But then, my fellow NQ writer/friend, LisaB, alerted me to a story I missed in my own home town paper while I was out of town, which she found at Michell Malkin’s site. Now, you may recall that I have no love lost for this man who repeatedly stabbed the Clintons in the back before our primary last year, painting them as racists for stating actual facts (like that it takes a president to sign a bill into law - one would THINK a US Representative would be aware of that, but apparently, Rep. Clyburn does not know that). So, I was not at all surprised that he claimed in a recent Post and Courier article that Michelle Obama won’t come to SC because we’re all a bunch of racists and too hostile. Oh, how I wish I was making this up:

U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Friday that a conversation with White House staff left him with the sense that a hostile environment in South Carolina is keeping the first lady from visiting.

The high-ranking South Carolina Democrat said he has received more than 100 invitations for Michelle Obama. But this summer when he brought one of those requests to her staff on behalf of his alma mater, South Carolina State University, Clyburn said her security was an issue.

The conversation came after former Richland County GOP activist Rusty DePass suggested on Facebook in June that an escaped zoo gorilla was not harmful because it was probably one of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors. DePass’ comment was coupled with a remark in July from U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican. DeMint said that beating the president’s health care plan would be a ‘Waterloo’ moment for Obama.

Congressman Joe Wilson’s ‘You lie!’ outburst during Obama’s joint address on health care reform last month didn’t help either, Clyburn said.

‘A lot of it has to do with the fact that the climate in South Carolina just is not good, and that’s a shame,’ Clyburn said at a roundtable discussion at his Columbia office.

‘I do believe it is keeping her away from this state,’ he said.

The congressman said the first lady’s family connections in South Carolina and her fond childhood memories from Georgetown County left many excited at the possibility that the Obamas would vacation on the coast here. Her security must be guaranteed before that could happen, Clyburn said.

DePass said Clyburn’s comments were off base.

‘The idea that people in South Carolina are hostile to the Obamas is poppycock,’ he said. ‘That’s utterly ridiculous.’

I concur. Just more race baiting from Rep. Clyburn. Oh, I am so proud that he speaks for me - NOT. But there’s more:

DePass apologized before the South Carolina Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for his Facebook comment, and reiterated that apology

Friday. He also said that his history with the Republican Party included reaching out to minority voters and trying to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse dome.

Wilson’s office also said Clyburn was wrong.

‘Congressman Wilson respectfully disagrees with Congressman Clyburn’s assumption,’ Wilson spokesman Ryan Murphy said in a statement. ‘He believes the people of South Carolina would welcome the president and the first lady should they decide to visit our great state.’

Neither the first lady’s press office nor the Secret Service provided comment for this story. DeMint’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pat Caddell of Hanahan, an expert on public opinion polls and a Democratic strategist, said South Carolina surely has racists among its residents, but racism isn’t the prevailing sentiment. ‘The Democratic Party will blow itself up if it keeps assigning things as racist,’ Caddell said. (Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-926-7855 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.)

Sigh. I have to tell you, I am pretty damn sick and tired of being called a racist because I live in South Carolina for starters, but for any, ANY, questioning of President Obama’s policies (or lack thereof). For Rep. Clyburn to claim that the First Lady isn’t coming here, even though she has FAMILY here, because it’s “hostile” just makes me, well, “hostile!”

I had to read some of the comments at the end of the article to see what some of my fellow Palmetto State residents had to say. Three in particular caught my attention. The first is obviously in response to another comment:

treasured wrote:

regulardude…Please give us a break!

Was Obama’s negative remarks about the US to other countries patriotic?You get respect when respect is earned.

Just because he is the President does not mean that we have to agree with him and like you, we can voice our opinions and our concerns.

There have been many concerns about this President and they have not just been from SC.You are just reading articles from a SC paper.What is the difference in your remarks accusing us of not respecting the President and you obviously not respecting your own state that you insist on living in?Must be something you like about it.

I have grown children and I have a young child. As it stands right now, they and their children will have to pay back for many years all the money that Obama has dished out in his so called stimulus plans.

Now, if you want to sing his praises, well and good, but don’t call the rest of us unpatriotic if we don’t agree with what he is doing.That is our right as Americans.

And this one:

caberchucker wrote:
Yeah, that makes sense that she’s “scared” of the hostility in SC. Oh wait, didn’t the Obamas and Oprah have to move their rally to USC’s stadium while campaigning, so they could accomidate all the people? Nevermind, I guess that never actually happened.

Uh yeah, evidently not.

And finally, this one, which I think really hits at the core of this charge by Rep. Clyburn:

wonderdog wrote:
Clyburn is embarrassed because he got snubbed by the Obamas, so he made up this nonsense to make it appear that it’s somebody’s fault. If he can get enough people to buy into that BS, maybe he can convince himself, too.

Now that the Obamas have no more use to them after he played his role as patsy during the campaign, why should they deign to do anything that might help him in some way? But yes, so much easier - for Rep. Clyburn, that is - to blame it on the very people who sent him to D.C. Nice, really nice. Can’t wait to see what he calls us next!

Wow, right?

