This boy, though only 10, is well, amazing. He outshines millions of adults in this country, that’s for sure. The article makes that point clear:

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

For one thing, he’s smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will’s mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he’s probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair.”

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

Out of the mouths of babes – or a child, in this case. Preach it, Will.

I love how deliberate this child is in his considerations. Again, would that many adults were capable of such rational thought:

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

Ahahahahahahaha. I love that, “with all due respect…” It seems he had been showing her more respect than she was showing him. This was the quintessential “teachable moment,” and this teacher wildly missed the mark.

Well, you know what happened next, as will happen when a child backtalks a teacher (at least in Arkansas):

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He’s not just going to say this because he doesn’t want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will’s refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will’s right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don’t think that’s necessary at this point,’ ” Phillips said.

And why not? In this case, this teacher was wrong, as the principal acknowledged. The issue was one of justice and liberty, again, a great teaching moment for these children. The discussion could have been quite enlightening, but no:

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don’t have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Unfortunately, we we could see that coming, especially from Fifth graders, and other school age children who routinely say, “Oh, that’s so gay.” What am I talking, some teachers do it, too (unfortunately). Still, this young man has some backbone:

Even so, Will said that he can’t foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We’ve told him that people here might not support you, but we’ve shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will’s answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples. What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

Okay who wants Will to run for president in 35 years??? Yeah, me too.

No doubt Thomas Jefferson IS smiling at this wonderful young boy, and I am thankful for parents like the Phillips. We could sure use more like them. We DEFINITELY could use more young people like Will. What a thoughtful, grounded, boy he is. I hope for his sake, for our sake, he will be able to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance before he goes off to college…

There was another election issue on which I wanted to focus instead, and that was the vote in Maine to allow or prohibit Same Sex Marriage. The title of this article pretty much says it all: “Mainers Vote Down Gay Marriage Law“. Dammit.

Here are the particulars:

Maine voters on Tuesday narrowly voted to repeal a law that would have made the state one of a handful that allow same-sex couples to marry.

At 1 a.m., with 87 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, 52.8 percent of Mainers had voted to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law, versus 47.2 percent who voted to keep it.

Yes on 1, which led the people’s veto effort, proclaimed victory at about 12:30 a.m., as supporters gathered on a small stage at the Eastland Park Hotel behind Frank Schubert of Schubert Flint, the public relations firm hired to work on the campaign.

“I am very proud to tell you tonight that Question 1 has passed,” said Schubert. “Thank you so much to the people of Maine. To the thousands of volunteers who have worked day in and day out. It has all come together tonight.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across this nation,” he said, pumping his fist into the air.

Marc Mutty, Stand for Marriage Maine campaign manager, took the podium after Schubert: “What a team we’ve had. We’ve worked hard. We’ve struggled, we’ve worked against tremendous odds, as we’ve all known.

“It’s been the little guy against the big guy in terms of resources, financial resources,” said Mutty. “We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight.”

A prayer followed.

I imagine that prayer went something like this: “Dear Lord, thank you so much for your will being done to subjugate those homosexuals, Lord. We thank you for helping us keep the sanctity of marriage as you meant it to be, one man and one woman, forever and ever. We thank you, dear Lord, for making it clear it is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So, we thank you, Lord, that your will has been done. We thank you, dear Heavenly Father, for the love you have shown us in your son, Jesus. We know that you are love, Lord. We thank you for showing what true love is through us so we can take away rights from other Mainers, as you want us to do. In Jesus’ name we pray…”

Or something like that.

But some Mainers aren’t giving up:

At 12:30 a.m., a defiant Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, spoke to several hundred supporters who lingered at the Holiday Inn By the Bay. Connolly did not concede, saying the campaign always knew the election would be close. Workers would be counting votes all night long, he said.

Connolly said supporters of same-sex marriage would keep fighting and keep working for their cause. “We’re not short-timers, we’re here for the long haul,” he said.

Pollsters and pundits had predicted a thin margin on the state’s same-sex marriage vote, and the results proved them right.

