Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

The spontaneous march in response, the solidarity evident, brought tears to my eyes.

While we are on the subject of the GLBT community, as of this writing, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 332 service members have been dismissed under DADT under Obama and this Congress.

As for Obama and Same Sex Marriage, anyone holding their breath that Obama will do anything FOR it should breathe now. I’ve been saying this for a while, and James Kirchick writing for the Washington Post had this to say in his editorial, “Obama Said ‘I Don’t. He May Just Mean It” (h/t to American Girl in Italy):

~snip ~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton’s comments, he told reporters that his boss “does not support” same-sex marriage. “He supports civil unions,” Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama’s statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating “don’t ask, don’t tell” violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn’t done — and is unlikely to do — much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama’s secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. “Pbbbht! Of course he’s in favor of gay marriage!” Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director. “I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we’ve achieved full equality in the gay community,” he told journalist Rex Wockner. I’ve lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama “really” supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it’s easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent — if not outright opposed — to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals’ notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. “Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn’t have — that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar — is it a complicated issue?” Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Ah yes, why actually believe Obama’s own WORDS on this issue, is the question I would have for Kushner. Obama, and Biden, have been VERY clear that their position on same sex marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as Sarah Palin’s. Exactly the same. Identical. No difference. But please, keep lying to yourselves so you can continue to glorify The One. And go have some more Kool Aide while you’re at it. Kirchick continues:

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a “citizen of the world” would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don’t, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama’s history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama’s apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama’s apparent flip isn’t genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he “really” thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They’ve done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn’t apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: “I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Talking about “feelings” is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama’s promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, “I feel your pain.” Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action. (jkirchick@tnr.com James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.)

Good for Mr. Kirchick to actually point this out. I seriously doubt that the people who refuse to believe it will see the light, but at least he tried, right? And I appreciate the effort on his part.

Speaking of the Washington Post, we had this this, from July 31st. It is a shift from homophobia to sexism. You will most likely recognize the two “players” in this video:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ – you fill in the blank.

Oh, and one last thing. Vanity Fair has an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “It Came From Wasilla.” Yes, the author is a man. They are calling the former Governor, a woman, “It”?? Like when Glenn Beck said of Hillary Clinton, “It cries”??? Sheesh, the author isn’t even original. And naturally, the article is another hatchet job of this woman who dared to work her way up, buck her own party, and do right by her state. Naturally. Not for nothing, but I would have more rights in Alaska because of Sarah Palin than in most states in the Union. Just sayin’.

Back to Millbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does – he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Millbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, are you worried about this?

That being said, there is no doubt that Private William Long, the Army soldier gunned down outside an Army Recruiting Center (along with Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula, who was wounded), was killed for political and religious reasons by a convert to Islam, who studied jihad in Yemen. To deny that, to gloss over that reality because President Obama was getting ready to go give a speech in Egypt to the Muslim community (and you know that is why), is yet another example of the failure of the Fourth Estate to do its job, instead of acting as the PR arm of Obama’s Administration. It is revisionist history, to be sure, but one that has consequences, not just in Little Rock, AR, but also for those serving our country who expect, no, who are ENTITLED to, better treatment by their country. It dishonors them, their service, us, and this dishonor is being perpetrated by their Commander in Chief. It is reprehensible.

And so, with the caveat above, here is a link to a post from Atlas Shrugs regarding an event at a Remembrance Rally for the fallen Pvt. Long. One of the points made at the other post was the lack of coverage of this event compared to the protesters at Dr. Tiller’s funeral. At least that seemed to garner some national media attention.

I hasten to say, though, I think it is inappropriate for protesters to be at ANYone’s funeral, whether it be Dr. Tiller’s by Operation Rescue-type people, or at Pvt. Long’s by those who think the US is “The Great Satan,” or whatever. Some of you may know that Fred Phelps’ gang, um, I mean, “church,” often stages protests at the funerals of military personnel (you know, supporting a country that supports LGBT people), and at the funerals of gay people (like Matthew Shepard, for example). If you have not seen any comments made by this group, this should give you an idea:

“The first sin was being a part of this military. If this young man had a clue and any fear of God, he would have run, and not walked, from this military,” said protester Shirley Phelps-Roper. “Who would serve a nation that is godless and has flipped off, defiantly defied, defiantly flipped off, the Lord their God?”