And the following article is by the guy who interrupted President Clinton, Lane Hudson:

Why I Interrupted Bill Clinton’s Speech at Netroots Nation

I love Bill Clinton, but we all make mistakes. Sometimes we even are forced to do things we don’t want to. That’s why I was prepared to ask Bill Clinton a tough question last night as he delivered the opening keynote address at Netroots Nation 2009.

But it became clear there would be no questions. As I sat in the audience thinking about how Netroots Nation is about celebrating the most open forum of discussion ever to exist, it occurred to me that we were nothing more than a captive audience being talked to. One way communication was NOT what we were there to celebrate and advance.

As I considered this, I turned to my friend who had helped to formulate the question I wanted to ask and said, “I might just yell something out.” I couldn’t believe I said it. I mean, blogging and speaking my mind is one thing, but to yell it out in a large public forum to a former President of the United States is quite another.

He talked about a new progressive era and how America has changed. Yet, there was no reflection on how that change could undo some big mistakes from his Presidency. So, at the point that he said, “We need an honest, principled debate”, I knew I had to try to stimulate the discussion. So, I stood and said, “Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Right now?”

That was some move on his part, though I kinda wonder about his characterization of President Clinton’s speech, and if it was listed as a speech, or as a Q&A. I’m just saying. But still, this is rather surprising:

The immediate response shocked me at the time and still does. Those surrounding me yelled at me, booed, and told me to sit down. One elderly lady even told me to leave. While I was among the supposed most progressive audience in the country, they sought to silence someone asking a former President to speak out on behalf of repealing two laws that TOOK AWAY RIGHTS OF A MINORITY. I was shocked.

The immediate Twitter stream with the hashtag #NN09 was not much different. I sent out a few tweets and once people who knew me saw it was me and that I was asking Clinton to call for repeal of those two discriminatory laws, there was plenty of support. Thanks y’all! Here is a link to the video. I’ll let you judge for yourselves the reaction of the audience (I especially LOVE the “I love you Bill!!!” while he was justifying DADT.)

What happened that was really important, however, is that President Clinton did address the issues that I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have without my forcing the conversation. Of course, he started with a strident defense of how DOMA and DADT went down on his watch. But, I already knew that story. It was the present that I cared about, not the past.

Thankfully, he got around to the present. He made the strongest objection to DADT he has ever made to the best of my knowledge. He clearly called for the policy being changed. On DOMA, he spent much less time, but lamented its passage and doing a half-hearted kind of call for repeal, “I don’t like the DOMA”.

It’s not spectacular, but it’s progress.

Well, Clinton’s “half-hearted kind of call for repeal” is a HELLUVA lot more than Mr. Hudson will get from President Obama. But hey, why quibble, right? Ahem. Mr. Hudson continues:

Too often, we don’t challenge people to admit mistakes. Too often we hold idols up to a place they don’t deserve. Like I said, I love Bill Clinton, but we all make mistakes and live in a less than perfect world. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for the perfect.

He mentioned in his speech that he admired that we bloggers could speak our mind. That’s what I did. In today’s world, a former President that has now said he supports marriage equality should find it easy to say without equivocation that he supports repealing two discriminatory laws that he felt he had no choice but to sign into law. He didn’t do that, but he needs to.

So, to the folks in the audience at #NN09, I just wanted to make sure he talked about two issues that mean a great deal to me and many others. (I didn’t know it at the time, but Lt. Dan Choi was in the audience.) I wouldn’t have yelled from the audience and interrupted if we weren’t being held as a captive audience.

But at the end of the day, I’ll take the heckler title if you all want to give it to me. The yelling at me is okay, too. Heck, I’ll even take the initial comment from the President that likened me to a health care town hall protester. None of it matters because a little bit of progress was made. President Clinton even came around later in his speech saying he was glad “that young man challenged me tonight”.

There is hope for our heralded former President to make those unequivocal statements that I was hoping for. Even more importantly, I hope that my fellow progressive movement activists will never sit in a captive audience and talk down to others who are working hard to advance progressive issues.

Oh, okay. Whatever. Yes, it is good that President Clinton made it very clear that it was those the people elected who are responsible for DOMA and DADT. He has a point, does he not? At some point, fingers should be pointed back at the ones pointing for electing those people in the first place. But as President Clinton also said, we are in a different time and place now, and hopefully that will help us move forward, whether our current president wants us to or not (”actions speak louder than words,” you know).

Yes, actions speak louder than words. This this was what Hillary Clinton said about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the campaign. She HAS demonstrated with her actions that she stands with the GLBT community long before her campaign, and has made great strides already at the State Department, as President Clinton highlighted.

And Obama? Not so much. As of this writing, 352 service members have been discharged under Obama’s watch. And I think we all remember what Obama’s Justice Department thinks of same-sex marriage (think incest and pedophilia), and the “benefits” he gave to Federal employees? Little more than MOVING expenses. That’s about it.

So my suggestion for Mr. Hudson is, perhaps instead of targeting President Clinton on these issues, you could spend your time targeting President Obama. After all, Obama campaigned on ending both, and he has done worse than nothing - he has evaded on DADT, and insulted beyond belief on DOMA. Obama has a “Super Majority;” Clinton not so much. Alot has changed in the past 16 years - as Clinton noted, one of the main generals opposed to DADT then is for it now. So,why don’t you go interrupt one of Obama’s speeches, why don’t ya?