Gov. John Baldacci – who watched returns come in at the No on 1 party – signed the bill into law in May, but opponents of same-sex marriage quickly gathered well more than the 55,000 signatures necessary to call for a public vote.

Maine would have been the sixth state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, and New Hampshire’s new law will take effect in January.

Five states out of fifty. That’s it. Just five that recognize our being fully human and thus deserving of all rights bestowed upon heterosexual couples.

As indicated above, in addition to religion, there were other issues that prompted the outcome of this vote:

The fight over the issue touched on religion, civil rights, schools, sexuality and family.

The two campaigns spent more than $7 million, with same-sex marriage supporters outspending opponents. Both sides said the vote will have national implications that will influence future same-sex marriage battles in other states.

The crowd at the No on 1 party was several times larger and louder than the competition. In the lobby outside the ballroom, Roger and Peggy Marchand of Gorham set up cardboard cutouts of male and female couples and brought along their camera for those who wanted to get a snapshot.

“We have high hopes,” Roger Marchand said.

While gay-marriage supporters have had success in New England and Iowa in the last five years, most of the country still opposes same-sex marriage. Nationwide, 30 states – including California – have voted to ban it.

Oh, that just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside as I consider that the vast majority of my fellow citizens think so little of me, my partner, and millions of other GLBT people in this country.

As for how Maine got to this place:

The push to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine began in January, when hundreds of activists gathered at the State House to announce that Sen. Dennis Damon, D-Trenton, would sponsor a bill to change the definition of marriage.

The bill defined marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people” rather than “the union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage,” a definition put in place by the Legislature in 1997.

It allowed any two people to apply for a marriage license “regardless of the sex of each person.” And, finally, it allowed religious institutions to refuse to perform same-sex marriage if it is not consistent with their beliefs.

When the bill was introduced, Baldacci, a Catholic Democrat, said he was unsure whether he would support it. He had previously been on record as supporting civil unions but not gay marriage.

In April, more than 3,000 people came to the Augusta Civic Center for a 10-hour public hearing on the measure. Supporters said the change was necessary to give gay and lesbian families access to more than 400 state laws pertaining to marriage, including health insurance through a spouse and tax benefits. They said a separate civil union law would not be equal.

Opponents said it was important to keep the traditional definition of marriage, arguing that it is better for society and children to have a mother and a father.

Six days later, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted in support of the bill.

House and Senate votes quickly followed, with final Senate approval at 21-13 and House approval at 89-57.

The same day the Senate took the final vote, Baldacci signed the bill into law, saying “times have changed.”

As Baldacci announced his decision, cheers of joy could be heard coming from the hallway outside his office, where gay and lesbian couples gathered to await his decision.

But, as they celebrated, opponents expressed their disappointment and vowed to gather the signatures necessary for a people’s veto of the law.

Less than three months later, opponents turned in more than 100,000 signatures to the state calling for a vote.

The law was put on hold pending the outcome of Tuesday’s election.

At the No on 1 party Tuesday night, optimism had prevailed earlier in the night. The No on 1 campaign had led in early returns.

Eigen Heald of Portland said she’s been with her partner for 22 years.

“My toes are curling,” she said. “It would be really nice to be married in Maine.”

James White, 31, of Berwick, who was at the No on 1 party , said he was “very emotional.”

“It’s our time,” he said. “It’s our moment.”

Staff Writer Jenn Menendez contributed to this report. Reach Susan Cover at 620-7015 or at scover@centralmaine.com

Sadly, no, no it is not “our moment.” Not in Maine, anyway. It makes me emotional, too, both sad and angry at the same time. I guess the lesbian and gay couples there will have to continue to live without more than FOUR HUNDRED benefits extended to heterosexual couples.

I cannot leave it there, though. That would simply be too depressing. While Mainers may have voted to continue to discriminate against GLBT people, there is some good news. And here is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to bring it to you:

This left my partner and me arguing over who loves her more. It’s me, I’m telling you!

Secretary Clinton gives me hope that one day, my partner and I will have the same rights and benefits as everyone else, over 1,000 federal benefits, even as another state votes against us, robbing a number of their citizens of over 400 rights enjoyed by others in that state. Some day. But not today.

