I, for one, am very glad this law will no longer be on the books. It is about time our LGB Americans are able to serve openly without fear of reprisal should their private life be found out. No one should have to hide who they are for fear of being stripped of their position, of their vocation (for some), of their income, simply because of who it is they love. This is long, long overdue.

But for some in the community, this change comes to late. One such person is Lt. Dan Choi, a decorated war veteran, and graduate of West Point. Lt. Choi was dismissed because of his sexuality. It was a tremendous loss for our Army, and for Lt. Choi, who was willing to serve his nation, and did, with great distinction.

And now, Lt. Choi is considering throwing his support not to Barack Obama, but to former governor, Gary Johnson:

Choi, who in 2010 was arrested for chaining himself to the fence of the White House in protest, told The Daily Caller in an email, “I lost significant trust in Obama and his fawning gay elites in the wake of recent homophobic court appeals and election-induced double-talk.”

Choi’s frustration with the president’s apparent lack of interest in the policy’s repeal during the lame duck session of Congress has been compounded by administration appeals of court decisions that have ordered an immediate end to the policy’s enforcement.

[...]

Choi has ruled out supporting Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who he said “foolishly aids the Obama camp in making a cartoonish parody” of Republicans.[snip]

Interesting. I admit, I do not know much about Gary Johnson, but I certainly share Choi’s frustration with Obama. I am pretty tired of people acting like he is all that for the LGBT community when his DOJ has repeatedly upheld DOMA, for instance, not as a matter of law, but by characterizing gay people as perverts. For Obama to now say he supports a bill by Sen. Feinstein to repeal DOMA is just laughable. That’s an easy thing for him to say – costs him nothing. But those of us who have been paying attention know what his Administration has done to keep it in place.

In much the same way, Obama has done NOTHING to abolish DADT. He didn’t push for it, others did. He merely paid some lip service when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Like all of a sudden having the Certification to end DADT coming as his numbers continue to decline. What a coincidence, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either.

But Lt. Choi didn’t stop there:

[snip]“There are some very appealing candidates such as Governor Gary Johnson and others who are much better than Obama on civil rights,” Choi said. “Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Gary Johnson assails conservative Iowa group’s marriage pact.)

[...]

“Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Ain’t that the truth. We are the newest political football – whee!

I never expected Obama to do anything for this community anyway. As I have written numerous times, the people whom he has counted as close friends, like IL Senator, the Reverend James Meeks, or campaigned with, like Donnie McClurkin, are not exactly gay-friendly (that is a massive understatement – they are both unbelievably homophobic). Quite the opposite, in fact. Still, it is nice to see people like Lt. Choi realizing Obama is no friend to us – unless it helps his poll numbers, that is…

In any event, at long, long last, in 60 days, all Americans will be able to serve equally, without fear of reprisal. This is no small thing. Having to hide something so fundamental, so integral, is soul-sucking stuff. It is a horrible thing to do to another human being, and it sure shouldn’t have been institutionalized in our military.

It will be a good day, indeed, when this is behind us…

[snip] With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” [snip]

What a powerful comment, and I am glad he was able to come to that position.

But now there are starting to be some consequences in those states that sanction same-sex marriage. The New York Times reported that several major companies are now asserting that those who currently have domestic partner benefits need to get married in order to keep those benefits:

[snip] Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

“Even with the complications, many people will want to get married for the reasons people want to get married,” said Ross D. Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.” [snip]

The issue with same sex marriage and the federal government is that those of us who have domestic partner benefits are taxed on them as income, as opposed to heterosexual couples, who are not. That is the difference to which Mr. Levi is referring.

I may be missing something, and feel free to tell me if I am, but I am not sure why he is characterizing the push by these companies for people to get married in states where they live work in order to secure these benefits is unfair. Or maybe I just don’t accept his argument.

Like the following argument for how this change could affect adoption:

[snip] When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions to same-sex couples. [snip]

Wait – this seems like a red herring to me. If someone is single when they are adopting – as in, not in a relationship – what difference would it make if they found someone after the fact? I think what she is saying, though, is that the person can CLAIM to be single if they aren’t legally married, so they can adopt. But that is not being honest anyway, so I am not sure why this changes things.

And then there is the immigration issue:

[snip] He said that there were a variety of reasons — legal, financial and personal — that companies should keep the domestic partnership option at least until gay marriage was recognized at the federal level. Legally speaking, getting married could create immigration issues or it could potentially muddy the process of adopting a child. In some instances, he added, an employee may work in a gay marriage state but live in a neighboring state that does not recognize the marriage. The couple may want to wait to marry until they can be legally wed in their home state.

“There are certainly reasons why a couple may not wish to marry,” added Camilla Taylor, marriage project director at Lambda Legal. “People with certain immigration statuses might want to think very carefully before getting married. There are some types of visas that are meant to be temporary, and if you get married to someone who is a citizen, it could flag your renewal application and reflect your more permanent decision to stay.” [snip]

But doesn’t that apply to ANYONE? If someone is here on a temporary visa, finds an American with whom they fall in love, won’t the outcome be similar?

Here’s the thing – my partner and I had hoops through which we had to jump in order for me to be on her insurance. We have to pay more in taxes as a result. And there are some changes that occurred when she changed companies in our insurance, like that the only way I could have dental insurance was if I saw a dentist in California where her company is based. It is unfortunate for obvious reasons, and obviously heterosexual couples don’t have that issue, but there you are. Still, even though it was not legal, we did have a commitment ceremony 14 years ago, and would gladly go to a Justice of the Peace to get legally hitched if we had the opportunity (which is likely to be some time for SC).

All of that is to say, I cannot shake the feeling that some of these folks want their cake and to be able to eat it, too. They pushed for this in these states, they got it, and now when some major companies are saying they have to play by the same rules, they are balking. It isn’t like the companies aren’t giving them time, or making concessions for issues like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but still, there are concerns:

[snip] At least for now, these companies seem to be in the minority, though it is unclear whether more employers will follow their lead. Eastman Kodak, based in Rochester, said it would continue to offer domestic partner coverage to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.