Yesterday I was appalled to watch the Speaker of the House comment on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ assertion that the anger at these town halls over health care reform is “manufactured”. The reporter asked, “Do you think there is legitimate grassroots opposition going on out there?”

Nancy Pelosi made the following statement:

“I think they’re Astroturf…you be the judge. They are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

How dare she? I have heard of bullying tactics but this is beyond the pale. She is cherrypicking a couple of extreme protesters, if indeed they exist, in order to deride the whole as an angry mob. My husband and I were Democrats for thirty years and we have questions and concerns about this overhaul as well. Here’s a hot flash, Ms. Pelosi, my Dad was used as slave labor by people who wore swastikas so I don’t appreciate being grouped in with them.

Average citizens who daily watch our leadership trade places in the clown car have a reason to be worried. Until Ms. Pelosi and every other elitist in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is willing to be subject to the exact same health care plan, and use it on their own mother, their children and themselves, they have no business sticking it to the rest of us. “Okay for thee but not for me” is not going to cut it.

There is no doubt that both sides “astroturf.” President Obama’s svengali, David Axelrod, is known for this behavior. There will always be groups left or right who will try to bank on to a legitimate protest for their own ends. Yet I have no doubt that the majority of these protesters are legitimate. We are talking about a 1,000 page monstrosity that no one can explain.

Pelosi is talking about overhauling one sixth of our nation’s economy when they have just laid an egg with the stimulus package and $60 billion dollar car bailouts.

Last year I watched the DNC insult anyone who did not buy the “cool” candidate they chose to put on their spaghetti jar. Their bullying tactics drove me away. As brilliant WaPo columnist Marie Cocco put it, their “deafening silence” on what looked to be the media lynching of Hillary Clinton didn’t help either.

People get mad when you question them for one of two reasons. Either they don’t have the answer and don’t want be made to look bad, or they know they are trying to pull a fast one and don’t want you to get a peek behind the curtain. Which is it? If the policy cannot be explained coherently and simply, that means they don’t have it working yet. Pardon my dust, but I thought the ultimate goal was to craft a policy that is better than what we have now.

I do not appreciate being bullied or blown off. People are angry and they are scared. Unemployment is in double digits in my state. My Congressman has been ensconced in his position for 25 years. He runs unopposed so I assure you, he isn’t bothering to have a town hall meeting on health care otherwise I’d be there shouting, too.

We pay their salaries. I do not wish to be told to shut up and sit down by the likes of Ms. Pelosi, who sees fit to negatively classify the opposition because she does not feel like being countermanded.

I can appreciate the President wishes to put forth an ambitious agenda, but this White House is tone deaf. We have moved beyond ego here. I am not concerned with someone racking up “accomplishments” just so they can say they did. We have severe problems in our economy and trying to do all this at once without first making sure you’ve got the right formula is like trying to paint a house in a hurricane.

Nancy Pelosi needs to apologize to the American people for the disrespect she has shown them. We are dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and we have every right to have all our questions answered.

We can do without the name calling and disrespect from our elected representatives. That is not the way to earn anyone’s trust.

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.

Are extremists infiltrating our own military to the point of inadvertently training terrorists who will attack us in the future? It turns out that at least 40 persons who list their occupation as “military” are profiled on the Internet forum New Saxon, a Facebook-like site operated by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement.

Is this a real problem? Or is it just another conspiracy theory, the kind that boils all-too-freely in a country now ruled by fear?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not known for being on the batshit fringe. Quite the contrary. Helping to implement the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as making courtroom challenges that resulted in equal benefits for women in the military, ending involuntary sterilization of women on welfare, reform of prison conditions, are among the organzation’s many victories. The first civil suit against a major Klu Klux Klan was brought by the SPLC, and it has been riding the Klan’s ass ever since.

But hate crimes go on, and the SPLC continues its mission to protect America from its own destructive elements. Its concern about white supremacists infiltrating the military is not new. While reaffirming that the overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform reject extremism and are dedicated to our country’s ideals, based on new evidence the SPLC is engaging in a new push to investigate. A letter to those of us on the SPLC email list reads, in part:

We’ve been warning the Pentagon about the danger of extremists in the military for more than two decades. In 2008, the FBI issued a report indicating that the problem may have worsened. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not taken forceful action.

Indeed, the Pentagon appears to consider homosexuals more of a threat to the good order of the military than neo-Nazis who reject our Constitution’s most cherished principles. While the military has discharged more than 12,500 service members because of their alleged homosexuality since 1994, it has refused to adopt a true “zero tolerance” policy when it comes to extremists in the military.

A more detailed letter was sent to the chairs of the House and Senate committees on Homeland Security and Armed Services, copied to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Under Secretary of Defense David S.C. Chu. See it here.