And if you go to the website for HCAN, check out their “Mobilization” section. It’s an eye-opener, especially in light of the charges hurled at those with questions about Health Care Reform.

Now, why do I bring this up? Don’t they have every right to be present at these meetings? Of course they do, if it is THEIR representative’s meeting. And if they want to make sure their side of the issue s represented. But to silence other people who are not there to disrupt the meeting, and who simply want to ask questions? Well, seems to me that they are doing what Rep. Pelosi accused others of doing in this clip:

And we cannot forget this one, too:

This is our Speaker of the House, the third in succession to the Presidency. Holy canoli. That is scary. One of the top Democrats who don’t understand what it means to live in a democracy. Yikes. I wonder what she will say about the practices of HCAN to drown out anyone who tries to ask a question of their elected official? Yeah, I think we know.

Well, at least ONE person in government has it right:

True that, at least last time I checked, though the way this Congress is going, who knows for how long that might be true?

And it is no surprise that Hillary Clinton is the one saying it. Clinton is most definitely a true patriot, and appreciates the rights and liberties with which we are endowed. It’s a shame too many Democrats have forgotten that…

Check out what happened to one such “lunatic”:

You can see why he needed to be escorted out by Security. Ahem. He wanted to know if someone there was actually from NH. And the man escorted out is a retired police officer.

Oh, didn’t you also like her snide comment to him about her hope that a movie theater would be quieter?

And here is another one of her rabid constituents, who recounts his attempts to get ANY information from her office about upcoming events:

Wow. Way to represent your people, Rep. Shea-Porter. She has some major short-term memory loss it would seem. Or is as clear an example as anyone could want that power corrupts. Maybe both.

Do you think she knows that people voted her in, and they can vote her out?

This really is quite sad if you think about it (on a number of levels). That someone who regularly exercised her right to protest, including against the President of the United States, has now become someone who will not tolerate even the slightest dissent in the form of a question. In four years since she was elected she has done this turnabout. It really makes you wonder – which one was the real person, the one who protested, or the one who removes protesters?

In any event, I reckon her constituents are going to have the opportunity to let her know just how they feel about her treatment of them in a few short months. Yep. Perhaps by then, she will have realized maybe she shouldn’t have treated them like a disposable commodity. Time will tell.

Here we are with yet another Bush-era policy Barack “Vote For Me Because I Am Not Bush” Obama:

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search — without suspicion of wrongdoing — the contents of a traveler’s laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers’ laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.

But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.

“It’s a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people’s laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever.”

Why, yes – it is “disappointing.” WTH with these groups who always use that word when Obama retains yet another egregious Bush program. “Disappointing.” Uh, yeah. That’s one (incredibly lame) word for it:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday framed the new policy as an enhancement of oversight. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” she said in a statement. “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

For instance, searches conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers should now generally take no more than 5 days, and no more than 30 days for searches by Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents. The directives also require for the first time that automated tools be developed to ensure the reliable tracking of statistics relating to searches, and that audits be conducted periodically to ensure the guidelines are being followed, officials said.

Did I read that right? 5 days and 30 days?? That’s supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT? Holy freakin’ smokes!!

Some people are happy with it, though:

Such measures drew praise from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who called the new policy “a major step forward,” and from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who introduced legislation this year to strengthen protections for travelers whose devices are searched.

And these are our representatives. That’s just jake.

Others, those who actually care about the Constitution, for example, aren’t quite so upbeat about it:

But the civil liberties community was disappointed.

“Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence — all without any suspicion of illegal activity,” said Elizabeth Goitein, who leads the liberty and national security project at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself “broke sharply” with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.

Jack Riepe, spokesman for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, said the guidelines “still have many of the inherent weaknesses” of the Bush-era policy.

Between October 2008 and Aug. 11, more than 221 million travelers passed through CBP checkpoints. About 1,000 laptop searches were performed, only 46 in-depth, the DHS said.