“My impression is that there has been lots of discussion about dropping domestic partner coverage when marriage is first opened up to same-sex couples, but very few employers actually end up taking this step,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, legal director at the Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation law and policy issues. “Some employers initially believe that it is fairer of them to impose the same marriage requirements on all employees, regardless of sexual orientation. But then employees and others explain that employees with a same-sex life partner remain in difficult circumstances due to the continuing federal discrimination.”

Whether same-sex couples marry, they will still be responsible for paying federal income taxes on the value of their partner or spouse’s benefits since they are not recognized by the federal government as an economic unit, unless the person covered is considered a dependent. Couples will not owe those taxes at the state level in places like New York that recognize gay marriage. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And that is a difference – if the companies offer partner benefits regardless of sexual orientation, then sure, keep it that way. But if the benefits are offered because same sex people were unable to get married at that time, but can now, it only seems fair.

And along these lines of same sex marriage, my sister sent me the following video yesterday. I thought there were some pretty good signs. Cracked me up. I hope you find the humor in them, too:

I may be too black/white about this, but if companies are already progressive enough to offer these benefits out of a sense of fairness, are giving people a year to get married, I am not sure what the difference is. But that’s just me.

What do you think? Should the companies that already provide partner benefits for their same sex employees require that they get married if they are able to be eligible for these benefits if that is the requirement for their heterosexual employees? What about the immigration and adoption issues? I’d love to hear what you think.

To celebrate Women in Sports, especially with the Women’s World Cup (soccer) coming up this summer, Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks:

Now you know, I am a HUGE soccer fan. And I was able to attend the semifinals in DC of the World Cup of which Sec. Clinton spoke. In fact, President Clinton was at the stadium at the same time I was, watching the match. There was even a flyover with fighter jets – cool! Oh, and the US obviously won, since they went on to win the World Cup in the dramatic fashion Sec. Clinton mentioned.

This is a great time, this celebration. But wow, do we still have a long way to go.

While Secretary Clinton is reflecting on Women and Sports, a “Gay Girl in Damascus” was allegedly kidnapped in Syria. In Egypt, another woman journalist was almost killed in Tahrir Square last week, saved by a police officer, who was then beaten himself for rescuing her.

A Libyan student in Australia received only THREE YEARS in jail for sexually assaulting four women, and two girls, one of whom was only 13. Why? Well, you know, it is a whole cultural thing. The way these women dress, oh, my, it just upset him SO much, and made him excited, all at the same time. So he did what any man would do – he attacked them. Oh, wait – most men do NOT do that:

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Women, and girls, participating in sports is important, there is no doubt about it. And it is very cool that the US does sports exchanges with other countries. The benefits to girls and women who participate in sports are numerous, with higher self esteem and better overall health at the fore.

But it is not enough when men still think they can overpower women, see women purely as sexual objects, or violate them in a sexual manner as a show of power (though it really highlights the man’s weakness, IMHO). It is not enough when they are seeing a very different message coming from the media, and from our political parties. When the Democratic elite are still supporting a complete sleazebag like Anthony Weiner, what kind of message does THAT send to our young women and girls? When judges in countries like Australia grant a short amount of jail time for a man who assaulted several women, and two girls, as a nod to his neanderthalic view of women based on his religion, how do the girls and women in Australia feel? What is the message being sent to them?

I am glad we still have Title IX in this country, and am happy to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Our girls and women deserve it. But all girls and women, here and around the world, deserve to be treated better than we are. We deserve to not have some slimeball US Representative texting a college woman with a photo of his private parts. We deserve for men to serve the time for the crimes committed against us, not some slap on the wrist. We deserve to be able to do our jobs without threat of DEATH because gangs of men descend upon us.

We deserve better. We deserve better from men, we deserve better from the women who support these sleazeballs, we deserve better from our elected officials.

To follow up on Sec. Clinton’s suggestion, and while I can still post videos from YouTube (our illustrious US Senators are threatening to make it a felony to embed videos), I want to honor the US Women’s Soccer Team. Below is look back at the ’99 World Cup win, and the iconic moment of Brandi Chastain scoring the winning goal for the US Women over China for the Gold:

May the US Women play hard, play clean, have no injuries, and bring back the Gold from Germany.

“Such protections are up to the legislative branch,” he said. His remarks:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

His implication was that outlawing discrimination by sex was only possible through legislature but that the constitution offered no innate protections against these abuses.

Kolawole further reports that “in 1996, Scalia was the only justice to dissent in the Supreme Court decision that ended the 157-year tradition of state-supported, all-male education at Virginia Military Institute.”

Scalia wrote:

…the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.

I guess women and gay citizens have also been smuggled into combat.

Amanda Terkel of HuffPo also covered Scalia’s inflammatory remarks, delving into opposing arguments of legal scholars on the issue. To be clear, this is the language of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Women are citizens are they not? Women are likewise considered “persons” are they not? Or have I missed something? The same holds true for the GLBT community.

For Scalia to make the above statements, he is offering that women or gay people for that matter, are not “persons” or “citizens.” Nothing in the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause speaks about persons or citizens being only male or straight – no matter when the law was written. For Scalia to pretend that judges do not have the right to interpret the Constitution to afford equal protection under the law, (i.e., to bar discrimination) to all people, regardless of sex, race, or sexual preference seems to me more than narrow minded and intentionally inflammatory.

Regardless of other areas in the Constitution where the word “male” was inserted, does Justice Scalia think that gives him the right to adhere to precepts that were written before women were given the right to vote? Or perhaps it is just that he would like it that way.

What say you?

The repeal does not immediately put a stop to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Mr. Obama must still certify that changing the law to allow homosexual and bisexual men and women to serve openly in all branches of the military will not harm readiness, as must Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen, before the military can implement the new law. There remains significant resistance within the military to the change in policy, especially within the Marine Corps. But Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have both said they are committed to implementing the change.