And this:

One protester had an American flag tied to his belt that draped to the ground. He was holding a sign that read, “Thank God For IEDs,” which are explosive devices used by insurgents to blow up military convoys.

It only goes down hill from there.

Ironically, there are often veterans there to counter the Phelps’ people, but they know that this is a free country, which means they have to listen to this crap and not lash out in kind.

Oops – sorry for the digression. The point (I’m getting there!) is two-fold: first, the lack of coverage relating to this violent attack by someone who has a HISTORY of violence and “fun with guns” (ahem), who attacked members of our military motivated by religion and politics continues to upset me. There should be more outrage about this, if you ask me, and more concern, especially since Muhammad seems to have larger connections. Maybe the FBI should have been keeping a closer eye on him.

Second, protesting at a memorial remembrance, or anything like that, is inappropriate, in my opinion that is. People are grieving the loss of their loved ones, and especially when they have been taken by violent means, to then have to deal with protesters is just cruel. I am ALL for free speech, a right sacred to us in a democracy, one in which I engage in regularly, and through protests. It is a right that the veterans mentioned as being why they tolerate the hateful comments made at funerals of soldiers by the Phelps “church.” It is why the videographer at the Rally said over and over, “Can you do this in Saudi Arabia?” (as in, can a woman stand on a street in Saudi Arabia and say whatever she wants? I kinda doubt it.).

But I also believe there is a time and place for such protests, and at someone’s funeral, or even their memorial rally, flies in the face of decency and decorum. That concept seems to be sorely lacking these days, but it wouldn’t hurt to get back to it, and I hope we do. Any ol’ day now…

We’re becoming a Puritanical society, bit by bit. No same sex marriage, no domestic partnership benefits, no rights for any couple unless they’re married under the eyes of the law. What’s next? No divorce allowed? We have to protect marriage, after all. Governmental approval of choice of spouse before marriage can take place? I wonder what their criteria would be.

Here in SF, the gay community is despondent, and rightly so. (But now I’m going to rant a bit, because I’m so freaking tired of the blindness and apathy and non-accountability and hypocrisy I run into daily.)

The folks I talk to here in the Castro are very nastily taking their frustrations out on Carrie Prejean who, while I certainly don’t agree with her views, has the exact same views as the man they voted for President. Yet when I mention this, I get no response, or “that’s different”.

Mention The Pretender’s turnaround with DADT and DOMA? No response. Mention some of the anti-gay people he’s appointed to positions in his administration? No response. Mention his non-support of equal marriage rights for everyone, his non-support of the gay community, his never once having marched in any gay pride parade? No response.

But mention Carrie Prejean? Well, you’d think she was the devil incarnate. Like I said, I certainly don’t agree with her views, but would someone please tell me why she’s bad and The Pretender is still The One???

I agree we ALL have to fight for marriage equality, gay and straight alike. I wish someone would tell the gay community here in SF. I’m seeing a lot of anger at the outcome of the CSC decision, but where were they all when Prop 8 was on the ballot? The level of involvement was almost zero. Easier to blame its passing on others rather than take responsibility for educating and enlightening those people outside of their community.

Okay, time for me to go hide again and pretend I’m in the midst of a nightmare and I’ll be waking up any minute and turn on the news and find out what President Hillary Clinton is accomplishing today.

What SFIndie said. Couldn’t have said it better myself…Thanks, SFIndie, for letting me post this!

Oh, wait – sorry, I am getting ahead of myself now. See, there was this article on Sunday, Anne Hathaway Against Rick Warren, But Won’t Turn Back On Him at Inauguration.

Now, in case you somehow missed it reading your issue of People or OK! or wherever it is they have this kind of info, Ms. Hathaway is a big Obama supporter.

What a SURPRISE! Not. Well, she was mighty upset at him over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to play an important role in the Coronation. Here’s what she had to say about this offensive choice, along with the generous set-up by the author of the article:

Hathaway is also proving to be incredibly articulate, and, as the year passed, politicized in a way that puts her in the legacy of Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon. She speaks her mind about issues she feels passionately about.

One of them is Barack Obama—whom she backed—and his choice of Rick Warren as the Obama Inauguration’s clergy of choice.

