POWER CORRUPTS?

Old wisdom, or senile stupidity, has it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now when it comes to absolute power corrupting, I agree if discussing the corruption level of religious leaders who always assume the power and absolute infallibility of the man-made god or prophet of their chosen human engineered religion. I find no ethically corrosive component to power, just the people who wield it. Having power, actually the use of power, and there is a vast difference between the two, act more as an ethical back lighting on a rheostat, the more power you use the more it lights up and stands out from the background. People, right or wrong, are always true to themselves, their core ethics and beliefs; and be sure that there is no direct correlation between the core values and the espoused values among politicians or religious leaders. people do not change, what changes is how much the real core beliefs in action are in plain view for all to see. Consider how often you hear the neighbors, friends, co-workers, and family say of serial killers/rapists or mass murderers , 'he/she was just an average church going family guy/gal I just can not imagine him/her doing anything like this'. The person has not changed, in the same way you can not be hypnotized into doing something you would other wise not do, the difference is a change in the threshold of inhibition and practicality. The same does not apply religious/cult brainwashing; remember the only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of economic, political and social power they have, all the current major and minor religions in the world today began as anti-establishment cults persecuted until they had grown their economic,political and social power to the point that they could do the persecuting; where the ethical/moral definitions and required action/reaction to ethical/moral interpretation or disagreement are changed through indoctrination. An increase in power affords more opportunity to act on a 'to do list' that was previously impractical or unattainable not unthinkable or undesirable. All this bring me to what seem to be previously less active/acted upon aspects of the Obama agenda being moved in to brighter light of public/media scrutiny. Beginning on day one with the so called 'inclusive' act of having one of the most rabid homophobic attack dogs of the Christian Taliban, Rick Warren a potential criminal for violations of the laws prohibiting the use of church monies, property, or resources for political purposes and politicking from the pulpit for supporting California's Prop *; give an invocation during the Presidential Inauguration, the same kind of necessary desirable 'inclusiveness' as a KKK color guard at a White House Martin Luther King Memorial. This act of blatant homophobic endorsement gave Rick Warren enhanced status for his political agenda and no doubt enhanced his fund raising for future hate activities against Gays. There was the last minuet addition of the token Gay Anglican minister, obviously a back of the hand acknowledgement of the Gay money, work, and votes that helped Obama into the White House. It was also a perfectly predictable shame how the 'Gay' religious figure's invocation just happened to not be aired and was re-shown at the end of the Inauguration when with everyone leaving it would be unnoticed and unremarkable. And why does Obama insist on maintaining the Bush legalization of discrimination and proselytizing by Faith Based organizations receiving Federal tax dollars, none of which come from any religious organization, in clear violation of the legal restrictions incumbent upon any other recipient of Federal funding? For all the good Faith Based Organizations may do all that the Federal funds do is to free up these members of the Christian Taliban of America to use more of their monies for illegal political activities and promote discrimination and intolerance; which I am sure was Bush's reason, what is Obama's? Obama has said that he does not believe in 'Gay Marriage'. Wow! Until 1967 the United States Supreme Court and America did not believe in the marriage of Obama's parents, interracial was illegal in many states, could and did get people killed. Well I guess that nothing proves that your minority has achieved major civil rights quite like being able to step on the necks of another minority and prevent their realization of the same rights; just look at the percentage of African-American voters, 70% that voted to strip Gays of the right to marry that they already had in California! Obama campaigned on 'America as a nation of the rule of law with no one above the law', Ha! at present the Obama administration is not only protecting Bush and Cheney and their minions from investigation and criminal prosecution for war crimes, crimes against against humanity, abuse of power, criminal violations and assaults on the U.S. Constitution, criminal violations of U.S. laws, criminal violations of Treaties and Accords to which the Unite States of America is both author and signatory, but is also expanding legal protection for some. Obama campaigned against the illegal wiretaps of the Bush regime and now he and his 'Justice' department are not only defending their legality but expanding the scope of protection for what was done and those who did it. The Obama Justice Department, as in a departure from justice, is using the exact Bush bullshit 'national security' to protect those who tortured, those who ordered the torture and those who lied up fake legal get out of jail free opinions; this is particularly appalling given that 'just following orders', 'just giving the orders for but not actually doing', and 'creating spurious legal justifications for crimes' are all things for which the U.S.A. has already investigated, prosecuted, and convicted both American citizens and the citizens of other countries. The use of the legal arguments and tactics of the Bush injustice department yields two results, the criminals are protected and the Civil and Human rights of Americans and others are nullified, you do not actually have a right if the government can prevent you from exercising that right in a court of law, and that is just exactly what Obama and his injustice department are doing by by claiming ' national security' and their new broader immunity from law suits regarding torture, illegal surveillance, etc. Obama, the Constitutional Law Professor, surely knows he is legalizing, protecting, and expanding the power grabs and crimes of the Bush-Cheney regime; to what ends I shudder to think! Why did Obam lie about lobbyists in the White House? Why did Obama lie about funding the wars above board and then do a Bush special? All of the whys and wherefores I am sure will be figured out too late, and will in no way bode well for the civil rights and liberties of Americans. And it is a truly sad when the American people can not depend on the President of the United States of America to 'protect and defend' the Constitution of the United States of America, their laws, civil rights and intenational legal obligationd but must instead depend on a Spanish prosecutor to stand up fot them!