At the signing ceremony, Obama claimed he would not drag his feet on certification. Let’s hope that is indeed the case (though I am not holding my breath).

But there is more to this issue than meets the eye. David Crary of the Associated Press wrote an interesting article on the next steps facing the military, “Blacks, Women, Now Gays: Military To Adjust Again.” If the implementation of having women in the military is an indicator, this could be a difficult time for openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members:

[snip] Now the military has a new social challenge: Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the ranks. It is expected that commanders will dutifully implement the policy, and overall it will likely be judged a success, but recent history provides some cautionary lessons.

On one hand, the military has earned a deserved reputation as a meritocracy in which minorities and women can flourish. On the other hand, sexual assault remains a rampant problem, and racism was minimized only after years of friction within the ranks.

Perhaps the impending repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will unfold more easily, but some female veterans say that will be the case only if commanders are vigilant and aggressive in quashing anti-gay harassment.

“When women come forward to report sexual harassment, that’s when a commander’s courage is tested,” said Anuradha Bhagwati, a former Marine captain who heads the Service Women’s Action Network. “Even though we have fairly decent policies on paper, enforcement of basic harassment policies is very shoddy.”

Bhagwati’s network is a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed Dec. 13 seeking access to Pentagon records on the thousands of sexual assault and harassment cases reported in the past decade. In fiscal year 2009 alone, the Defense Department said there were 3,230 reports of sexual assault involving service members.

Sadly, the incidences of sexual assault against women in the military academmies is on the rise according to a recent report. That is putting it mildly, though, as this Eleanor Clift article makes clear:

No matter how much things change, they stay the same. That was my first reaction to a new Pentagon report that shows an eye-popping rise in incidents of sexual assault at the nation’s prestigious service academies — the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.; the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.; and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. The number is up 64 percent, from 25 cases in the 2008-2009 academic year to 51 cases in 2009-2010. The Pentagon attributes the increase to students being more willing to report these crimes. But the report also acknowledges student discomfort at reporting sexual misconduct, despite steps the military has taken to ensure confidentiality. Students, mostly women but presumably some men too, are afraid of being singled out and somehow being made to pay, either by their superiors or their peers, for disturbing the illusion that all is well between the sexes.

There is also confusion among students as to whether behavior they consider offensive rises to the level of initiating a reporting procedure with built-in safeguards for the accused as well as the accuser. Physical assault and rape are clearer to define, but misconduct that occurs in a social context and triggers what is known as date rape becomes harder to prove, especially when alcohol is involved. Women, who are a minority in the service academies, no doubt feel that the burden is on them to justify making a complaint. The military for too long looked the other way, rather than confront sexual misconduct in its ranks, to expect the kind of trust necessary to encourage candor. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.}

YIKES. Those numbers are staggering, no matter how one wants to paint them. While people have been saying they don’t care what someone’s sexual orientation is when they are under attack in the foxhole, they just want them to do their jobs, how about who women can trust?

But I digress. Back to the Crary article, “Blacks, Women, Now Gays“:

[snip]Several military-policy scholars suggested that the armed forces had done better in regard to racial equality than it has in curtailing harassment of women.

“With race, the military led the way,” said David Segal, a University of Maryland sociologist who has studied military personnel policies. “It was not that way with gender – lots of other workplaces were ahead, and I’m surprised it has taken us this long to get to where we are now.”

[...]

Marcus S. Cox, a professor who teaches black military history to cadets at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C., believes generational factors are at work,

“My students say they’d have no problem serving with someone gay as long as they’re able to do their jobs,” he said. “For young people, raised with MTV and same-sex marriage, it’s not as unsettling as for some older people.”

Segal said incidents of gay-bashing had occurred on a regular basis under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and would likely continue, but not increase, after repeal enabled gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation.

He noted that many members of the military already knew they had gays in their units, despite “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and suggested this could make the upcoming transition smoother than the changes involving blacks and women. [snip]

Well, that is certainly a positive in terms of incorporating openly out service people, but still disconcerting in terms of women.

And then there are those who face discrimination on both fronts:

[snip] Sue Fulton, of North Plainfield, N.J., has seen military prejudice from two directions – as a lesbian and as a woman who was in the first coed class at the U.S. Military Academy in 1976.

“At the academy, it was all about leadership,” she said. “Many of the problems we had came from instructors and staff who would make derogatory comments about women in front of cadets.”

Those staffers were a minority, she said, and most officers were supportive.

Now, with gays soon able to serve openly, Fulton says officers will face similar choices on how to exercise leadership.

“There is a chasm of difference between saying, `We got our orders’ and saying, `This is a good. This will make us stronger, and here’s how we’ll go about it.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Indeed. Though I think it will make the military stronger when members do not have to hide who they are, when there will be comeuppance for gay bashing, and when there will be no “benefit” of outing members of a unit. For people to not have to worry about scrutiny for every word they say, or every action they make, or who they meet on leave, it will of necessity make units stronger.

I am thrilled that DADT has finally, after too many years, been repealed. I know people for whom this will be a huge deal, and which will mean they can continue in their military career without fear of being outed. It is about time.

But this change is far from a done deal, as the treatment of too many women in the academies and the military itself attest. I hope, and pray, that the assaults against women in the military, primarily from other service members, will be addressed swiftly and completely. And I hope and pray that those who will soon be allowed to serve openly will not face reprisal from their fellow service members.

Until that time that Certification is complete, however, we must be vigilant that Obama will keep his word, and not drag his feet on this. The work is not yet over, but still, Wednesday was a good day indeed…

Bernie Goldberg discussed Obama’s Fall from the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” recently, based on research he conducted for his book of the same title Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, and evidenced by recent statements from prominent members of the media:

Gee – is it possible that some folks are really starting to get what we were trying to tell them (and for which we were roundly dismissed with charges of racism, sour grapes, and much worse)? Even some folks in Hollywood are getting it now:

Here’s the thing, Gene – maybe if you had actually done some homework, maybe looked at the local Chicago papers, or thought to yourself, “huh – I wonder why we can’t see Obama’s transcripts, or medical records, or any paperwork at all from his time in IL?” Or even, “why did Obama have to get everyone thrown off the ballot to win his IL seat?” Or how about, “Why did Obama’s team expose the sealed divorce records of both front-runners for the US Senate seat?” Or maybe, just maybe, THIS question: “Why is this guy running after being in the U.S. Senate for 143 days?” Maybe then you wouldn’t have wasted your vote, and be regretting it now.