“I am against it,” Hathaway told me at the after party last night amid champagne toasts to her, to Streep, and to her “Rachel” co-star Rosemarie Dewitt. “My older brother is gay, and so its a family issue for me. My father is coming with me to the Inauguration. At first we discussed not going, and then we thought we’d just turn our backs when he [Warren] speaks. But we didn’t want to be disrespectful. So we’re going to wear ribbons protesting his appearance.”

So she’s outspoken, and polite. That’s a combination you can’t beat.

Wowie freakin’ zowie, Anne – you are practically another Norma Rae, I tell ya! Way to stand up to the man, especially in solidarity with your gay brother! Hell to the yeah, wear that ribbon! That oughta learn Obama that you are not happy with his choice of YET ANOTHER homophobe for the big occasion! Of course, it isn’t stopping you from GOING, or from supporting him in the FIRST place, this misogynistic homophobe who has surrounded himself with anti-gay, anti-choice men at EVERY turn.

I don’t know about your brother, but speaking for me only, I gotta tell you, it just does not feel like a whole lot of support. If someone consistently surrounds himself with actively anti-gay people, it should tell you something about him. And if all you do is make excuses for him, or protest by wearing a ribbon while still participating in his Coronation, well, that has about ZERO impact. But you just go ahead and tell yourself you are taking a stand while still participating in the event. Oh, yeah – that’ll sure learn ‘em, as we say down here in the South. Power to the people!

I cannot even begin to tell you how sick and tired I am of this. People who claim to care about GLBT issues and rights, who have family members who are GLBT, or even GLBT people themselves who continue to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to who Obama really is. What the HELL is it going to take to get through to you? He does not give a DAMN about the GLBT community. If he DID, he would not associate with The IL Senator Rev. James Meeks, who is rabidly anti-gay . Or Donnie “God Delivered Me From Homosexuality” McClurkin. Or Doug “Hell No, You Gay People Can’t Marry!” Kmiec. Or invite one of the big haters of Gay people – Rick Warren – a man who will not even allow us into his CHURCH – to be up front and center in his Big Event. Or who chooses Tim Kaine, another big time gay hater, to be THE CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, the very party the GLBT community has, by and large, supported.

Oh, that’s not a slap in the face or an affront at all!! Oh, and Ladies – both Warren and Kaine don’t think you should be able to choose what happens to your own body your self either! What a GREAT feminist minded guy he is! Treats women like crap in the open for eighteen months, and yet still is lauded as being a FEMINIST by Ms. Magazine! That is just obscene.

And yes, I have heard that The Right Rev. Gene Robinson has now been asked to give an invocation at a Sunday night Lincoln Memorial Inaugural event. Oh, well, that just makes EVERYTHING okay now, doesn’t it? A last minute addition to an event that is not exactly the main event will make all of us gay people all of a sudden forget that Obama chose a rabidly homophobic, misogynist to be on the Main Stage. Oh, yes, I am so thankful for this crumb dropped from the table. Maybe Obama isn’t such a hater after all, right?

Freaking spare me already. I have had it. Sorry if I am being pissy, but this is just sheer stupidity. Yes, I said it. At what point are his followers EVER going to hold him accountable?? EVER??? This is like the people who thought George Bush could do no wrong no matter WHAT he did – the refusal to join the “reality-based community” is just as strong among the Obama supporters as it was for the Bush supporters. You know, the same ones we ridiculed. Enough already. Stop with the excuses. Stop the denial. And stop pretending that wearing a little ribbon will make any difference to the issue at hand – Obama’s homophobia. Here’s a newsflash: Obama is not the Saint you created him to be.

Frankly, Warren and Kaine are not all that different from Ken Blackwell, the potential RNC Chair, who said, “Homosexuality is a compulsion that can be contained, repressed or changed.” Please tell me why that is any more unacceptable than the crap Warren spews about unrepentant gays not being allowed to attend his church, and equates us to pedophiles and incest perpetrators. Or Kaine spewing this:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the building block of the family and a keystone of our civil society. It has been so for centuries in societies around the world. I cannot agree with a court decision suddenly declaring that marriage must now be redefined to include unions between people of the same gender.

Or this:

And finally in the area of adoption. Virginia has adoption laws right now that I agree with. The adoption laws say the only couple that is allowed to adopt is a married couple.

I’m just saying – not a whole helluva lot of difference there.

