Does Holder care that Obama continues to by-pass Congress with his numerous Executive Orders, skirting US law? Nah. Does he care that Labor Secretary Solis declares that the US will extend all the same labor rights and benefits to illegal immigrants that citizens enjoy? Nuh uh. Does he think it is the least bit suspicious that the head of the AFL/CIO, Richard Trumka, has made, on average, a visit to the White House every 16 days, or that Trumka talks to the White House EVERY DAY, which might imply an extraordinary influence on policy? Yawn. Nope.

So what DOES Holder and the DOJ see as critical? Upholding India’s law – even though India did not ask them to do so.

Huh?

Yes, the DOJ is going after Gibson Guitars for using a particular type of wood from India for their fret boards that the DOJ claims violates INDIA’S laws. WTH? Are you kidding me?? The answer would be no – this is not a joke. The DOJ has raided Gibson Guitars. I am just shaking my head in disbelief. I saw something about this while on vacation, and thought it must have been the (virgin) Pina Coladas by the pool, but no – it is real. The US DOJ is going after them for what they perceive as Gibson violating another country’s laws :

Juszkiewiz said the government suggested that the company’s use of unfinished wood from India is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because of the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. The Holder Justice Department raided at least two Gibson manufacturing plants this week forcing hundreds of workers off their jobs. Juszkiewiz says the company lost a million dollars this week.

Finally, Henry Juszkiewicz told Dana, “The Obama Justice Department wants us to just shut our doors and go away.” He says he will continue to fight for the Gibson company and its workers.

To say that the CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, is hot under the collar about this is both an understatement, and understandable:

“What it does is it shuts down production because we use that as raw material. If they take our raw material we can’t produce the product. So it’s been extremely disruptive beyond the value content,” said Juszkiewicz, according to a story from Nashville’s NewsChannel 5 WTVF-TV.

According to a press release from Gibson, the heart of the issue comes down to the Department of Justice’s interpretation of a law in India.

Federal agencies have “suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.),” the Gibson press release said.

This is not Gibson’s first brush with federal agents. In 2009, agents seized guitars and ebony fingerboard blanks from Madagascar, according to the Gibson press release and other stories.

Holy cow. Are they KIDDING with this? Really? This is where we are? Holding companies to account for laws in OTHER countries, which it appears they are not violating anyway? It is disturbing to the extreme that the same agency that gave us “Fast and Furious” is going after a guitar maker for wood legally imported from another country based on its interpretation of the other country’s laws.

This is insanity. The DOJ is failing across the board to ensure compliance in this country on a host of laws, but they are raiding a small manufacturing company that is in compliance with US laws? Wow. I tell you, 2012 cannot come soon enough for me. No telling how much more damage Obama and his Administration will do to the country in the time remaining to his destructive stint in the White House, but good grief, this is just beyond the pale. What’s next, going after any number of companies because they might not support The One with their donations (better watch out, Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz – you could be next), or because their companies are not unionized? Holder claims this is not political in nature. And I think he is full of crap.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Obama realized the CEO of Gibson Guitars will be in attendance at his big Jobs speech tonight (which sounds like it will be more of the same o’, same o’ from him – I expected nothing less). Yep, Henry Juszkiewicz will be the guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), sitting there looking at Obama while he blathers on. Rich, ain’t it?

Something is seriously, seriously wrong at the DOJ when they start trying to impose the laws of other countries on a select company, select because its CEO belongs to the wrong party, it would seem. Hmm. This reminds me of something. What could it be? Oh, yes – now I remember. Revenge. And that has no place in our government.

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

It is believed that his cover was blown in retaliation for naming ISI chief Ahamad Shuja Pasha in a US lawsuit by families of 26/11 Mumbai attack victims. The suit asserts that Pasha and other ISI officers were ‘purposefully engaged in the direct provision of material support or resources’ to the planners of the Mumbai attacks.