I have to say, I LOVE Jane Lynch, so I was thrilled to see that she got it. I have tried and tried and TRIED to tell my Obot-loving family that Obama does NOT support same-sex marriage, just the same as the woman they love to hate, Sarah Palin.

While I am speaking of Obama, SC Gov.-Elect Haley was on Greta discussing Obamacare the other night (and thanks to fellow writer, Eastan, for alerting me to her appearance):

Yep – she’s going to be representing our state, and I have to say, I am glad of it.

Anywho – so some in the media continue to wake up (others, not so much – three words, Olbermann and Maddow), but there are signs of life now among not just the media, but the Hollywood cheerleaders, too.

Okay, so NOW do I get to do my “Told You So” dance? Hmm – that wouldn’t be in keeping with the spirit of the season, so how about this: Welcome. We have been waiting for you.

Breaking News: As of this writing, the Senate has voted to allow DADT to advance. Finally. I knew this was going to happen – it would be left until right before the new Congress came in. But it appears DADT will finally be repealed, thank heavens (and no real thanks to Obama – if anyone should be thanked for this, it is Rep. Patrick Murphy, who has pushed for repeal tirelessly). A final vote should be forthcoming this weekend, but it looks good for repeal!

The Courage Campaign has highlighted an important aspect of DADT repeal about which you may not have heard. This from an email I received today:

Here’s the skinny: the Senate vote was the last legislative obstacle. Now the bill will head to President Obama’s desk for his signature. But even after the President signs this law, no one can serve openly. Certification is first required from the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense. It’s part of a backroom deal cut months ago, and it’s ridiculous. We’ve seen how the Administration has dragged their feet over the past two years on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. We can’t let that happen again.

It is not a done deal yet. We must keep the Administration’s feet to the fire on this issue so that all Americans who wish to serve may serve.

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

According to a CRP study reported last week by CNBC, there are 261 millionaires currently serving in Congress. 1 in 5 had accumulated wealth of over $10 million and 8 of the 261 members were worth $100 million or more. Many members have investments in companies that were at the center of the financial crisis and are also heavily invested in health care drugs. During the period from December 2008 to December 2009, the wealth of their members increased by an average of 16%. Is it any wonder that our current Congress experiences a lack of urgency when it comes to repairing our economic situation? Or that many of our representatives stepped into the spotlight to talk about our blossoming economic recovery?

Perhaps Congress is “recovering.” The rest of us are not so lucky. Looking at these numbers, it is not hard to understand the fundamental disconnect between the hoi polloi suffering at near 10% unemployment or chronic underemployment and policy makers who enjoy great salary, health care, free travel and other fetching perks. Small wonder that members of Congress were mortified by furious constituents at town halls last year, railing at egregious spending, terrified about their own economic prospects. To many in Congress, the world looks pretty rosy.

Elitist cluelessness and insensitivity was much in evidence as Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer proposed a military pay freeze to accompany President Obama’s suggested 2-year freeze on pay increases for federal workers. The military is underpaid to begin with, as opposed to federal workers who often make higher wages than their counterparts in the private sector. Hoyer proposed no such wage freeze for himself and his compatriots, who happily vote themselves raises every year.

A friend teaching within the Los Angeles Unified School system in California offered a frightening local example of a national bureaucratic attitude. Several years ago, LA Unified paid tens of millions of dollars to overhaul their payroll system. The resulting disaster saw thousands of teachers incorrectly underpaid or worse, not get a salary check for six months or more due to computer malfunctions and what one could only assume was bureaucratic incompetence. While some teachers attempted to sue to get their paychecks, a judge threw their suit out, claiming their complaints did not rise to a justified level to proceed. The Administration was doing the “best it could.”

A radical experiment might have clarified the butter for this unsympathetic judge: withhold his paycheck for six months and like the complaining teachers he saw fit to dismiss, let him find himself with no alternative but to run up credit card debt month after month to pay for his mortgage and groceries. His frustration might well have risen to a “justified level” to offer redress for these teachers’ grievances.

The same holds true for Congress. Until those making, enforcing or refusing to enforce the laws of our land experience firsthand the ramifications of the standards they establish for others, we will see a continuation of empty talking points detached from credible solutions, particularly where our economy is concerned.

As Democrats and Republicans in Congress duke it out over the choice to extend Bush-era tax rates, there is no room for political posturing or actions designed to cast opponents in a bad light. It is unconscionable that in December 2010, the economy, which has been is a devastating tailspin for several years, should have been on the back burner for so long while Congress horse trades and maneuvers on the START Treaty, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the DREAM Act. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, for example, could have been repealed last year when the President had the political capital to do so – now it is being used once again as a political football. The President and Congress should have the ability to multitask, but they must also prioritize.

While these other issues are most important, there is no reason and no excuse to continue kicking the can down the road, using demagoguery to distract from passing a responsible budget, or stalling and performing half measures rather than stepping up to make effective decisions that will help taxpayers and spur job growth in America. Both sides engage in these tactics and have for years. We have no time for Democrats or Republicans who play war games with legislation while they live in comfort, immune from the consequences of their actions.

Pontificating is easy. Paying the bills is hard.

You may have heard about a recent outbreak of trash-talking on Facebook between Willow Palin and a young man who allegedly went to school where the Palins do, Tre. Tre was talking smack about Willow’s mom after the premier of the TLC show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” (Palin’s show was the most watched premiere in TLC history, garnering 5 million viewers.) Willow took umbrage, and used a couple of homophobic slurs in her responses to him, calling him “gay,” and the f-word (the 6 letter one, that is). Apparently, Bristol weighed in, too, though did not use similar language.