Once again, I am SO “disappointed” to have my civil liberties curtailed. Sheesh. Seriously, people, there are stronger terms for having our Constitution dismantled by The One over whom you ooh-ed! and ah-ed! as such a great Constitutional Scholar, and the Anti-Bush. All I can say is, perhaps you wouldn’t have experienced this “disappointment” had you bothered to actually listen to what he man said (remember the return to Bush I’s foreign policy? How about voting for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill?) or what he did (remember that FISA vote? Yeah, you were “disappointed” then, too.). So many examples, so little time. The point is, had your eyes been open instead of closed as you swayed in rapture to the tones of The One and TOTUS, perhaps you wouldn’t be oh-so-surprised by this.

The rest of us aren’t.

White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase

See?? Doesn’t that make everything make more sense? It sure does for me…

But what isn’t a joke is this recent revelation: “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control Of Internet” (h/t to Mary Ellen, aka, Nunly, for this). Yep, you read that right – Obama wants to be able to control the “internets” when he deems it necessary. Oh, I WISH this was an Onion piece too, but no:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Isn’t this just such a comfort to you? Yeah, me, too:

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (”Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity (sic) perspective.”

Uh huh. Um, does it bother anyone else – besides us, that is – that Obama is the biggest micromanager on the face of the planet, especially since he is the most inexperienced leader on the face of the planet? Hey, I’m just asking here…

One last thing:

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.

Oh, yippee!! Doesn’t the thought of Obama taking over the internet make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? I know it does me. I just hope it doesn’t happen when he has one of his mood swings…

The title of this CBS News article gives a good indication of just ONE of the issues about which we should be concerned, Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data. Yep. Sets the stage for what we can expect from this Congress, doesn’t it?

Let’s just see what our elected officials are trying to pull over on us, the ones who swore to uphold the Constitution, and to act as our representatives. There are some real doozies :

One of the problems with any proposed law that’s over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats’ proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as “Obamacare.” (Here’s our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it.

Wow. I trust you see what the glaring issue is right off the bat with this, right? Consider this:

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: “How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee…. So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years.”

I’m not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy’s Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed — and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans — is at least as important as fretting about Facebook’s privacy policy in Canada.)

I, for one, have no problems seeing the wide scope of concerns, of privacy violations, that Giovanetti does, but then again, this past election has made me a bit cynical. I am willing to admit that, but a concern it very much is regardless of the scope.

Another way to look at the level of government intrusion is this:

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the “utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014,” but included only limited privacy protections.

It’s true that if the legislative branch chooses to create “affordability credits,” it probably makes sense to ensure they’re not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

If we’re going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats’ current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn’t. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: “We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies.” EPIC still hasn’t updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it’s good to know that other folks have concerns too. (Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com.)

Why, yes – it is good that other people are concerned that our privacy is ripe for violation by government employees! Most definitely, there should be a BIG, THICK line to protect our privacy from government intrusion.

And it begs the question: why, WHY, would our elected officials want to violate our privacy, going between agencies, looking at our health records and our financial records without our knowledge or PERMISSION? Who dreamed this one up? I’m not an attorney, but I do think a case could be made that this attempt by Congress to gain access to our private records is a violation of our Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Yep, “the devil is in the details,” and this bill is chock full of the little fellas.

You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right – 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least – that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

Was I ever misled by my civics teachers and the Bill of Rights itself! Thank heavens we have two Democrats, the top two in Congress, mind you, to set us straight (so to speak) on that misunderstanding.

Yes, indeedy, Pelosi and Hoyer call protesters of the Health Care Bill “Un-American” in a USA Today op-ed. How do you like them apples?

Here’s a video discussing their charge:

Evidently, neither one of these alleged Democrats has read word one by Thomas Jefferson or any other of our Founders who, themselves, rebelled against their government. Here’s a little reminder Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer: This country was founded by people rebelling and revolting against their own government because of its abuses of them.

Oh, wait – the phone is ringing, and it’s for you – it’s from the Get A Clue Department suggesting you get one.

