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

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

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

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

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.

Okay. So, yeah – check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.

More about the Church:

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

I have to admit – given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…

And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:

The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:

“God delivered me from homosexuality.”

Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:

Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.

Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I

n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”

McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.

Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?

I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog – I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.

That is to say, Upside Down World continues – the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership – Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.

I think I need to sit down now.

I reasonably can see “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” eliminated… I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy — ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.

So, he can “see” doing it, it’s just the ACTUAL doing it with which he seems to have problems.

As a bonus, here is something else Candidate Obama said in this interview when asked this questions:

What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental — now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name — Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time (emphasis mine), but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Oh, yes, we LGBT people are practically missionaries. So glad this one professor didn’t “proselytize” his students, or push his “gay-ness” on them. What a guy. I’m sure it was difficult for him since, you know, that’s just how we are. Ahem.

And people wonder why I have said all along that Obama is not our friend? Because he is not.

Here is the story of one highly decorated pilot:

Here is a follow-up to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s story:

Did you catch the very beginning, the ways in which someone can have a service member investigated in both videos? Shocking. Just shocking.

As is the lack of any action whatsoever by Obama on this issue. Sure he gave a talk to the (sell out) HRC a month or so ago, claiming, once again, that he would abolish DADT at some point. But that’s just talk. Here is what President Obama has done thus far on this issue:

* crickets *

How many more broken promises before DADT is abolished? One thing is for sure. On the Eve of Veteran’s Day, there are too many new Veterans as a result of this law. 500 too many.

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

Here are the particulars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A prayer followed.

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

Or something like that.

But some Mainers aren’t giving up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We have high hopes,” Roger Marchand said.

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

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

As for how Maine got to this place:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

With Fox News against the White House attempt to censor the cable network. Check that, to shut DOWN the network. I am assuming that, by now, you have heard of the concentrated attacks on the Fox News Network by Administration officials, and the president himself. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this earlier in the week, “Fox Is Not A News Station?,” if you need to catch up.

Well, the strangest thing has started to happen as the White House has continued its unprecedented attack on a major network, not just freezing out a reporter here or there as other administrations have done, but a flat out drive to shut down this network. I can scarcely believe it myself, but what has happened recently is that reporters from other networks, even the Washington Bureau chiefs of the main news outlets, have started to stand WITH Fox News.

It all began with one of my favorite reporters, Jake Tapper of ABC News. He is one of the very few national reporters from a major network to consistently challenge the Obama campaign, and now the Obama Administration. And he did so again just the other day as his post entry indicates:

“Today’s Qs For O’s WH – 10/20/09”
From this morning’s gaggle in White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ office:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Let’s just stop right there. Jake Tapper referred to Fox News as a “sister organization.” That is HUGE, people. His use of that phrase speaks volumes, as he indicates a solidarity with Fox News (good post on that very topic at Commentary Magazine here). Perhaps it is even a bit of a warning shot across the bow that the White House needs to back the hell off from this attack on a major press outlet.

The Q&A continued:

(Crosstalk) Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -jpt

You know I can’t stand Gibbs anyway, that mealy mouthed worm. But Tapper demonstrates what a stand up guy he is by pursuing this line of questioning, and not letting Gibbs, or the White House, off the hook.

I mentioned above that the White House is doing its darndest to completely shut down Fox News. The following video is a good summation of what has happened thus far, the latest attack by the White House, and what the other networks did:

I know, right? They know, I gather, that this time around, it may be Fox News, but next time, it could be CNN, or MSNBC. I would love to think that the solidarity of the major networks was the result of it simply being the right thing to do.

The All Star Panel on Fox News takes this on, too, with a bonus clip of Obama’s discussing Fox News:

Uh huh. Sure, he’s not losing sleep over it. If he isn’t, why are he and his minions going out of their way to ATTACK Fox News? It most certainly IS “breath-taking in its pettiness” as Mr. Barnes put it.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”

And, when he said this:

“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said this about the importance of a free press and our responsibility to it:

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man (sic) will proceed in improvement.”

Hopefully, that is exactly why the networks are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue. They know, as we do, that our liberty is at risk when the press is under attack from its government.

Like Jefferson, like the Washington Bureau, like Jake Tapper, like many of you reading this, I stand on the side of a free press, and on the side of our liberty. It is our duty, it is our call, it is our very democracy.