Yikes.

Bristol regained her composure, though, and wrote this:

[snip] “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!”

Needless to say, this has raised a firestorm about Willow, and the Palins in general. The HRC has been one such organization to take aim at 16 year old Willow, though not everyone in the blogosphere is happy about that:

Some bloggers have said that as a minor, Willow should be off-limits. They also said the Palin cub was simply defending her “mama grizzly” in the inappropriate and misinformed style of a teenager.

“Willow Palin is a child, and she is not fair game,” Tommy Christopher wrote at Mediaite. “Willow and her Facebook playmates weren’t thinking about the rash of suicides related to anti-gay bullying, including young kids who were not, in fact, gay. They didn’t create a world where gay equals unequal, they are a product of it.” [snip]

Now you know I am not condoning anyone using that kind of language. Not even close. But, I do know that using those kinds of slurs are common with young people. That does not excuse it, but it is a reality, unfortunately. Heck, my own godson, who has TWO out lesbian godmothers, has been known to say things like, “that’s so gay.” He’s not the only one – other friends of mine have used that phrase to me, but claim it isn’t intended as an insult. Um, well, maybe not, but it is.

Anyway, that is all to say, Willow is 16. I said some pretty stupid stuff at 16, too, but I didn’t have it writ large on a national level. Again, not excusing it in any way, shape, or form, but I do see how it can happen. And how it is NOT a reflection on the parents themselves.

Two prominent gay and lesbian conservatives are furious with HRC and their attacks on Willow Palin. In this Daily Caller article, “Bigotry: The Selective Outrage Of The Gay Left,” Tammy Bruce and Christopher R. Barron go after HRC.

As an aside, you may recall that I was a long, long time member of the HRC – over 25 years – until they endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton. They had just presented Clinton with a huge award for her work on behalf of the LGBT community, and they endorse the man with the virulently homophobic associates – Meeks and McClurkin come to mind – instead. Wow.

Anyway, back to the article, and the response from these two GOProud members:

For days now, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which holds itself out as the “largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization,” has shamefully used the issue of anti-gay bullying as part of a cheap political smear against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. HRC, never shy about doing the bidding of the Democratic Party, issued a November 18th release blaring, “HRC to Sarah Palin: Two Days of Silence, Will You Speak Up?” Is this a release demanding Palin speak out about an issue of substance affecting gay people? No, this childish call-to-arms is about trash talk issued by a 16-year-old in a flame war on a social networking site.

The “controversy” surrounding inappropriate language used by the Palin daughters on Facebook shows again how selective the gay left is in expressing outrage over perceived “bigotry.”

Politicizing the serious issue of anti-gay bullying in order to score political points is morally reprehensible. Bristol apologized on behalf of herself and her younger sister — and that apology should be the end of the story, but it’s not because the real target of this faux outrage is Sarah Palin, a woman who represents an existential threat to both political machines.

No one is condoning the use of obscenities or derogatory terms, but no one who has seen the Facebook exchange in question can seriously claim this behavior had anything to do at all with “bullying.” It also has nothing to do with Willow Palin or the substance of what she wrote. Make no mistake; this is all about destroying Sarah Palin by friends of Obama and by any means necessary.

The irony here is stunning. The adults who run HRC are participating in a morally-reprehensible organized political hatchet job on a teenager all in the name of defending the victims of bigotry. [snip}

Can the case be made that the HRC is itself engaging in bullying against a child? And if so, it seems the motive is likely political:

[snip] The nature of the attacks on Palin reveals much about what motivates her critics. HRC’s press releases are ripe with misogynistic attacks on the Governor. HRC refers to the Governor as a “reality TV show star” — a transparent attempt to diminish Palin’s almost 20 years in politics. In a November 17th release, Joe Solmonese, the man at the helm of HRC, made a thinly veiled accusation that the Facebook exchange somehow showed Palin failed as a mother — “Anti-gay language by teenagers often starts at home…” [snip]

The authors discuss how that is not quite accurate – as I noted above, it is unfortunately far too common in our schools to use this kind of language. Sad, but true, even among those who should know better.

Bruce and Barron then target the Gay Left for their silence in regard to the homophobic, misogynistic tenets of radicalized Islam:

[snip] Last June, when President Obama delivered his much ballyhooed speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, he made no mention of the treatment of gays and lesbians living under Muslim regimes — even though in Egypt, the country where Mr. Obama spoke, gays have been subject to arrest and imprisonment for simply being gay. The reaction from the gay left? Nothing. No outrage, no harshly worded statements, and certainly no around-the-clock vigil waiting for an apology.

Last September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bravely took to the floor of the United Nations and criticized the treatment of gay people in Iran. After speaking with such moral clarity about the need to protect gay people from violence and death, if you expected praise from the gay left you would be wrong. Indeed, the powers that be at HRC pretended like Netanyahu’s speech never even happened.

The behavior of the gay left, and in particular HRC, is shameless and disgusting. Governor Palin certainly does not owe anyone associated with HRC an apology; indeed it is HRC who should apologize. They should apologize to Governor Palin for their vicious and unfounded smear, to the real victims of anti-gay bullying who they have cheaply exploited, and to gay people world-wide for the blind eye they have turned to the barbaric treatment of gays by radical Islamic regimes. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Interesting comparison, is it not? How is it that the Left now thinks its cool to support radical (not moderate) Islam that treats women as worse than chattel, and gays even worse than that, yet take on a teenager for some crap she wrote on Facebook. One could argue their priorities are a bit skewed.

Again, by no means do I condone the language used by Willow on Facebook. The level of bullying occurring in our schools is troubling, indeed, whether those children being bullied are gay or not. The outcome is the same.