A similar legal complaint was filed in Pakistan on behalf of Kareem Khan, a resident of North Waziristan who said that his son and brother were killed in a drone strike. Khan was seeking $500 million in compensation, and accusing CIA’s top officer in Pakistan of running a clandestine spying operation out of the United States Embassy.

This locking of horns should have been tackled sensibly. Instead, the confrontation ended up costing CIA an experienced officer. Interestingly, not many Americans known the name of the former CIA station chief, whereas whole of Pakistan is familiar of his name, especially the people in North Waziristan. Yes, North Waziristan, which the US believes is the new haven of militant extremists. 

This is not the first time that the two agencies have engaged in a power struggle. On September 30th this year, a US fighter helicopter crossed into Pakistan airspace and fired on a position occupied by Pakistani soldiers. As a result of this attack, three soldiers were killed and the rest severely injured. 

Hurting an ally came with a huge price for the US when Pakistan halted the flow of NATO supplies into Afghanistan through the Torkham for at least 10 days. It’s not that the trucks were just parked and were driven away after the ban was lifted. The Pakistani agency made sure to set an example and did not guard the trucks. As a result, the trucks were attacked by terrorists. 

These are just two major incidents that happened this year on Pakistan’s home ground, where the CIA, NATO, the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department cannot act without the ISI’s blessing. Its not your turf, but theirs.
Not helping ease relations were notorious incidents such as the threat by an obscure American pastor to burn the Quran, protests against a proposed Islamic Center in New York City and a Pakistani official delegation cutting its trip to United States short because of protocol issues. 

To make matters worse, none of the internecine US-Pakistan clashes were reported properly in the American press. The coverage was either one-sided or full of accusations. The media did cover the NATO trucks blockage, but offered neither context nor an apology for the cause of the attack. It did cover the removal of the CIA spy but did not suggest establishing person-to-person contact rather than strictly military-to-military relations. 

US agencies, whether on or off the ground, have to realize that Pakistan has sacrificed a lot more than it deserves. The Americans at the same time need to know that United States’ presence in Afghanistan has radicalized Pakistanis and turned many of them not only against the West. One count says the Pakistan army has lost more than 3,200 soldiers in recent fighting against Taliban forces along their border with Afghanistan. This does not include the civilians killed by drone attacks or by the suicide bombers.

This little rift between the two agencies is an open secret, and has been going on for years now. Every now and then, the CIA tries to prove that it has more resources and pushes ISI to ‘act as advised’. It needs to bring its ego down a notch, just for the sake of the war which both countries have to win. 

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

Well, this came as a bit of a surprise, a pleasant one at that. You will recall that Rep. Maxine Waters had inserted a provision into the Financial Reform Bill creating quotas for women and minorities for financial institutions.

But not so fast says the US Commission on Civil Rights, as this article by Caroline May makes clear, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Demands Changes to Democrats’ Financial Reform Bill. That pretty much says it all, but wait until you see what some of the members actually said about this issue:

[snip] Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano affixed their names to the letter, which charges the Senate with either “consciously or unconsciously” promoting discrimination.

“All too often, when bureaucrats are charged with the worthy task of preventing race or gender discrimination, they in fact do precisely the opposite,” the letter reads. “They require discrimination by setting overly optimistic goals that can only be fulfilled by discriminating in favor of the groups the goals are supposed to benefit.”

The letter continues, “In this case, the bureaucrats are not even being asked to prevent discrimination, but to ensure ‘fair inclusion.’ The likelihood that it will in fact promote discrimination is overwhelming.”

Holy moley – they are not mincing any words here. And good for them for that. But they did not stop there:

[snip] “Some legislators have evidently come to think of women and minorities as just another constituency whose leaders must be brought on board with incentives when major legislation is being considered,” the letter says. “The notion that legislation should include ‘a little something’ for everyone is troubling in any context, but it is especially troubling in the context of race and gender, given the requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”

Commissioner Todd Gaziano told The Daily Caller that Section 342, whether it intends to or not, could have dire implications for the financial markets.