Yet, what damage could realistically be done by a few dozen hate-filled members of the armed services? The potential could be two-fold: (1) these individuals are learning warfare skills, and (2) they are in a position to recruit new haters. And lest we not forget Sergeant Timothy McVeigh, a name that still sends chills up our collective spine. (If you have not yet visited the memorial on the bombing site in Oklahoma City I dare you to hold it together when you see those 19 “little chairs” representing the murdered children). It takes only a few, as we also recall from the Twin Tower terrorists who learned to fly on our soil.

So, are you worried about this?

There was an article recently in the NY Times that addressed this very issue, Civil Rights Group Divided Over Gay Marriage:

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the 50-year-old civil rights organization founded by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others, is seeking to remove the president of its Los Angeles chapter in response to his support of same-sex marriage in California.

The effort by the Atlanta-based organization is meeting stiff resistance in Los Angeles from both the board of the local chapter, whose chairman is secretary of the state’s Democratic Party, and the City Council president.

During the battle last fall over Proposition 8, an amendment to the State Constitution that banned same-sex marriage, the chapter’s president, the Rev. Eric P. Lee, was more than a tangential figure for the opposition. He was front and center at an opposition group’s large rally at City Hall and marched in the blazing sun for 15 miles in Fresno. Many other local African-American pastors prepared mailings featuring church leaders in support of the proposition and linking their views to Barack Obama, then the Democratic nominee for president.

Mr. Lee “was very helpful to us,” said Rick Jacobs, head of the Courage Campaign, a left-leaning political action group in Los Angeles that fought the initiative.

While the Mormon Church raised a great deal of the money in support of the proposition, the role of African-American churches, and their voting parishioners, was not insignificant. The Edison/Mitofsky exit poll in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

And there ya have it. Yes, the Mormon Church pumped a lot of money in to support Prop 8, but evidently, they were not alone. You know, it would be great if every group that experienced discrimination supported every other group that faced it, but it just isn’t the case. Everyone has their prejudices, unfortunately. It would be wonderful if we DID all bad together, a lovely ideal, but not the reality in which we live. And apparently, Mr. Lee is on the receiving end of the prejudice of one group against another:

Mr. Lee said that his opposition to Proposition 8 “created tension in my life I had never experienced with black clergy.”

“But it was clear to me,” he added, “that any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that.”

Amen to that. I couldn’t agree more. He might want to try and convince Donna Brazile of that, a concept with which she completely disagrees (you may recall that she would not allow GLBT people to be a part of the Civil Rights delegates at the DNC Convention because being LGBT is not a civil rights issue to her.). Mr. Lee’s story continues:

In April, Mr. Lee attended a board meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Mo., and found himself once again in the minority position among his colleagues on the issue of same-sex marriage, but he was told, he said, by the group’s interim president, Byron Clay, that the organization publicly had a neutral position on the issue.

So a month later, Mr. Lee said, he was surprised to receive a call from the National Board of Directors summoning him immediately to Atlanta to explain why he had taken a position on same-sex marriage without the authority of the national board.

Explaining that he was unable to come to Atlanta on such short notice, Mr. Lee then received two letters from the organization’s lawyer, Dexter M. Wimbish, threatening him with suspension or removal as president of the Los Angeles chapter if he did not come soon to explain himself.

Oh, dear. That’s not good for Mr. Lee. Sounds like they were mighty unhappy with him:

Mr. Wimbish did not return calls to his office, nor did the Rev. Raleigh Trammell, chairman of the organization’s national board. A woman who identified herself as Renee Richardson left a voice-mail message for a reporter, saying the organization did not “discuss internal matters.” She did not return follow-up calls.

The issue attracted the attention of the president of the Los Angeles City Council, Eric Garcetti, who wrote to the board in support of Mr. Lee.

Because chapters of the leadership conference operate autonomously and presidents are picked by local boards, it is not clear that the national organization has the authority to remove Mr. Lee from his post, which he has held for two years.

“It’s been our position that the local board hired him,” said Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, chairman of the local board and secretary of the California Democratic Party. “And, in fact, we are also the ones that approved his stance on the position of marriage equality. We have asked the national board if we have violated any procedures, and we have not gotten an answer.”

Good for them for standing up for Mr. Lee! And, by extension, the LGBT community. Well done, I’d say. And back to Mr. Lee:

Mr. Lee, the former pastor of In His Steps, an African-American Wesleyan church in Los Angeles that he described as “very conservative,” said he saw failures both in the leadership of the conference (“Dr. King would be turning over in his grave right now,” he said) and the largely white anti-Proposition 8 movement that did not more actively seek the support of church-going African-Americans.

“The black church played a significant role in Proposition 8 passing,” Mr. Lee said. “The failure of the campaign was to presume that African-Americans would see this as a civil rights issue.”

Sad, but true. Like I said, groups facing discrimination don’t just immediately band together with each other. It would be fantastic if we all did, but it is a romantic notion at this time, not reality. One day perhaps, but that day is not yet upon us.

Recently, I saw SONiA, who opened for Jonatha Brooke at the Woody Guthrie Festival in Okemah, OK. (Some of you may know her from her band, “disappear fear.”) Since we just celebrated Independence Day, and in light of the Prop 8 discussion, as well as the HOPE for the day when we do all band together in the fight for Civil Rights, I’d like to share a video of a song SONiA performed this past week. It seems most appropriate for the times:

Amen, sister. We all have our battles, and it would sure be a lot easier if we could see past the planks in our own eyes while picking at the speck in our neighbor’s. One day, some day, the fight for Civil Rights will no longer need to be fought, but that day is not today.