The father of a handicapped child tried to ask his representative a question about how the Health Care plan will do away with any care for his son. Wait until you hear what happened to him:

Can you believe that? He had someone show up in the dead of night to deliver a “message” to him and his wife, terrifying them. Read that again: he had someone show up in the dead of night to deliver a “message” to him for speaking up for his son, and asking a question of his representative.

Wow. Which country is this again?

Well, you’ll be glad to know that political pundit, Michael Barone, has cleared up the record – it is NOT “Un-American” to protest against one’s government:

This is, by far and wide, my FAVORITE sentence in the entire video: “Kinda ridiculous for a former Community organizer to denounce community organizing…” Uh, yeah.

And I am relieved, too. As someone who has been in her fair share of protests, being photographed by the F.B.I. for participation in some of them, I am relieved to hear that our Democratic leaders have it all wrong. That we do, in fact, have the right to protest, to ask our representatives to answer to US, to make policies that benefit US, and that is what being an American MEANS, Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer. How in the world can you possibly not know that, given your positions, and the very name of your party?? Dang. I tell you what – here’s a link to the Bill of Rights. Maybe you oughta take a little look-see and refresh your memories of just what it our Constitution actually says, especially since you swore to uphold it. I’m just sayin’.

Oh, one last right in there I should point out: we have the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And that’s just what we are doing. You can’t get more AMERICAN than that.

UPDATE: I had the story below ready to publish since I need to leave, but ran across this video from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show last night. So I’m adding this video without accompanying text because Maddow does such a great job of explaining not only Obama’s failure to live up to his campaign promises but also another instance of Obama’s thwarting of legislation to end “don’t ask don’t tell”:

Amy has found that Obama’s failure to issue an executive order (”stop loss”) or direct Congress has led to 230 service members being kicked out of the military under the policy since Obama took office. Despite Obama’s aversion to “hot button” issues, action may be taken soon. Following Congress’s August recess, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on “don’t ask don’t tell.” A member of the committee, Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s seat, is the force behind the push for Congressional action and convinced Chair Carl Levin to hold the hearing.

“Morning Meeting” devoted a full-panel segment to getting rid of “don’t ask don’t tell” and joining all of our allies in permitting gays to serve openly in the military. During the “Meeting” segment, the most clear, “let’s cut to the chase” advocate for permitting gays to serve in the military was the reserved-looking, older Gen. Barry McCaffrey (retired), an analyst for NBC and MSNBC News. (See the MSNBC.com bio of Gen. McCaffrey. The photo is from Wikipedia’s bio.)

There’s no video of the segment so I transcribed what Gen. McCaffrey said: “Whether the military wants to do it or not is irrelevant. The question is: Is private consensual homosexual behavior legal or not? The Supreme Court seems to have said a decade ago that states couldn’t pass laws affecting private consensual homosexual behavior.”

Gen. McCaffrey stated firmly that Congress “ought to step up to it” and change the law. The rest of Morning Meeting panel also said that Obama shouldn’t bother with a “stop loss” order (a half-measure), and instead demand that Congress change the law.

Of course, as Reverend Amy has told us, Obama is ducking the issue despite his campaign promises, and has taken no action of any kind.

Why Obama is so wary of the issue is unclear (unless it’s to appease his ultra-religious, vociferously anti-gay constituencies, including his old Chicago minister pals like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Rev. Otis Moss, and Rev. James Meeks). Obama’s reticence can’t be due to voters’ attitudes since “Morning Meeting” noted that a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans approve of allowing gays to serve freely in the military.

Included early in the segment was Dr. Nathaniel Franken, author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America” (Kindle edition). Dr. Franken pointed out that, under the current “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, over 13,000 service members have been discharged, including 1,000 “mission critical specialists,” 300 linguists and 60 Arab linguists.

“This is a national security emergency. It’s not just a gay rights issue. And President Obama does have the power to issue an executive order,” Dr. Franken continued. (Read more about Dr. Franken’s views in Amy’s June post.)

The “Morning Meeting” panelists concurred that if Obama is going to “take a hit” for issuing a stop-loss executive order, he might as well go all the way and compel Congress to enact a law to do away with discrimination against gays. But Obama hasn’t done a thing so far and shows no signs of taking actions.

In Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy’s story, “Stop Making Excuses For This Guy!!,” she takes on the gays who are still backing Obama:

Repeal the law – it cannot POSSIBLY take that long. Like I said, look how fast Obama got some other things done he wanted done. If he wanted this law repealed already, he would have. Rather, Obama chose to not even weigh in on this to the Supreme Court. LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the rhetoric!

Here’s the bottom line to the LGBT community: STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY. Stop humiliating yourselves hoping, crossing your fingers, and wishing that Obama is going to do right by you because he said he would, or because you think he’s “dreamy.” Had you opened your eyes and paid attention to his actions (or lack thereof) over the course of his political career, or the people with whom he chooses to surround himself, you wouldn’t have picked the guy you thought was “cool.” You would have supported the person who has stood with YOU for years. But you didn’t. And here we are, no farther along for it.

Aren’t you TIRED of begging for the crumbs to drop from the table?? Aren’t you ready to be a guest at the table, where you belong?? All the excuses in the world for Obama do nothing but let him off the hook, and diminish YOU. Seriously, you, we, deserve better. Deep down inside, you must know that is true. At least I HOPE you do…

U.S. allies openly permit gays to serve in their armed forces. Via AOL News:

Check out more of Amy’s posts:

• “Soldiers and WORMS” [WORM stands for "What Obama Really Meant."]

• “And The Hits Just Keep On Coming” (which links to even more posts)

• “Passing the Buck“

This section from “Passing the Buck,” exposes the real Obama:

Once again, Obama has found a way to NOT let the buck stop with him – he is proving to be quite adept at finding a way to not take a stand on stands he has previously taken. I know – it makes my head hurt, too, but that’s the reality of it. The title of this article really says it all: Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military. Uh, yeah. You may recall that I wrote just recently about the Army Arabic linguist, Lt. Dan Choi, and his plea to Obama to not fire him from the Army (“Freedom’s Just Another Word…”).

Well, get this:

The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military’s ban on service members found to be gay.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn’t be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.

The move comes as President Barack Obama attempts a balancing act on gay rights. He was elected with strong support from the gay community and promised action on a number of issues. But mindful of the complex politics, the White House has moved slowly.

Um, no – a glacier moves slowly. Obama hasn’t moved at all: … (Read all.)

Um, no – a glacier moves slowly. Obama hasn’t moved at all:

Amy, you crack me up even while you’re talking about a truly serious story that affects national security because the military is dismissing desperately needed Arab linguists and other “mission critical specialists.”

Since 2/3rds of the American people back the open inclusion of gays in the military, this action is not hazardous politically and should be taken care of right away. Get with the program, President Obama.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:

Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Post note: If we did it again, women would be on the team!

Oh, boy. Well, Obama recently showed his true colors on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (see this, this, and this) and he has REALLY shown them on “DOMA” (Defense of Marriage Act). I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but hey – it IS Pride month, after all, and what better time to stab a community in the back than the month you proclaim for them? At least that seems to be Obama’s Opposite World logic.

Before I go any further, let me just say, for the gazillionith time: I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. All of us who didn’t just blow off his anti-gay associates, those of us who saw his saying one thing and doing another, without making excuses (”well, yes, I am disappointed, but…” Those of us who paid attention to his close associates KNEW this was coming. Once again, for all of you groups who supported Obama, who just KNEW he was going to bring Hope! and Change! on his little Rainbow Unicorn Pony, thus throwing the rest of us to the curb, I freakin’ told you so.

John Aravosis, lays it all out in this article, “Obama Defends DOMA In Federal Court.” Here’s a little taste of it:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

Yep. Pretty much. But we already knew that, didn’t we? When the military will gladly take people, check that – heterosexual people – with criminal records over keeping West Point grads, I think the message is clear.

I am disgusted beyond belief. Not surprised, mind you, just disgusted. And angry.

There’s more, as this article highlights, “Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act.” Make sure you check out the powerful photo in this one:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed “we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” which says states are not required to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a “valid exercise of Congress’ power” that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state “shall be required” to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any “right or claim arising from such relationship.”

“Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” would be appropriate here, IF we weren’t talking about people’s LIVES. And that’s what makes this so egregious. Still disgusted beyond belief, but this time, not only with Obama, but these groups who jumped on his little American Idol bandwagon, lapping up his Teleprompter “Words, just words.” And that’s JUST what they were – words. The actions are telling the tale, and it ain’t good.

And in a related case, the DOJ weighs in on a related case, “DOJ Moves To Dismiss First Fed Gay Marriage Case“:

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on “whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

Oh, yes – he is SUCH a friend to the LGBT community – in Opposite World, that is. And this kind of backtracking, bamboozling, bullshit from Obama is precisely why I told the HRC guy who called me the other day to get me to reinstate my membership that there was no way in hell I would do that after the HRC supported Obama, and not HRC (you know, as in Hillary). He kept telling me that Obama SAID he was going to this, and Obama SAID he was going to do that. I told him Obama could say whatever he WANTED, but the fact remained he had done NOTHING yet, and his history led me to believe he wouldn’t. I just didn’t realize that in one week – within a couple of days of each other – that Obama would prove me right. And not just that he wasn’t going to do anything, but he did WORSE than that, screwing us six ways to Sunday. What I told this man at HRC as I got off the phone was, “Obama is no friend to the GLBT community.” Talk about an understatement.

Once again, I say that anyone who thought for one skinny second that Obama was going to do anything at all positive for the GLBT community was deluding themselves so they could vote for the one everyone said was the cool kid, the popular guy, the one whose razor thin resume would have been laughed at except for his marketing team who billed no experience, and no qualifications, as the Change We NEED!! Well, this is change alright, but I sure as hell don’t need it, and frankly, I resent all of those people who mindlessly voted for this man, who attacked all of us who didn’t buy his hooey from the get-go, all those people who called (and still call) us racists, and on and on and on because we didn’t swallow the Kool Aide.

So, during this Pride Month, let me just say, thanks shitloads for giving us this guy who is taking us back, no, legislating us back into the closet (a little poetic license – you know what I mean). Yep – thanks a whole lot for a whole lot of grief.

Now – what are you gonna DO about it???

At my most recent post about Secretary Clinton providing full benefits to the GLBT Diplomat Corp, faithful No Quarter reader, Mountaires, had a comment which included the following video from the Rachel Maddow Show. As you know, and as I have mentioned a number of times, Rachel Maddow, and her network, MSNBC, were very blatantly, and obviously, in the tank for Obama (there are too many examples to go into right now – do a search here, or No Quarter, or Goodsearch.com – you will get hits, I promise). That should convey to you just how incredibly serious what she says is – she is a HUGE Obama supporter (or was – who knows now). And what Obama wants to do next should scare the bejesus out of everyone in this country. It is his further dismantling of our Constitution, and our democracy. And what it is staggers the mind:

I have no words for this. Oh, wait – yes I do. For Obama to give this speech in which he is taking away rights GUARANTEED by the Constitution of the United States (right to a speedy trial, to not be held without charges) is criminal.

I was wrong, though. Obama is not another Bush, he is WORSE than Bush. I didn’t think that was possible, but there it is, from his very own lips – he is actively working to take away our rights. This is shocking beyond belief. I can’t wait to hear how the Obama minions will defend THIS.

I don’t know how anyone can watch the above video and not be both sickened and infuriated. It’s bad enough that, every day for 18 years, this man had to live a lie and keep a secret — that dishonesty and subterfuge are ruthlessly demanded. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was coerced into living a lie.

It’s further sickening that all of his efforts for 18 years — including his heroism — are for naught. Thank god he has the courage to speak the truth in a quite remarkable interview with Rachel Maddow.

It’s sad, pathetic really, that so many gays believed Obama’s campaign promises of doing something about “don’t ask don’t tell.” But as with so many campaign promises, it was all just talk.

MSNBC reports:

May 19: Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was an 18-year veteran of the Air Force, and an F-15 fighter pilot. He still would be, but the Air Force fired him because he revealed he was gay. Rachel Maddow is joined by Fehrenbach, who is now fighting to keep his job.