“The likely end of creating offices that require these types of racial and gender goals is that it will result in quotas and discrimination,” he said. “There are many existing laws and enforcement mechanisms that already prohibit discrimination. This provision, by contrast, takes affirmative steps to guarantee discrimination.”

That sounds like a fairly damning assessment to me. Clearly, there are so many problems with inserting these quotas on so many different levels. That the Civil Rights Commission is coming out against it, and so strongly, is telling. Previously, the former chief economist at the US Department of Labor, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, also came out strongly against this provision:

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

Furchtgott-Roth worries that this might be a harbinger of things to come.

“So what does this mean? Are we going to get rid of anti-discrimination laws all together and just put in quotas? Could this be what’s to come in other sectors?” she questioned.

And an excellent question it is. Disturbing question, too, I might add.

So what will become of this letter by some of the members of the US Civil Rights Commission on this issue? Well, I wish I could tell you it was going to make all the difference:

Commissioner Peter Kirsanow was more blunt.

“I don’t think it is going to have a substantial effect,” he said. “I think they will ignore it as they have other letters we have sent. Just recently, they ignored our concerns with the health care bill, which contains a number of highly suspect racial provisions embedded deep within the text. They will emerge at some point and we will have to deal with them.” (Emphasis mine.)

Kirsanow added that in addition to the constitutional problems associated with mandating quotas, the political implications are also troubling.

“There is considerable evidence over the years that these types of quota provisions dissolve into a political spoils system—we see it at the federal, state and local level—with certain positions being reserved for certain people,” he said.

Uh, yeah. Again, I urge you to read the full article here. It is well worth your time.

I just have to wonder why this was even put into this bill in the first place, especially if there is evidence showing it is so counter productive. Perhaps the excuse, um, I mean, explanation, will come to light at some point (though I am not holding my breath). At the very least, I hope this provision is removed.

I’m not holding my breath for that, either.

I think the headline says it all, but just so you understand, it wasn’t his fault he lost. It’s all those damn Uncle Toms and racists to blame:

State Sen. Robert Ford said “Uncle Tom” is part of the reason he lost his bid for governor.

Ford, a black civil rights crusader who has served Charleston in the Senate since 1993, told The Post and Courier on Friday that his fellow Legislative Black Caucus members turned their backs on him and instead supported his white opponent, Vincent Sheheen.

“Uncle Tom was alive and well before, during and after the Negro and African-American struggle in this country, and obviously he is still alive today,” Ford wrote in a June 10 letter addressed to his “beloved Legislative Black Caucus members.”

Uncle Tom is a term used in contempt of blacks who are regarded as slaves to whites. It comes from the 1852 book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

Ford acknowledged that he is “bitter,” but he said that does not change the situation. He accused Sheheen, a state senator from Camden, of not supporting diversity because, Ford said, Sheheen does not have any black men or women employed at his law office.

“The reason I am hurting right now is not because I lost,” Ford said. “It’s because they supported a candidate who doesn’t practice diversity.”

Sheheen’s campaign on Friday had no comment on the letter or Ford’s comments.

Wow. Well, good for Sheheen for not ratcheting up this claim with a response. Though honestly, any attempt at a response automatically puts Sheheen on the defensive. But Sheheen didn’t have to respond:

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Hopkins Democrat who is black, said Ford is wrong about Sheheen.

“Robert is one of my dearest friends,” Jackson said. “He is absolutely wrong and off basis with this. And I think he knows that. I think right now Robert is hurt and he said he is bitter.”

Jackson said Ford and Sheheen have chosen to share an office in the Senate office building. If Ford’s claims about Sheheen were true, the two wouldn’t share their workspace, Jackson said.

He also noted that Ford and Sheheen have a black administrative assistant. Sheheen also has selected a consulting firm run by a black man to work for his gubernatorial campaign, Jackson said. Also, Jackson said, Sheheen told him that he does not do the hiring at his law firm.

Jackson also said that every major piece of legislation that influences minorities in the state has Sheheen’s support.

“It’s not fair to Vincent,” Jackson said. “I love Robert, but I really have to speak up.”