No doubt, it will be for Eric Mongerson. Today, for the first time, his children will be able to meet his partner, as this article explains:

Kids To Meet Gay Dad’s Partner On Father’s Day: Kids To Meet Dad’s Partner For 1st Time On Father’s Day After Judge Tosses Ga. ‘gay Ban’

Eric Mongerson’s kids couldn’t meet his partner of two years, much less join the couple for ice cream. His friends couldn’t cheer on the children at concerts or Little League games.

The divorced dad spent thousands of dollars fighting an unusual ban imposed by a county judge in 2007 that kept the three minors from having any contact with his gay friends or partners.

He felt unfairly scrutinized every moment he spent with the kids, though he never was looking to make a statement. He just wanted to spend a day with his kids and his partner, Jose Sanchez _ together.

This Father’s Day, he finally will.

“It’s a fairy tale ending,” he told The Associated Press after the Georgia Supreme Court overturned the ban.

I would say so. Heartbreaking that it ever even came to this - or that it COULD come to this, but it did:

The ban stemmed from the bitter divorce between Mongerson and his ex-wife, Sandy, who were married for almost 20 years and had four children. Mongerson said the marriage ended when his wife discovered he was gay in November 2005, but he would not elaborate.

The dispute played out the next few years in court, as Sandy’s attorney claimed he had several affairs with other men and subjected the kids to an array of “wholly inappropriate conduct” during a trip to Arkansas.

The arguments helped sway Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards to award Sandy Kay Ehlers Mongerson custody of the children. The judge also issued a blanket order banning Eric Mongerson from “exposing the children to his homosexual partners and friends.” A fourth child is an adult over 18 and had no restrictions on contact with Mongerson or his gay friends.

Edwards said in his ruling that the decision was meant to reflect “the trauma inflicted upon the children” during the Arkansas trip.

Ah, yes - because all parents who have had affairs and gotten divorced have had to keep their partners away from their children by court order. Oh, wait, you mean they haven’t?? No, of course not, just some:

Mongerson, though, said it only made him feel like he was being targeted for coming out of the closet. For almost two years, Mongerson said he feared losing more time with his kids and walked on egg shells during their weekly four-hour visits.

He didn’t hide the fact he was gay from the kids, but they couldn’t be around his partner, Sanchez. He was afraid to invite straight friends who might be accused of being gay. And he wouldn’t dare bring his children to his place in downtown Atlanta, even though his wife once brought a boyfriend to his daughter’s concert.

“I was always afraid of the ‘What if?’” Mongerson said. “I felt isolated, alone. She could go get friends, have them watch the kids, but I could never because I was gay.”

Sanchez, fearful of somehow violating the order, would run through all sorts of scenarios.

“What if you and I are on a plane, and your kids happen to be on the plane?” he would ask incredulously. “Do I jump out?”

Mongerson, a restaurant manager who routinely works 13-hour shifts into the night, said he scrounged together more than $10,000 to challenge the judge’s decree, partly by wracking up debt on his credit cards.

That is one helluva way to have to live - under constant fear that anyone or anything could jeopardize one’s ability to see one’s own children, not because of any wrong-doing on the part of the parent, but just the mere PERCEPTION that who they were, whom they loved, was unacceptable. Finally, cooler heads prevailed:

In court arguments in January, attorneys Hannibal Heredia and Kimberli Reagin contended the judge had no evidence that exposing the children to Mongerson’s gay friends would damage them.

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously agreed. Justice Robert Benham wrote in the scathing 10-page ruling that the trial court abused its discretion without evidence of harm to the children. He concluded it “flies in the face of our public policy that encourages divorced parents to participate in the raising of their children.”

The decision was quickly applauded by gay rights advocates who say the judge’s order was rooted in decades-old misconceptions about gays and lesbians. Jeff Graham of Georgia Equality called the top court’s decision a dose of “common sense and fair mindedness.”

Sandy Mongerson’s attorney, Lance McMillian, said the mother does not plan to appeal.

“My client is interested in putting it behind her,” he said. “Other than that, we don’t have anything to say about it.”

As news of the court’s ruling filtered down to Mongerson on Monday morning, he picked up the phone and called his partner. It didn’t take long to work out their schedule for Father’s Day, when they’ll finally go out for that ice cream.

“I cry at commercials _ he cries before commercials come on,” Sanchez said. “He’s very emotional. He said, ‘Happy Father’s Day. You get to meet my children.’”

Here’s the thing. What makes this even more egregious and offensive is that studies show that children raised in same-sex parents’ households are perfectly well-adjusted:

“There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent,” says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

“The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” she tells WebMD. “In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.“

Say WHAAAAA???? How can that be? Ahem. It’s an interesting article, if you want to go take a look, but I don’t want to get too far away from this joyous story.

So, back to the Father’s Day happy ending, and a happy ending it is. Finally, this father can share the joy of his children with his partner. The children will have yet another person in their lives who loves them, and that is a good thing indeed.