Nope, I am not talking about Anita Dunn this time. Ron Bloom is the latest Obama Czar (Manufacturing) to quote Mao as an authority. And just wait to see which quote he uses from Mao. Oh, and he disses that whole free market thing, too. See for yourself:

You may recall that Ron Bloom was a negotiator with the United Steel Workers, and apparently known for being a bit of a potty mouth while he was at it. Oh, and naturally, like so many of the people with whom Obama surrounds himself, has ties to the SEIU, which was co-created by Wade Rathke of ACORN fame. Yep, he surely does.

Remarkable, isn’t it? When Obama keeps trying to claim he doesn’t know all that much about ACORN and their doings? Yeah, right. But I digress.

You know, it makes sense, though, really. As Obama takes over private enterprise as well as banks with our dollars (more on this below), and attempts to destroy any media that isn’t favorable to it, I think we are well on our way to an, um, less than Democratic union. And we have Czars like Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom to lead the way, not to mention Obama himself, a card-carrying member of the Socialist New Party (and don’t forget Van Jones, who had to resign). Ain’t that something?

Remember when our friends and families scoffed at us and ridiculed us for making these claims about Obama and his associates? Uh huh. Dontcha just HATE it when you know you’re right and people treat you like your nuts? I wonder how they feel now? Oh, right – they’re probably all singing their “Mmmm mmmm mmm” song while our once democratic nation goes by the boards…

By the way, the Bailout Watchdog had this to say about the TARP program – OUR taxpaying dollars at work:

But even as the administration aimed to refocus the massive Troubled Asset Relief Program on small businesses and homeowners, Barofsky said in his report that the effort to save the nation’s financial sector came at great cost to taxpayers, to the integrity of the financial system and to the public’s perception of the federal government.

“Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success,” he wrote, “Treasury’s actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP.”

Barofsky said public suspicion was fed by Treasury’s decision not to require banks to report how they used their rescue money and its “less-than-accurate” statements describing the financial condition of nine large banks that benefited from large infusions of aid. The TARP program began under the administration of President George W. Bush and has expanded under Obama.

And now the Obama Administration has taken on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I’m not kidding. The All Stars had an excellent discussion on this last night, and included the overarching issues of both the Chamber of Commerce AND the attacks by Anita Dunn on Fox News. It provides a good overview of the direction the Obama Administration is heading:

You know, if things continue down this path with the people Obama has surrounded himself, I think we can expect to have this painting in the White House:

Replaced with this one:

Hey, it could happen! And the chances of that seem to be increasing with every day…

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

Here she is, telling the tale. You don’t have to wait long to hear her say it:

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and “tingly” inside? Yeah, me too. I think it’s called high blood pressure:

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama’s media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country’s president.

Did you catch that? She said this over NINE months ago. NINE!! And this is just now coming out? Way to make the case, Ms. Dunn – the media is nothing but a bullhorn for whatever you tell them to say. Pathetic.

You may know Ms. Dunn for other reasons that have been in the news of late. The first would be her starting a war with Fox News:

Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an “arm of the Republican Party” and “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

From her own lips:

But you know, not everyone will role over for Ms. Dunn paving the way of The One:

Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two “favorite political philosophers,” including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Oh, yeah – she said it. Not Mother Teresa and, say, Nelson Mandela. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. Or Ghandi. Or the Dalai Lama. Nope. Mao Tse-tung:

Holy smokes. In case you need a little refresher of who Mao is, you can click HERE.

So, that’s the White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn. She seems to fit right into the Obama crowd, doesn’t she? I’m sure she and Bill Ayers probably have a lot to talk about, or maybe she just hangs out with Obama’s old Socialist Party friends (remember that? Oh, yeah – card-carrying member of the New Party.). Hey, it could happen!!

I do know that this admission is mighty disturbing. To have confirmed by the White House Communications Director that they purposely controlled the media, thus the message, is telling. And scary as shit, I might add. As is the press ALLOWING itself to be manipulated in this way. Maybe now we really can stop calling them the “press,” and instead call them the Obama Propaganda Team? Or Orchestrated For America? What’s your take?

It isn’t just the Gay Folks who are getting a bit testy, as the video below indicates, but those of us Gay people who DID buy that Obama was going to do something for us (I don’t know what came over them) sure had something to say in the March on Oct. 10th (H/T to Logistics Monster for the video):

I came across this article by B. Daniel Blatt recently that addresses the frustrations of the GLBT community with Barack Obama, Gay Community Increasingly at Odds with Democrats. Considering the constant pandering, all talk, and no action, it is easy to see why we would be inreasingly discontented with Obama (those who were content with him in the first place, that is).

Mr. Blatt comes from a different political position than I do, and I appreciate his take here:

Perhaps the easiest thing about being a gay conservative is that we expect less from our elected leaders than do our left-of-center counterparts. Republican politicians don’t promise us the moon and stars in their campaigns, so we’re not disappointed when they don’t bestow such lofty gifts on our community once elected.