Here’s the deal: no amount of ribbons are going to change who Obama really is, Anne. He is a homophobe who surrounds himself with homophobes. And don’t tell me that this is just one issue among many. This is not an “issue” – it is my LIFE. Just as being a woman is not an issue, but my LIFE. Who Obama chooses to elevate is telling, telling indeed. That is the reality.

It is WAY past time for his followers to come back to the reality-based community and take a good, hard look at the man who was given the Democratic Nomination while they covered their eyes and ears, no matter how much we tried to tell them who he really was. Because let me tell you something – Hillary Clinton would never in a bazillion years pick someone so offensive to women and GLBT people. She NEVER would have appointed an anti-gay, anti-choice man to be Chair of the DNC. So when you stood by, and allowed the RBC/DNC to engage in vote theft, when you stood by while Obama engaged in caucus fraud, when you stood by while ACORN engaged in rampant voter fraud, you gave your tacit approval to Obama’s homophobia and misogyny.

Stop turning your back on THAT, and FACE the reality of what you have done.

First, there was this article in the Chicago Sun Times, Vandals Deface Three Local Synagogues:

Vandals spray-painted the words “Death to Israel’’ on two synagogues and a Jewish school early Saturday in three separate incidents police say could be linked and are being investigated as hate crimes.

In each case, the vandals — at times donning masks — used orange-colored paint, also shattering glass windows with bricks and rocks at two of the buildings.

A witness and security cameras identified the perpetrators as two men.

Moshe Perlstein, rabbi at Lubavitch Mesivta of Chicago, said cameras captured video of the men damaging his rabbinical school at 2756 W. Morse starting at around 4:40 a.m. The footage shows one man spray-painting the side of the building while the other ran around to the front and threw rocks at the front door, breaking a glass window, he said. The video has been turned over to police.

That was not the end of it. There was more:

Similar graffiti was found at Anshe Motele Congregation, 6526 N. California, rabbi Alan Abramson said.

Lincolnwood police said vandals also scrawled “Death to Israel’’ and “Free Palestine’’ on the outside walls of Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation, 7117 N. Crawford. Mitchell Sandler, past president of the congregation, said they threw at least two bricks at the front doors, damaging four windows.

Lincolnwood Police Lt. Mark Brines said police were notified at 6:10 a.m. that a caretaker in the building heard a brick crash through a window at the temple. The caretaker saw “two unknown males running from the scene,’’ Brines said.

Because all three buildings were used by orthodox Jews, Sandler said it appeared the men were targeting more devout Jews.

“This was a cowardly act in the middle of the night,’’ Sandler said. “Obviously there is dismay because of what’s been happening in the Middle East.’’

Local Jewish leaders were alarmed by what they see as a “rash’’ of incidents targeting Jews.

“It’s disturbing,’’ said Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Chicago Jewish Federation.

Disturbing, indeed. Whenever a group is targeted, when a hate crime occurs, it is disturbing. And there is yet more:

The incidents come a little more than a week after Ida Crown Jewish Academy, at 2828 W. Pratt, received a mailed bomb threat that also made reference to other Chicago-area Jewish institutions and day schools, said Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Chicago Jewish Federation.

And police said they are investigating as a hate crime a Dec. 29 incident in which a man hurled a Molotov cocktail at Temple Sholom of Chicago, 3480 N. Lake Shore Dr., after making “derogatory comments’’ to a passerby.

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has been notified, police said.

No arrests have been made.

Next, Jewish Odysseus had this disturbing story via Mugata: German “Police” Join Jew-Hating Muslim Mob:

1:16 AM Received from Muqata Blog Reader in Germany, Sebastian M.

Today, 10.000 people demonstrated against Israel here in my hometown Duisburg (Germany) and to express their solidarity with Hamas. So, my girlfriend and me put two Israel flags out of the windows of our flat in the 3rd floor. During the demonstration which went through our street the police broke into our flat and removed the flag of Israel. The statement of the police was to de-escalate the situation, because many youth demonstrators were on the brink of breaking into our apartment house. Before this they threw snowballs, knifes and stones against our windows and the complete building. We both were standing on the other side of the street and were shocked by seeing a police officer standing in our bedroom and opening the window to get the flag. The picture illustrate this situation. The police acquiesced in the demands of the mob.