Despite his hurt feelings, Ford said he “loves” Sheheen and believes he is a “good person.”

“I am going to work like hell to see to it that he wins,” Ford said.

Ford’s accusations come as South Carolina grapples with another racially charged situation.

Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, called GOP front-runner Nikki Haley a “raghead,” a slur against her Indian-American decent. The Lexington Republican Party met Thursday night and voted to censure Knotts and ask him to resign.

Haley, a state representative from Lexington, faces U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett in a runoff for the Republican gubernatorial nomination June 22.

Sheheen won the Democratic nomination for governor Tuesday with 59 percent of the vote. Ford garnered 18 percent and ran on a controversial platform of bringing back video poker and building a casino in Myrtle Beach.

The third Democratic candidate, Jim Rex, state superintendent of education, took 23 percent of the vote. (Reach Yvonne Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com.)

Damn right it isn’t fair to Sheheen to be labeled this way because Ford has “hurt feelings.” Lucky for Sheheen he has an African-American office mate and colleague who is willing to speak up against this charge. Otherwise, it would be a label hung on Sheheen’s neck he did nothing to deserve except beat Ford in a political race.

I respect what Ford did in his past, the work he did on behalf of Civil Rights. That is no small thing. When someone who has no experience, no qualifications, did no campaigning, and has little more of a platform than, “Get South Carolinians Back to Work,” as in Alvin Greene, beat out a white guy who has been in office, it is hard to use the race card (as noted by a commenter). Ford came in dead last. That means the voters didn’t really buy what he was selling.

Grow up, Ford – take your hits like an adult already. You ran, you lost. Now try and be a role model for graciousness in losing, not modeling the petulance and dirty tricks of the Whiner in Chief. It is beyond tiresome and unbecoming. It is just sad.

Well, good. They were arrested. Seemed to be the right thing to do.

Until the Department of Justice decided to drop the charges against them. Yes, that’s right. AG Holder decided to drop all charges against them. I am sure that was not the least bit politically motivated. Ahem.

Well, the plot thickens, as this editorial highlights, “ DOJ Voting Rights Attorney Resigns Over Black Panther Stonewalling.” Oh, dear – that doesn’t sound good:

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.In his letter of resignation, J. Christian Adams said:

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby resolve conclusively any question about my obligation to comply.

Months ago, my attorney advised the Department that a motion to quash would be welcome, and that I would assert no objection to the motion. Further, my attorney has explicitly sought to ascertain whether Executive Privilege has been invoked regarding the decisions of individuals not in the Voting Section to order the dismissal of the case. If Executive Privilege has been asserted, or will be, obviously I would not comply with the subpoena. These options would provide some conclusive legal certainly about the extent of my obligation to comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to a federal statute. Instead, we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena, citing a federal regulation (emphasis mine).

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the attorney is just a bit upset at this turn of events, wouldn’t you? There’s more:

Adams also cites his knowledge of the criminal character and “violent tendencies of” members of the New Black Panther Party, saying:

As you also know, the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. (See eg., April 23, 2010 statement of Malik Zulu Shabazz,http://www.newblackpanther.com/usccrphony case statement.pdf, describing the “phony case” brought by “the modern day racist lynch mob seeking to hang what [we] think .are [our] modern slaves.”) Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them, ab initio. Knowing intimately the criminal character and violent tendencies of the members of New Black Panther Party, it is my profound hope that these assertions are tempered.

This follows the departure of another attorney, who before transferring to South Carolina, read a statement to a surprised “goodbye luncheon” about his opposition to the way the case is handled (see here). More updates to follow. The document is below:

J. Christian Adams resignation letter 051910

UPDATE: The New Black Panthers’ website appears to be down. You can read Malik Zulu Shabazz’s statement over at Main Justice.

Holy moley. Well, we all knew it was suspicious that these charges were dropped. Just more of the incredibly disturbing trends coming from Obama’s Department Of Justice:”Let’s bring KSM to New York for his trial!” “Let’s sue a state over a law we haven’t read! Who cares that there is a Memo that supports their law, along with the Federal Law??” “We’re the DOJ, and we operate on the Court of Public Opinion, the law be damned!”