Bristol Palin has apologized for her sister’s comments. They were out of line. But are her comments worthy of the ire of an entire organization, one that is going after a teenager? Is the HRC minimizing the very real, and troubling, number of suicides by gay teens by their demand? Are they targeting not Willow, but her mother? Will being told something is “so gay” ever be seen as POSITIVE? Perhaps that is for what we should be striving instead of being so upset when someone uses it in that kind of context (hey, I can hope, can’t I?)?

Maybe instead of the HRC focusing on some Facebook exchange between the daughter of a prominent Republican, they could push Obama to do more than give lip service to the LGBT community. Focus on repealing DADT. Focus on obtaining the same federal benefits for the LGBT community that the rest of the citizenry in this country enjoy. Push Obama to stop praising countries who treat their gay citizenry like criminals without mentioning same. You know, stuff like that.

And we need to do more sensitivity training in our schools – all of them. Our children need to know that this kind of name-calling is hurtful, regardless if the child is gay or not. It needs to stop. Adults need to stop using that kind of language, too (in a derogatory manner, that is). We need to teach our children that bullying is wrong no matter what. Period.

So, how about you. What do you think about this?

An old friend of mine sent me an article recently from NPR, “Teacher Suspended After Stopping Anti-Gay Talk.” My friend was a high school teacher for many years (and now teaches on the community college level), so naturally, this would pique her interest. Mine, too.

But the headline is a bit misleading, I think. It makes it sound like a kid was bullying by using homophobic language. That was not the case:

[snip] On Oct. 20, McDowell told a student in his classroom to remove a belt buckle with the Confederate Flag, the symbol of the southern confederacy that seceded from the United States over slavery, kicking off the Civil War in the 1860s.

She complied, but it prompted a question from a boy about how the flag differs from the rainbow flag, a symbol of pride for the gay community.

“I explained the difference between the flags, and he said, ‘I don’t accept gays,”’ said McDowell, 42, who was wearing a shirt with an anti-gay bullying message.

McDowell said he told the student he couldn’t say that in class.

“And he said, ‘Why? I don’t accept gays. It’s against my religion.’ I reiterated that it’s not appropriate to say something like that in class,” McDowell said Monday.

McDowell said he sent the boy out of the room for a one-day class suspension. Another boy asked if he also could leave because he also didn’t accept gays.

“The classroom discussion was heading in a direction I didn’t want it to head,” McDowell said.

McDowell soon received a reprimand letter from the district that said his actions violated the students’ free speech rights as well as school policy. It also said he “purposefully initiated a controversial issue” by the wearing the T-shirt featuring the anti-gay bullying message.

“I thought it was a really great, teachable moment,” McDowell said of his decision to remove the student from class. [snip]

I have a few problems with the way the teacher handled this situation. It did not seem to me that the young man was gay-bullying, but giving his religious belief, which he is allowed to have, much as I (and apparently, the teacher) disagree with him. As long as he was not bashing anyone, that is. A number of mainstream religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, and a number still do not ordain LGBT people. That this student holds such a religious belief is his right, as long as he does not take it out on anyone. Again, much as I disagree with that religious belief, the student has the right to his beliefs.

I think the more “teachable moment” would have been to keep him in the classroom. Maybe discuss how, even if our religious beliefs differ, we can, and should, treat people with respect, and stand up for “the least of these,” to couch it in language the young man may have understood. It was a perfect opportunity to discuss the bullying that has been occurring in our school across the country, and how it isn’t just against gay kids, but “nerds,” small kids, etc. That was the teachable moment in my mind.

I think the t-shirt the teacher wore was provocative, even if it was in support of ending the recent bullying cases making the headlines. Given that he was clearly stating a position, he should have expected that some people might have taken umbrage with it. And, he should have been willing to engage, and really TEACH, rather than dismiss.

And I think this was a discussion more suited to a Social Studies class than an Economics class. While I appreciate – very much – the teacher’s intent, he infringed upon the young man’s rights by, well, being intolerant of the student’s beliefs. In his attempt to stop bullying, he, in essence, bullied this kid. Since the teacher had the power, he was able to toss out someone with whom he disagreed rather than have a real discussion.

That is to say, this teacher seemed to violate the student’s right to free speech, which is also the conclusion of ACLU attorney:

[snip] Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legal Project, credits McDowell for trying to create a “welcoming environment for all students.” But Kaplan said the “teachable moment” would have come if the students stayed in the classroom.

“We believe, based on those statements — as offensive and upsetting as they were — they were protected speech,” Kaplan said. “The only way we’re going to create a better environment in schools is to start talking about this.”

Kaplan said Howell schools have expressed interest in accepting the ACLU’s offer to provide in-person training to students, faculty and staff. He said such training could provide a better understanding of what can be said and done. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

That sounds like a positive step for the Howell schools, and a better way to go about creating an atmosphere conducive to these kinds of discussions. I am glad to learn they are open to this

I’m glad Md. McDowell is aware of this issue, and doing what he can to end gay-bashing/bullying in his school, but there are ways that are more effective than others to accomplish that goal. The kind of intolerance he demonstrated by kicking the student out sends the wrong message, and will simply breed resentment, not enlightenment.

At least that’s what I think. What do you think?

In the court case “Win” Column, there is this promising article from the Washington Post, “Judge Questions Justice Department’s Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law.” According to the article, this does not bode well for the DOJ’s argument.

My favorite part of the article:

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument: that the Arizona statute is “preempted” by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

“I’ve read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument,” Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. “We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”

“With respect, I do believe we have an argument,” said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to “interrogation and police surveillance.”

The exchange came at a hearing on efforts by the Justice Department to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect are in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued a July injunction blocking the law’s most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to the Monday hearing.

Holy moley, huh? I bet THAT was some fun to watch.

This case is still being considered, and no telling what the final outcome will be, but the attitude exhibited by Judge Noonan was certainly entertaining.