Again, Happy Father’s Day, you dads. And to the all of the children (adult, I assume) reading this, remember that every day is precious with your parents - I lost my dad almost 4 years ago, and you never know which Father’s Day is going to be the last. So, treasure it, treasure your dad, and your mom, too, and remember that time is fleeting. Share the love. That’s what it’s all about, anyway…

Now, this isn’t a new issue - GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right - it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen - BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO - okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that - I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

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???

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.

Expediency is the game plan because all Obama does care about is the campaign, the adulatory and fainting fans, and the big “O” he gets from winning, not the dictated drudgery of governance (which is why the incurious man didn’t know that Austrians don’t speak “Austrian”). The “high” is fleeting so he must keep campaigning, and it doesn’t matter if the screaming fans are Czech or American. His enormous ego requires enormous venues with enormous numbers of fans, and for that he requires enormous amounts of money, which come not from little people (myth) but from fat-cats like AIG’s top earners and, perchance, military contractors, perhaps ones with roots in Chicago? (SEE UPDATE BELOW.)

Despite Gitmo Closure and Torture Ban, Obama Admin Converges with Several Bush Policies in So-Called “War on Terror” (Democracy Now with video):

After a month in office, the Obama administration has surprised many of its supporters by embracing or appearing receptive to key parts of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy, from indefinite detention, to kidnapping and rendition, to invoking “state secrets” privileges. Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald joins The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer to discuss. [includes rush transcript]

What’s odd about my friend’s e-mail — I think he’s still my friend although I haven’t heard from him ever since No Quarter declared for Hillary and exposed Barack’s lack of qualifications and experience, as well as his dubious motives for seeking the presidency (actually, he had one motive, which was getting that cool title and perks like AF1) — is that this show aired in February, yet he only now is bringing himself to share this story.

However, this is hardly dated material. After all, yesterday, the hot e-mail circulating among the writers was this story: “Obama follows Bush policy on wiretapping.”

One friend who shared that story, wrote in his Subject title, “did I really read this?” In the body, he added, “i seriously hope i am hallucinating.”

From Democracy Now, here’s JANE MAYER on Obama’s strategy:

UPDATE: Writer Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the bestseller on Blackwater, told Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman on April 2nd that:

… I’m starting to call a series of pieces I’m doing “Operation Rebranded,” because what we’re seeing unfold with the Obama administration’s foreign policy is basically continuing many of the worst parts of Bush’s foreign policy and sort of repackaging these policies. So, for instance, the Obama administration has dropped the use of the term “global war on terrorism” and uses phrases like “contingency operations” to describe the US occupation of Iraq. The latest news we have is that the Obama’s administration has decided on its mercenary firm of choice. Clearly, Obama did not want to continue at least a public relationship with Blackwater. …

Scahill describes the company that OBAMA has hired to protect the huge embassy in Baghdad - a company that was founded in Chicago, Illinois:

Obama picked this firm Triple Canopy, which interestingly was founded in Chicago, in the home state of Barack Obama. And then in 2005, they changed their location to Herndon, Virginia, so that they’d be closer to the epicenter of US war contracting, though on the Israeli contract, that I’m going to talk about in a moment, they list their Lincolnshire, Illinois address as their primary address for the contract.

AMY GOODMAN: Who heads up Triple Canopy?

JEREMY SCAHILL: It was founded by former Special Forces operatives from the US Army. They were minor contributors to the Bush/Cheney campaign, but not real big political players. They clearly started the company as a result of the US invasion in Iraq. They started it in 2003. By 2004, they got one of the primary contracts in Iraq.

An interesting fact about Triple Canopy is that it was one of the big three US companies. Triple Canopy, DynCorp, and Blackwater shared this mother contract. Blackwater had the biggest share of it, to guard US officials in the Baghdad area. DynCorp had the north of Iraq. Triple Canopy had the south of Iraq.

Triple Canopy also, though, did a very lucrative business servicing other war contractors like KBR, and Triple Canopy was also known for being the company that brought in the largest number of so-called third country nationals, non-Iraqis, non-Americans. They hired, for instance, former Salvadoran commandos who were veterans of the bloody counterinsurgency war in El Salvador that took the lives of 75,000 Salvadorans, minimum. Chileans—they used the same recruiter, Jose Miguel Pizarro Ovalle, that Blackwater used when they hired Chileans. This was a former Pinochet military officer.

And this company has been around, you know, for five or six years. The Obama administration has hired them in Iraq, and many of the Blackwater guys are believed to be jumping over to Triple Canopy to continue working on in Iraq. Obama, though, is keeping Blackwater on, and the State Department has not ruled out that they’re going to stay on for much longer, the aviation division of Blackwater in Iraq, and also Blackwater is on the US government payroll in Afghanistan, also working for the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The news that I’m breaking on Triple Canopy, though, is that I obtained federal contracts that were signed in February and March by the Obama administration with Triple Canopy to act as a private paramilitary force operating out of Jerusalem. And this is also part of a very secretive State Department program called the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which was started under the Clinton administration as a privatized wing of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security division. Triple Canopy was paid $5 million in February, March by the Obama administration to provide, quote, “security services” in Israel.