I don’t even want to see what is coming next from these people, do you?

I’d like to address the objections.

Protest is the American way. The health care bill, a massive piece of legislation, had many elements which some could find objectionable. Mandates are worrying, as is the fear that premiums could go up. There are genuine concerns that the “reform” could turn out to be a souped-up version of COBRA, making insurance obligatory but unaffordable, ultimately benefitting only the insurance companies. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s one of the great aspects of living in a democracy.

What is not reasonable, however, is circulating pictures of the President disguised as a witch doctor, or spitting on and hurling racial and other epithets at Congressmen (or anyone else), or sending images of nooses, or issuing death threats. This form of “protest” has nothing to do with TARP or health care or anything else. Anyone who defends such behavior should hang their head in shame. Indeed, such acts should be vehemently discouraged and the perpetrators shunned from civilized society.

The Tea Party’s message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility is being drowned out by the movement’s most extreme elements. In this the movement is comparable to A.N.S.W.E.R, a group begun to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which then degraded into an umbrella group for every embittered leftist with an ax to grind, from PETA to the Free Mumia crowd to the pro-Palestinian folks. Ultimately the anti-war message was diluted and A.N.S.W.E.R turned into a joke.

Another group that found itself in the trashbin of history was the loosely formed anti-World Bank/WTO/IMF crowd, whose members had no problem protesting the worthy cause of international debt reduction by rampaging in the streets and committing acts of vandalism while filming all the exciting anti-globalist fervor with video cameras and cell phones imported from Asia. Any sympathy they may have generated went up in smoke as the public watched the violence and mayhem.

During campaign 2008, left-wing blogs turned into cesspools of misinformation and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons, going so far as to resurrect the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” canard. The outrageous sexism of the blogosphere and the media was harshly and justifiably criticized on this blog. To ignore the extreme elements of the Tea Party is to do an injustice to those decent people who want to have their voices heard, but do not want to be associated with the ugliness of the extremes.

The answer, of course, is fear.

And fear, when stoked by demagogues and poured over a volatile flammable mass only needs one match to create a frightful conflagration.

Witness the American “Tea Party” movement, a ragtag group whose initial goal of protesting the bank bailouts has devolved into a mass movement featuring silly costumes, misspelled signs glorifying racism and paranoia, and sometimes weaponry.

Those who wish to turn away from the Tea Parties and their embarrassing antics will find little solace in the Republican party. A recent Harris poll reveals that two-thirds of Republicans think Barack Obama is a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say “he may be the Antichrist.” Not surprisingly, respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped.

To quote the 19th-century educator Horace Mann, “Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.”

Of course, the media don’t help.

It’s easy to blame FOX News and talk radio for this sorry and dangerous state of affairs. Their right-wing propaganda draws a large and loyal audience. But CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream networks are also to blame. By treating the more mentally unstable and incoherent members of the lunatic right with deference and respect in order to present “balanced” coverage, they have bestowed a kind of legitimacy on paranoid hate-mongerers, racists and the flat-out ignorant. Having a person on to argue that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the United States serves no newsworthy purpose. It is an act of sheer provocation and showmanship.

Consumers of Pakistani media are probably familiar with this phenomenon – demagogues blathering nonsense from their media perches; the spreading of rumor and conspiracy as fact; an apparent lack of editorial control on the irresponsible material being broadcast or printed; blaming outside forces (Jews, the CIA, the Mossad, RAW) for internal problems, thereby alleviating the public of any responsibility for an ensuing catastrophe; suspicion of The Other…the list goes on and on.

So to those who think the Kerry-Lugar Bill is a Trojan Horse masquerading sinister imperialists scheming to erode your sovereignty, meet your comrades in arms: The Tea Party attendees who think passing universal health care will lead to death panels, fascism and Nazi death camps.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

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?