In the court case “Lose” category was this decision, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Is Back On, Indefinitely: Initial Reactions”

In the “I Told You So” category in terms of DADT, Harry Reid has already come out after the election with this claim, “Reid: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Depends On GOP Cooperation.” Have I not been saying this all along, that this was the Democrats’ strategy? They knew they were going to lose their Super-majority in the recent election, and despite every opportunity to repeal DADT, Obama and the Democrats pushed it off. Check that – Obama did everything in his power to KEEP “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place, as the recent appeal highlights. Unbelievable. Not unexpected, just unbelievable that they are starting the blame game the DAY after the election. Spare me.

And in the case of the recent election, the “I Won, But I’m Going To Act Like I Lost” category is Rep. Barney, Frank of MA, he of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac infamy (he claimed they were not in crisis -uh, riiigghhhttt…). As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air highlights, you would never know Barney Frank actually WON his seat against a late challenger(sigh) by the way he acted in his “acceptance” speech. Yes, it is over ten minutes long, but as Mr. Morrissey said:

[snip] Heck, when this got sent to me, I didn’t expect me to sit through it all, either. Once it gets started, it has a certain train-wreck quality to it that kept me hanging on until it finished. It’s a bit like watching Battlefield Earth all the way through to see if it actually gets worse, and in both cases, yes it does. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

See for yourself below:

Yikes. And he’s the WINNER?? Wow. I am a bit embarrassed that I actually voted for this guy. In my defense, then, he was not so much of a political hack (no, really, he wasn’t!! Sheesh. I might add, I can’t believe Deval Patrick won again, too. Holy moley.). Oh, and about Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, having to take it on the chin. Frank seems to forget that there is VIDEO available of his partner heckling Frank’s opponent, Sean Bielat, not the other way around. Wow, talk about revisionist history…

The past two years, along with the recent election, are lessons in winning some, and losing some, I guess. There were a couple of cases in which I wish we had won more, like on DADT and DOMA, but I never expected Obama to live up to his word on that, so I am not surprised. Just more anger at the DNC for shoving this man down our throats against the will of the majority. Hillary would have kept her promise to abolish DADT, not appealed a decision to stay it. Of that I am sure.

And we are still stuck with Harry Reid. Not that I thought Sharron Angle was a great alternative, I just cannot stand Harry Reid. I never did think he was a good choice for Senate Majority leader, and that opinion has only been strengthened in the time he has held that position. His quick blame of the GOP for an utter failure of Obama and the DNC is just another reason.

On the plus side, Nancy Pelosi will have to give up her gavel. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. I guess I should not be surprised that Pelosi continues to be in unbelievable denial about her tenure, saying she “has no regrets” (h/t to my aunt). Well, many of the REST of us sure have regrets about how she operated since we’ll be paying for it for years to come (unless Obamacare, the law that no one read, is repealed). That she cannot see her own myopia is no big surprise though, is it? Yeah, no.

So yes, you win some, you lose some. “Cest la vie.” Ain’t that the truth…

“Defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” Act was necessary to significantly further the Government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion” wrote US District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips. “Defendants failed to meet that burden.”

Lt. Dan Choi is an Arabic linguist, West Point grad, decorated war veteran, discharged under DADT. He speaks out here about Obama’s decision to appeal for relief on the stay imposed by a CA judge of DADT, which was granted. The stay is on hold. Below, Lt. Dan Choi speaks out about this hold:

I honor Lt. Choi’s service to this country, and am saddened at all he has had to endure as a result of this horrible policy. But I have to ask – after Obama’s repeated actions on DADT, why does he still love him?

And after the actions this Administration has taken on DOMA, as well. The Obama Administration just appealed another DOMA ruling in MA in SUPPORT of DOMA. This is not the first time the Obama Administration has taken this action. The last time Obama did this was in CA, and that appeal likened gay people to pedophiles and incest perpetrators.

Given that, given Obama’s numerous action that are clearly detrimental to the LGBT community, how is it he still “loves” Obama?? Then again, given Obama’s numerous homophobic associates, why did he love him in the first place?

Obama has done everything in his power to NOT repeal DADT, asking for a report to be completed in Dec., after the mid-term elections, and after he loses a Dem. super majority (in addition to the appeals filed to uphold DADT). Surely that timing isn’t lost on anyone, is it? Then he can blame everyone else when DADT is not repealed.

I hope Lt. Choi will have his service reinstated, and soon. But really, it is time, past time, to look at Obama with a clear eye. He is not a friend to the LGBT community, and has proven that time and time again. Stop excusing his behavior, and hold him accountable already.

That’s the question raised by David Fletcher of the LGBT Mentoring Project of the Learn Act Build Program at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center. Mr. Fletcher’s findings have been documented in this article in the LA Times, Behind the numbers of Prop. 8: It’s crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8′s victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage..

Huh – and here I thought we already knew the answer to that question, as I wrote back in November 0f 2008: Obama and his supporters. That’s the short answer, anyway. Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, after all. That is also the answer to how Proposition (or Amendment) 2 passed in Florida that election, too, a law far more restrictive regarding the LGBT community, but one that is rarely, rarely mentioned, even though it garnered 62% of the vote.

But here is the point Mr. Fletcher wishes to make:

[snip] After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents. [snip]

There is more to this report, including wrong-way voting which affected both sides, though that seems to be the case more for those who OPPOSED same sex marriage actually voting for it (500,000). You can read the rest of the article HERE, and the full report at prop8report.org.

Yes, it seems 687,000 people shifted their votes in the final weeks. And those people were mainly Democrats. Is Mr. Fletcher really surprised by this? I have been saying for some time now that the DNC is not as “gay-friendly” as they would like us to believe. Again, Obama himself opposes same-sex marriage. So, the outcome should not be a huge surprise, at least not to me. Curious that it seems to be a surprise for Mr. Fletcher.

I find it interesting that Mr. Fletcher made a point of claiming it is not the fault of African Americans – entirely, that is. He seems to want to take the heat off of the African American community while having to acknowledge that, while their numbers may not have changed that much from polls before the vote to the vote itself, they still voted FOR Prop 8. Um, is that revised look at the data supposed to be a comfort to those affected by this votes?