Huh. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Interesting. He continues:

For gay Democrats, however, it’s a different story. They are repeatedly disappointed when their politicians do not follow through on the campaign pledges they make to our community.

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but just a year later, he backpedaled on that promise. After he clumsily tried to act on that promise in the first few days of his administration, that Democrat realized he might suffer politically should he sign an executive order repealing the ban. At the time, the president’s signature was all that was required to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Facing a firestorm of opposition from the military and Congress, Clinton relented and signed a supposed compromise policy, the legislation which became known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Gays could now serve, provided they didn’t self-identify as gay. Now the ban on open service is codified, requiring an act of Congress to be repealed.

This would not be the last time Clinton would sign legislation upsetting gay people who so enthusiastically backed him in 1992.

In the dead of night on September 20, 1996, after receiving the endorsement of the left-leaning gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing one state to bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed in a different state while defining marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. Although its then-leaders denounced the action, HRC did not rescind its endorsement of the then-Democratic incumbent.

Now, you know, I love me my Bill Clinton. Not as much as his wife, mind you, but still…It’s a different day now than it was even then:

Perhaps with that bit of history in mind, the current Democratic President Barack Obama thought that by currying favor with this bastion of the gay Washington, D.C., establishment, he could silence the growing chorus of criticism from erstwhile gay supporters upset by his failure to act on his campaign promises to repeal those two bills. This past Saturday, the president addressed HRC’s annual dinner in Washington where he reiterated his campaign pledges:

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. … We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. … And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

As a reminder, I severed my long-standing membership with the HRC after it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, one a proven advocate for the GLBT community, and one who is not. Wanna guess which one is which? Yep – Hillary is, Obamais not. That doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the folks at the HRC dinner, but other people are getting it:

That may have earned him a standing ovation inside the auditorium, but it did not quiet the criticism outside. Indeed, if anything, the speech only served to increase its volume. Left-of-center lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding took umbrage at the president’s failure to offer a timeline for repeal:

The low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our president was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

Others found different reasons to call the speech “a fail.” Left-wing gay bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage said it sounded more like a campaign speech than a presidential address, with the latter offering, “Sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.” They were not alone. The New York Times reported that one reader of the Bilerico Project quipped in a comment to that gay blog, “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing.”

And you know how much I just LOVE Andrew Sullivan (that was major snark – he has attacked yours truly a number of times, tongue in cheek nominating me for the Michael Moore Award. I suppose I could do worse.). He was a major Obama sycophant, singing his praises left and right, downright bubbly in his support of The One. THat is al to say, I have little sympathy that he is now so disenchanted with Obama. Maybe he could have done a little more research – check that – maybe he could have done SOME research into Obama before throwing his weight behind him. Just a thought.

And he is not the only Obama supporter and GLBT community member who is now frustrated with Obama:

John Aravosis of Americablog was less restrained in his reaction to the speech:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. … It is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn’t do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen.

By this measure, the incumbent Democrat is a lot like the last Democrat to sit in the White House: both seek to avoid controversy, particularly on gay issues. And yet, in seeking to avoid controversy in the general population, Obama has further stirred the pot in the gay community. Even some of his most zealous defenders on the gay left have refused to cut him any slack for his failure to move forward on repealing DADT and DOMA.

Well, and they shouldn’t cut him any slack. Then again, IMHO, they should have pushed harder for a real advocate – Hillary – than the guy they thought was “cool,” or whatever the hell they were thinking – if indeed they were. Blatt continues:

And these outraged voices on the gay left have a greater opportunity today to make public their views than did their counterparts in the Clinton era. Many of them blog, some for heavily trafficked sites. These bloggers have prevented the voices of the establishment gay organizations from dominating the discourse (as they had in years past). When HRC’s president Joe Solmonese made excuses for the president’ s inaction, these bloggers were quick to take him to task.

Due in large part to the integrity of these gay left bloggers, a “schism,” as Spaulding puts it, has opened up between “Gay Inc. [and] the grassroots”. The blogosphere, in short, has changed everything. Gay Inc. (to use Spaulding’s epithet for the establishment gay organizations) no longer reigns supreme as the public voice of the gay community.

It has been supplemented by voices less submissive to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Blogs have given disgruntled Democrats a larger megaphone with which to express their disappointment with a party whose leaders have long assumed that gay voters would remain in their camp even if they didn’t act on their campaign promises.

And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.