In congressional testimony in 2007, Ambassador David Satterfield, who was an Under Secretary of State, said that he had been guarded by private security companies when he traveled in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Triple Canopy had the contract, has had this contract since 2005, the Obama administration continuing it.

I think that the Obama administration should be required to explain to US taxpayers, particularly with the atrocious human rights abuses that we’ve been seeing in Israel, why he’s using a US mercenary company to protect US officials when they potentially come in contact with civilians. And we’ve seen how deadly that’s been in Iraq. And before May 7th, his administration should be required to explain to the American people why he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are continuing the Bush administration’s policy of using deadly paramilitary forces in Iraq. …

There’s a point that needs to be made here: Scahill is a leftist who seems to oppose all private contractors, but as Larry Johnson and others have explained to me, the U.S. military hasn’t the manpower to guard all of the State Department’s facilities and personnel around the world. There’s nothing per se “evil” with hiring private contractors. It’s what they do on the job that matters. So President Obama and Secretary Clinton aren’t necessarily implementing “deadly paramilitary forces”; they are hiring people to protect staff and facilities.

THAT said, I am attempting to find out what this company — Triple Canopy — has donated to the Obama campaign.

I’m also looking up who is on the board of Triple Canopy. One recent addition is AOL founder Jim Kimsey.

… more to come …

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians. [MORE BELOW.]

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

“We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on,” Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, “if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. “The cybersecurity threat is real,” says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), “but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.” …

I can’t quote the entire article, but wish I could. So please READ “Should Obama Control the Internet?” (A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.).

And let us all contact our senators and representatives.

This bill strikes me as not only a threat to privacy and the free flow of information but also as exceedingly CLUMSY and CRUDE. Surely the specific targets of investigations can have their service interrupted through cooperating ISPs. But all of us? No. No way in hell. You and I are no threat to the U.S., and we count on our free flow of information to innocently communicate with each other.

There are already odd disruptions in communications amongst the members of our writers’ list, which I’ve noticed in the past when I was a list “mommy” for a group of people opposed to whaling, who the feds, rather ridiculously, thought might be a threat.

It’s notable that our new Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke — who would be granted this sweeping authority — was governor of the state of Washington during the anti-whaling protests (for which I was only a list “mommy” and, because they bore me to tears and I figured that photographs would be taken that would lump us all together as “threats,” I didn’t attend any protests. Then-governor Locke bought the media hype that the anti-whaling protestors were such a dangerous threat that he called out the National Guard. The NATIONAL GUARD! That was a great surprise to the couple dozen aging hippies who held signs about 15 miles from the whaling operation. In other words, he’s an excitable sort and a square who didn’t get the distinction between the hype about anti-whaling protests and who the real protestors were. We don’t want him to have this massive power.

Nowadays, the demagoguery comes from the hard leftists who aim to censor and silence all of us who dare to disagree. Only nodding heads will satisfy them. Here at NoQuarter, we prefer an eclectic mix of opinions and ideas, and most especially we like the company of all kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds, professions, educations, and experiences. How else does one truly learn? Sadly, being a leftist means that one obeys the rule by the elite leftists who tell them what to think and believe and, most alarmingly, what to say and write.

As you may notice, in the narrow center column, I’ve posted the dust cover jacket of the book and a link. Clearly, it would make for a great read. And every item you purchase from Amazon, or any of our other advertised companies, helps NoQuarterUSA pay for its quite expensive multiple servers! Yes, straight donations to NoQuarterUSA are ideal but, if you’re shopping online anyway, you can aid your blog (it is your blog too) at no extra cost to yourself. Amazon and the other companies bear all the cost.

Thank you for your great support.

As Lilly Ledbetter approached her retirement after working as a Goodyear plant supervisor for many years, someone slipped her a disturbing fact. Her male colleagues had been making far more than she was. She sued.

A jury found Goodyear guilty, but the Supreme Court threw out the case. Why? The reason will astound and disturb anyone who works for a private company.

According to enough Bush Supreme Court appointees to reach a 5-4 decision, Ledbetter should have filed her suit within 6 months after the first discriminatory paycheck was issued.

Huh? How’s that again? Exactly how would Lilly have known that fact way back then, given that private companies are still under no obligation to supply salary information to their employees?

President Obama spoke of Lilly Ledbetter’s plight during his campaign, and today he put his pen where his mouth was. (We at No Quarter are watching for what he actually does and give credit when credit is due.) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has been signed into law.

Amy Goldstein deftly puts the bill in its proper perspective:

The legislation …essentially rewrites the rules that specify the time within which workers may sue under a part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlaws discrimination based on gender, race, national origin or religion. Under the bill, workers may bring a lawsuit for up to six months after they receive ANY [emphasis added] paycheck that they allege is discriminatory.

The high court had held that such cases could be brought only within six months of the discrimination’s beginning, rejecting a long-held interpretation by lower courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that each paycheck represented a fresh act of discrimination.

Republicans and others have said this is simply a victory for litigators. Perhaps it is one more income source for trial attorneys because a new law can now be broken. But as Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski (D-RI) put it, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate!”