That’s a police officer removing the flag of Israel, just in case you couldn’t tell.

I understand that many people are angry and frustrated with Israel right now. I really do. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this very issue at No Quarter (“This Will Sicken You“). They are not innocent bystanders in this current conflict with Gaza, as they move into deeply populated areas clearly indicates.

That being said, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that for something like this to happen in Germany, for police officers to join in with an anti-Jew mob, raises a pretty ugly specter. We HAVE seen this before, and none of us can allow that to stand. Despite Israel’s incursions into Gaza, we cannot allow the pendulum to swing that far back again. Not in Germany. Not in Israel. Not in Gaza. Not in Bosnia. Not in Serbia. Not in Rwanda. We must be vigilant that this kind of atrocity does not happen again, that groups are not slaughtered for their ethnicity, their religious beliefs, or their political beliefs. We must be brokers for peace.

There is a group who does just that, for Israel and Palestine. For any place where there is war or injustice. Women in Blackis a collective of peace activists who realize that women have a different perspective of war. When I lived in Cambridge, Arabic and Jewish women would hold vigils – together – to call for an end to the violence between Israel and Palestine. They represented the mothers, sisters, daughters of people who had been, or were being killed. They represented the ones who brought forth those who were being killed, or tended to the wounded. Yes, they had a different perspective, indeed. Some of them had seen firsthand the devastation in the Middle East. From their website:

Who are Women in Black?

Women in Black… is a world-wide network of women committed to peace with justice and actively opposed to injustice, war, militarism and other forms of violence. As women experiencing these things in different ways in different regions of the world, we support each other’s movements. An important focus is challenging the militarist policies of our own governments. We are not an organisation, but a means of communicating and a formula for action.

It is a start to end the violence, not just in Israel and Gaza, but around the world. Mothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, granddaughters and nieces, working to end injustice in the world, and violence, whether on a whole scale like war, or on the home front, like domestic violence. These women unite for that – peace. And that would be a cause well worth “fighting” for, wouldn’t it?

Then I have been mislabeling myself for the past 36 years. See, I thought a feminist was someone who believed in women’s equality, who believed that women’s rights were human rights, who believed that women had the right to make decisions about our own bodies, that women had the right to equal pay, and that women had the right to self-determination, not being ruled by a man, to name a few. See, that’s what I thought it meant. What a surprise to discover at this late date that, at least according to Ms. Magazine, I have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Evidently, in their opinion, a feminist is someone who plays songs like, “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” when he enters a hall (and I intentionally picked the link to go to Huffington Post since so many of those people claim there is no way this happened. Hell to the yes, it DID.). A feminist is someone who flips off – in public – in a speech that is televised – a female US Senator who is also a Former First Lady of the US and a Former First Lady of Arkansas who, coincidentally, believes women’s rights are human rights. She even gave a little speech about it. But I digress…

Apparently, a feminist is someone who chooses for the chair of the Democratic National Committee a man who is anti-choice (oh, and as a bonus, anti-gay). A feminist picks a pastor, Rick Warren, to give a major prayer who equates abortion to Nazism. Once again, as a bonus, is tremendously anti-gay, comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. So much so that he will not ALLOW gay people into his church.

A feminist, as it turns out, believes that women who are “feeling blue” should not be able to have an abortion. And a feminist believes any real discussion of abortion is above his pay grade.

A feminist, at least the one Ms. Magazine is revering, is free to make sexist comments about his competitor, allow vulgar, degrading sexual statements to be made and WORN on t-shirts (forget it – I’m not linking to those despicable shirts) without uttering ONE WORD against it, and pays the women on his staff less than the men.

And, lastly(but by no means the end), a feminist is someone who not only has retained on his staff, but ELEVATED to the top speech-writing post in the White House, this young man, Jon Favreau, who demonstrates his “affection” (read: sexist pig incredibly inappropriate actions) for Senator-Soon-To-Be-Secretary-Of-State, Hillary Clinton in the photo below:

Yep – no doubt about it – all my adult life, I have been completely and utterly wrong about what it means to be a feminist. Turns out, it is the exact opposite of what I always believed it to be.