Sure, Obama made a small move recently and nominated Clifford Stanley, a 33 year Marine two star general (retired), to this position:

President Barack Obama intends to nominate Dr. Clifford L. Stanley as the undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — the position within the Defense Department that oversees the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“He is likely to be the president’s key Pentagon player in the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate and will be critical for the president in getting military uniform buy-in,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Well, that’s just peachy keen. I don’t know how long it will take to get him confirmed, but it’s just another step. Honestly – HOW much longer are we going to have to debate this horrible legislation?? Did Obama not promise to abolish DADT shortly after he took office? He has a Super Majority, for pete’s sake, and at the very least, he could employ a stay on DADT, but no (as of Oct.17, 459 service members fired under DADT).

But this is a bigger picture issue than DADT, or even DOMA, for that matter. It’s how an entire segment of the population is treated disparately that is the issue.

Along those lines, I think a number of people have started to realize that Democrats do a lot of talking, very little listening, and even less fulfilling of campaign promises made, GLBT people included. Perhaps we can learn that one has to look at more than the letter beside the name, and really look at the candidate. For instance, John McCain stood up for a friend who came out, extending his support to him. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned with, and consistently surrounded himself with, homophobes (McClurkin, Meeks, and Kmiec, to name just three). That is to say, maybe, and I include myself in this, we need to look beyond the letters beside the names, and really look at the people, their character, their words, and how they match up with their actions. Maybe then, these people who gave of their money, and their VOTE, wouldn’t be so disappointed, and frustrated, now. Just a thought.

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!

Here is the article:

President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

“I don’t think it’s going to be — it’s not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately,” James Jones said.

The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn’t expected on the issue until early next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently wrote Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked to share their views and recommendations on the contentious policy. In Sept. 24 letters, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.

So far, this is absolutely nothing we have not heard before, is it? No. But wait, there’s more:

“At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country,” Reid wrote.

Jones said Obama “has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the president will take it on.”

As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsexuality.

Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.
The largest number of gays who were ousted under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or .089 of the force.
The House is considering legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military.
Jones appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Wait, what did General Jones say? John “It Is Hard For Me To Feel Sorry For This Former Obama Cheerleader” Aravosis was none too happy about the pronouncement by the National Security Adviser in this post:

Apparently, General Jones would have us believe that President Obama wasn’t aware that we were fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he promised to lift the gay ban during the campaign in exchange for our votes. So, Jones tells us today, Obama can’t get to that particular promise right now because he’s busy fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Uh huh.

So when exactly are both of those wars going to be over? I’m guessing some time after Obama leaves office. And that of course assumes that we don’t have more wars to “distract” the president.

Jones just set us back. Again. He just gave the Republicans, and conservative Dems, the perfect talking point. Should anyone – members of Congress or the administration – move to lift the ban any time before these wars are over, our opponents will simply quote General Jones saying that to lift the ban during war time would be too distracting.

What could Jones have said? How about, there’s a new analysis from a Department of Defense-related publication that same the ban can be lifted without hurting morale and cohesion. Or how about saying that the President just wrote to Senator Reid, agreeing to work together to lift the ban?

Once again, let me just interject that those of us who were paying attention BEFORE the Election, during the Primaries, were very much aware that Obama wasn’t going to do a damn thing for us, at least not in a timely fashion. There were clues: Never marching in one Pride parade EVER, unlike Hillary Clinton; Donnie McClurkin, “Cured homosexual”; State Senator The Rev. James Meeks; Doug Kmiec; and Pastor Rick Warren, to name just a few. The information was there for those who were willing to see. I’m just sayin’. Back to Aravosis:

Nope. None of that. All we got was another reason why the president may never be able to keep his promise. The Obama administration is doing next to nothing – and perhaps nothing altogether – to move the ball forward on repealing DADT. This isn’t the kind of policy you just wake up one morning and say “ah, today is the day to lift the ban.” Bill Clinton found that out the hard way. It takes months, if not years, of preparation. Working the PR angles, the media, the grassroots, the public at large, the Pentagon. While we have no idea what if anything Obama is doing to work the Pentagon – though Jones’ repeated unhelpful remarks suggest that whatever the president is doing, it isn’t working – we certainly do know what he’s doing on the Hill. Zippo. Harry Reid had to write Obama a letter last week begging him help. And in terms of lobbying the public, we get unhelpful statements like what Jones did, again, today.

In the end, don’t think that Jones is simply freelancing. There is no way a senior administration official goes on TV and keeps screwing up like this. At first it’s a screw up. After this many times, it’s part of the plan. And the plan is to move the goal posts again and again and again until Obama can pass his gay rights promises to the next president, assuming we get a Democrat elected again this century.

