.

This is clearly not an issue of free speech. The rules only stipulate qualifications for tax-free status, not constitutional rights. Pastors in churches who pay taxes are free to speak on any topic of their choice. The organizers of this “mass violation of federal tax law” may get more than they bargained for. It is a violation of federal rules for tax professionals to advise clients to break the law.

This set of rules has been contested (without success) twice before. In 1992 a New York church lost its tax exempt status for urging its members to vote against Bill Clinton. The precedent is clear but I think this is a great idea. I believe such associations that have extreme influence over members, and do very little charity, are a source of revenue that this nation should not have to do without.