Regardless, I have been saying for almost two years now that it was the Democrats, in both California AND Florida, who voted to suppress our right to marry. It’s a fact, Jack, no matter how one looks at the data. Sad, but true.

While we are talking about Democrats and votes, guess what the Democratic Party has decided to keep? Oh, you could see this coming a mile away: Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates: A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback..

“A reform effort…suffers a setback”? Uh, yeah – one could say that, but that is if one was ever foolish enough to believe the Democratic “bigwigs,” which includes Obama, by the way, were ever, ever going to give up that power in the first place.

Oh, sure, Obama made noises about abolishing the Superdelegates after he bullied them into giving him the nomination (along with votes for Hillary which the RBC did), as this article reports:

[snip] After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

Let’s just look at the plethora of Obama sycophants listed right there. Are you seriously trying to make me believe that if Obama wanted this Superdelegate thing changed, it wouldn’t be? Spare me already. Oh, he wants to keep it the same – he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Superdelegates (not to mention Convention delegate, voter, and caucus fraud, but hey – no need to be picky, right?).

And the outcome of the proposed change? You know it – you knew it from the get-go. They said NO:

[snip] But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All of us who were paying attention May 31, 2008, who watched as the Democratic Party revealed its true colors right before our eyes, knew damn well the Rules and Bylaws Committee would never, ever willingly give up such a great tool for overturning the will of the voters. These days, that’s just how the Democrats roll.

I am so glad Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it is Democrats who voted FOR Prop 8, though we knew that already. But hey – never hurts to get a reminder, eh?

And we got another reminder from the RBC this week, too. How we vote, for what we vote, for whom we vote, one thing is clear – the Democratic Party does not stand for what it says it does: it is not the party of the people. And it damn sure is not the party that cares about one person, one vote. Glad the RBC made that crystal clear one more time for those who missed it a couple of years ago.

Like I said, these days, this is just how the Democratic Party rolls. I expect we will see more of the same in 2012, but then again, with this bunch, I never expected anything different. How about you?

UPDATE: As you may have heard by now, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughan R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8:

[snip]…violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]

I am sure there will be more about this in the coming days. But, WOW!! Good news!

UPDATE #2: Just in case you were wondering if, maybe, just maybe, this reversal by Judge Walker has had an effect on Obama’s stand against same sex marriage, the answer would be No. Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage. Oh, but he supports us. Yeah. Right.

But now, Argentina also has legalized same sex marriage. All that is needed to make it official is the signature of their (woman) president, Christina Fernandez.

Do I even have to say what a big deal this is? I didn’t think so. This article provides the highlights:

Argentine Senate Backs Bill Legalising Gay Marriage
The Argentine Senate Debate continued until the early hours of Thursday

Argentina has become the first country in Latin America to legalise gay marriage after the Senate voted in favour.

The country’s Chamber of Deputies had already approved the legislation.

The vote in the Senate, which backed the bill by just six votes, came after 14 hours of at times heated debate.

Now, don’t think that everyone was all happy about this legislation, though. Not everyone is:

The law, which also allows same-sex couples to adopt, had met with fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

[Snip]

Outside Congress, as the debate continued into the early hours of Thursday, supporters and opponents of the bill held rival demonstrations.

“Nearly every political and social figure has spoken out in favour of marriage equality,” said Maria Rachid, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals.

“And we hope that the Senate reflects this and that Argentina, from today forward, is a more just country for all families,” she told the Associated Press.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

What a great day for the people of Argentina, affirming the inherent worth of all of their citizens, and affording all their citizens the same rights. What a concept. My hat’s off to them.

In case you are wondering, they also dropped their ban against openly gay people serving in their military in 2009. To me, it just begs the question: If Argentina can do it, why can’t we?

And now for that tango:

Right? Wow…

This is an Open Thread. What is on your mind?

So much going on recently, like: DADT may be coming up for a vote in the House, but its repeal is far from guaranteed, especially with the Chiefs of the Four branches speaking out against repeal; The LA Times reported the hole was finally closed using the Top Kill method of pushing mud and stuff into it, but unfortunately, the news was a bit premature (it is slowing it down, though); and border issues still causing a stir, with the troops Obama wants to allocate going to deal with drugs and guns, not illegal immigrants, even in the face of a TERROR Alert being issued by homeland security. Just like Mexico told him to do – deal with guns and drugs, not stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the US. Hmmm. That sounds like dereliction of duty to me, not protecting the borders as required in the Constitution, but I’m not a lawyer, so…

Whew – makes me tired just thinking about it, not to mention angry, worried, and upset. I need a break. Maybe you do, too. Oh, this will still be political, but hopefully, it will also make you laugh, too.

Here’s the thing. There’s this “reporter” named Joe McGinniss. He is not a fan of Sarah Palin’s to put it MILDLY. McGinniss is currently writing an unauthorized biography of the former governor of Alaska. So, what did he do? He rented the house next door to hers so he could watch her morning, noon, and night for months. Oh, and when I say next door, I mean 15 feet away from her family. I am not kidding.

Check it out:

Holy moley. So, let me understand this – McGinniss threatens a reporter with the police for trespassing, while “invading the space” of the Palin family on a daily basis. I got ya. That sounds about right for the Palin haters. “Okay for me, not for thee” sort of thing. Seriously, though – McGinniss pulling this stunt says a whole lot about him, and his character. The sheer arrogance and hubris of such a move, figuratively and literally, is telling indeed.

But how about Todd’s skills with a saw? Here’s a closer look at the wall (from Greta van Susteren):

Now, that’s a good looking fence. Todd can come to my house and do carpentry work anytime.

Michelle Malkin has another suggestion given the quick wall building skills of Todd Palin and friends:

I nominate Todd Palin for border czar.

If only our federal government acted as swiftly and decisively to protect the nation’s borders from intrusion…

No kidding, huh? Someone who doesn’t drag his feet when decisive action is required. Obama could take a lesson from Todd. That’ll be the day…