So, in the end did Lilly Ledbetter become rich as well as famous? Well, no. Now 70 and recently widowed, she will not receive restitution and her case cannot be retired. As Gail Collins puts it, “She’s now part of a long line of working women who went to court and changed a little bit of the world in fights that often brought them minimal personal benefit.”

A friend sent along a quote by Mary Ann Radmacher that well characterizes the Lilly Ledbetters of the world.

Courage does not always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice
at the end of the day saying,
“I will try again tomorrow.”

NOW, BELOW, THAT POLL FOR THE 2nd and 3rd BESTEST PRESIDENTS of the 20th and 21st centuries EVAH! 

Here’s the one speech I wish we had on video. (Although I do remember a hot post that went ’round the Internet about five to six years ago. Someone claimed to have audio of Lincoln giving a speech. Some of us were very skeptical, and looked up the history. I forget now, but the very first audio recordings didn’t get made until at least 20+ years after his death [or thereabouts]. As I recall, this one ended up being officially debunked at Snopes.com.).

But at least this video shows drawings of that great day (and the speech is below):

Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Speech

Fellow-Countrymen:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.

All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time,

He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Perhaps someday a president will emphasize women’s right.

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don’t give up
The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continued to march outside churches across California.

This story was filed today by Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza of none other than the Los Angeles Times.

Curiouser and curiouser that the ‘Governator,’ Arnold Schwarzenegger, you know, the guy who was campaigning in Ohio for his Republican buddy, Senator John McCain, would be the one to tell GLBT constituents to not give up:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.

“It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. “I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor’s thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.

Wow. It is unfortunate that our President Elect, Barack Obama has not “evolved on the issue,” but instead is trying to have it both ways. He said he was against Prop. 8 but also that he is against gay marriage. How do you do that exactly? Sort of like his original position about the AIG bailout – he’s for it and against it. Confusing.

The numbers proved that Obama’s AA and Latino voters certainly helped in the passage of Prop 8. Do we really believe if Obama had the guts to come out and unequivocally say that Prop 8 was wrong, period, Californians would have seen the same result?

Please see American Girl in Italy’s excellent article on the subject, African Americans Have Suffered at the Hand of Racism and Bigotry and Are in Turn Bigots.

How unfortunate that along with women getting kicked in the teeth this year, GLBT voters did as well, by a candidate who wanted to have his cake and eat it, too.

According to ABC News, 11/2/08, Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.”

So ABC News reporters quoted Obama on what they referred to as his “nuanced position” on gay marriage.

Nuanced – is that something like horse hooey? A distant cousin to Joe Bidens’ “rhetorical flourishes?”

At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state’s Supreme Court recently recognized.

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary,” Obama told MTV. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

So wait a minute – by sending such a ridiculous mixed message to his supporters, what did he think they would do? If he really had any guts, he would have unequivocally said he opposed Prop 8 and not temper it with this kind of religious, moralistic caveat.

Contrast this with Governor Schwarzenegger:

Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

On Sunday, he urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. “I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”

The governor’s position on the fate of the existing same-sex marriages aligns him with California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said he believes that the state Supreme Court will uphold the existing marriages as valid.

The 14-word constitutional amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before the Nov. 4 election, although proponents say it will. Legal experts differ on this point.

Schwarzenegger’s comments came as protesters took to the streets for a fifth day in a row, sometimes marching to Catholic and Mormon churches that supported passage of the ballot measure.

For all I know, Schwarzenegger is playing politics too, but he is a Republican. Gay rights are not supposed to be top on the Republican agenda. Remember? I thought Democrats were supposed to lead the charge on that one. Not so much, I guess.

Does anyone think if it were Senator Hillary Clinton, she would be doing a two-step on this one. She has always marched in the gay pride parade – and stands up very publicly for gay rights. Oh, what could have been. Sigh.

Some churches, to be sure, assailed Proposition 8 as discriminatory.

“We will continue to bless same-sex unions here until we can legally celebrate same-sex unions again,” the Rev. Ed Bacon told 1,000 congregants during Sunday services at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, which has blessed same-sex unions for 16 years.

After the service, Bacon and other clergy members held a news conference on the church steps. They were surrounded by gay and lesbian couples, some standing with young children.

“I know these couples. I know their relationships,” Bacon said, addressing a phalanx of television cameras. “They should be celebrated, rather than disparaged. . . . In the eyes of God, these people are married.”

I wonder how Mrs. Governator, Maria Schriver, she of the Kennedy family progressives, die hard Democrat and die hard Obama supporter squares Obama being so wishy washy on this issue. I also wonder how Mrs. Governator reconciles that Barack Obama spent valuable time and money courting evangelicals, campaigning down south with the likes of Donnie McClurkin, an “ex-gay man reformed through prayer.”

Many of Obama supporters are very happy to declare that the ends justifies the means when they turn a blind eye to any of his primary and election shenanigans. I wonder how his GLBT supporters likewise think his historic election justifies him courting groups that wish to deprive them of their rights.

I sincerely hope that Prop. 8 will be repealed. How interesting that a Republican Governor is willing to stand up and make a public statement about GLBT rights that is more progressive than our “progressive” Democratic President Elect.