No, there isn’t any way a senior administration official goes on CNN and says something like this all on his own. Seeing what the General really said is what made that AOL headline so incredibly misleading (the Yahoo link for General Jones was far more accurate). That seems to be a bit of water-carrying to me, a hope that it will deflect some of the frustration being voiced about Obama now, including on SNL this past Saturday night (10/3).

In other words, not only does it appear Obama isn’t getting to DADT in a timely fashion, he may not be getting to it at ALL. I wish I could tell you I am surprised, but unlike Mr. Aravosis, this is what I feared was going to happen under Obama.

As of Monday, October 5th, 439 service members have been discharged under “DADT” under the Obama Administration. For how long will those numbers go up? Will it indeed be until Obama is out of office?

Remember that “3:00AM” ad? Who would we want answering the phone? This woman, that’s who.

Instead we have President Obama, who has gotten his early morning call, particularly regarding Afghanistan. He’s letting it go to voice-mail. Hey, he has more important things to do, like go to Copenhagen to push for Chicago to get the Olympic Games in 2016. Yep – it’s true. He’s making a “personal” appeal – presumably on OUR dime. Oh, he can’t be bothered with what’s going on with ACORN, mind you, but he can press for Chicago to get the Olympics. So, General McChrystal, and our troops, can just wait, dammit, until Obama can get to them. (By the way, General McChrystal is holding firm on wanting those troops, despite the pressure he is under to shut up.)

Oh, and a little side note on that, the whole Chicago Olympics bid. Turns out that Fox TV in Chicago has been warned – as only they can do in Chicago – to NOT air a program they did on people in Chicago OPPOSED to having the Olympics there again. Oh, I just love this Free Speech, don’t you?

Every time I hear Secretary Clinton speak, and then President Obama, every time, I am reminded of who would have been the better choice to have at the other end of the phone line in difficult times. And it sure isn’t Obama, no matter how much he loves to hear himself talk (though largely about himself, as THIS article highlights. Almost 1,200 times in just 41 speeches, NOT including all of the speechifying he did last week. Holy SMOKES – narcissistic much?). He’s not the one I would trust to deal with the big issues. Seems like some other folks are figuring that out now, too. Too late, though, for dealing with some major issues, like Afghanistan.

If only it wasn’t our soldiers who were going to bear the brunt of that call going to voice-mail…

But wait, it gets worse. The White House, through Health and Human Services, isn’t just telling them to STF up, they are THREATENING Humana and these insurance companies in general:

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The mailings in question urge enrollees to contact their congressional representatives and protest the legislation, the memo said.

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government’s “gag order.”

“Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on,” AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Now, all of us who said that Obama was simply going to take Chicago Politics national, raise your hand. Yep – we were all right. Honestly, though, I’d rather be wrong on this, but that ship has sailed. In essence, the White House is saying, “If we don’t like what you’re saying, we’ll come after you.” Nice. Really nice. And we thought Bush was bad. (Remember that? When we were so upset about his “propaganda” through the media? At least he wasn’t threatening private companies who didn’t agree with his proposed policies. Never thought I’d be defending Bush. See what Obama has done to me?!?!)

But I digress.

Remember when all of Obama’s supporters kept touting his legal expertise particularly in terms of the Constitution during the campaign? And I kept saying, “the better to tear it to shreds.” Sure seems to me that’s exactly what he is trying to do with the First Amendment:

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings, and it wrote to all Medicare Advantage plans Monday, saying “such communications are potentially contrary to . . . federal law.” The government regulates communications between the health plans and their members.

Baucus had urged HHS to crack down on the mailings. (Emphasis mine.)

“It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors,” he said in a Monday news release. “The health care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits under the Medicare program — and seniors need to know that,” he said.

The AHIP spokesman countered that if the proposed cuts are enacted, “seniors will face premium increases, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, will lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.”

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said beneficiaries “deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

Peter Johnson provided a VERY good overview of the issue in the video below:

Here’s the question this just begs to be asked: If this plan is so great, why is it unable to withstand any real scrutiny without threats of retaliation for stating what is in it? That, to me, is a big, huge red flag that someone is lying here, and it does not seem to be Humana.

Oh, and since I’m on the topic of the Health Care Bill, here is a HUGE issue that may be facing us if this plan, as it is, goes through:

Holy toledo. So, a gag order to insurance companies for telling the truth, and another possible truth we’re not hearing enough about – there likely will not be enough doctors to care for us under this new plan. Yep, no more First Amendment, and not enough doctors willing to provide care under this plan.

Well,that’s just jake.

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.