I thought, I hoped, I prayed that after Bush was out of office, our country, our media, our leaders, our organizations, would return to the reality based community. Sadly, it seems that too many are continuing to perpetrate the charade of who Obama is. I guess it would just be too embarrassing to admit they, like so many others, had been completely duped by him (hey, if you want to know what it is like for all of those people who gave everything for Obama only to be dissed by him, just ask that sexist pig Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama’s campaign manager who threw not just Hillary but his own FATHER under the bus for Obama; or Jay Rockefeller; or John Kerry who shilled for Obama, hoping for that Secretary of State position; or HOWARD DEAN, who wasn’t even invited to the introduction of the new DNC chair, what it is like to realize they’ve been had. Frankly, it couldn’t have happened to more deserving people, especially Howard Dean, who allowed the Rules Committee to proceed in a completely unethical, immoral way all the while making it very clear who the DNC wanted for its nominee. So, Howie – what are you doing with your time under the bus?? Just wondering…). But to promote Obama, the most sexist, MISOGYNISTIC candidate I have ever seen as a FEMINIST is grotesque. Ms. Magazine has lost all credibility. Its editors have lost their minds. And they have sure lost me.

If this is what it means to be a feminist, freakin’ count me out. I don’t want to be lumped in the same group with a misogynistic (homophobic) pig like Obama. Clearly, we need another name for those of us who DO care, and work for, rights for women because as of this date, “feminist” has become a disparaging word, at least for me.

(bumped up by Susan)

Now, I freely admit, up front, that when I lived in Massachusetts some time ago, I voted for Frank, more than once. At that time, he was not one of the Old Boys Club, he was not an establishment guy. He sure as heck is NOW, as he has proven with the whole mortgage fiasco, and his connections with Fannie and Freddie. It is hard to take him seriously now, is my point.

And now, Barney Frank is joining all the rest of us who went under the bus ages ago:

The first openly gay member of Congress said Sunday it was a mistake for President-elect Barack Obama to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

“Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair,” Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a broadcast interview.

“If he was inviting the Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing,” Frank said. “But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect.”

No, really, ya think?? Hell to the yes, it is “wrong” to give Rev. Warren this “mark of respect” given his personal views on homosexuality. But my question to YOU, Rep. Frank is: What in the world from anything Obama has done in terms of our community made you think that he GIVES A DAMN if this is an insult to the GLBT community?? Maybe before you threw your weight behind him, you could have actually looked at to whom Obama turned for support, and who he counted as his close friends. Heck, look who he chose to take with him on the campaign trail, and you are SURPRISED???

As if any of the reality based people need this information, here it is again:

Warren, a best-selling author and leader of a Southern California megachurch, is a popular evangelical who stresses the need for action on social issues such as reducing poverty and protecting the environment, alongside traditional theological themes.

But gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election, are angry over Warren’s backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.

Although Warren has said that he has nothing personally against gays, he has condemned same-sex marriage.

“I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church,” he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the “redefinition of marriage” to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.

Oh, how in the WORLD could I take THAT personally?? Child abuse? INCEST?? Why, there is nothing at all negative about THOSE connotations, right?? Yet he tries to claim he has nothing “personal” against us? Well, Rev. Warren, I respectfully (though you have been anything but with the GLBT community) disagree. Maybe you are trying Obama’s tact of saying one thing and doing another, like not allowing gay people to attend your church, but saying you have nothing against us. No offense, Reverend, but you seem to be woefully ignorant of basic Scripture, both Hebrew Scriptures AND Christian Scriptures. Maybe you oughta go take a little look-see at what Jesus said about loving one’s neighbor. Or take another look at the Good Samaritan story (Luke, chapter 10, verses 25–37).

At the time, Samaritans were DESPISED by the dominant culture. That a Samaritan reached out to someone who considered Samaritans to be the lowest of the low is kind of like a Drag Queen paying to take care of Jerry Falwell, had he been the one found in the road.

In other words, sir, you seem to have missed the point of the ministry Jesus exemplified. IMHO, that is.

But Barney better be careful, or else Obama will label HIM as intolerant:

Obama defended the selection of Warren last week, telling reporters that America needs to “come together,” even when there’s disagreement on social issues. “That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about,” he said.

Oh, yes – by all means – we should happily embrace and support those who equate us to CHILD MOLESTORS and incest perpetrators! Obama seems to be a bit unclear on what it means to expect people to “come together.” I dare say, if this was ANY OTHER COMMUNITY, he would not expect us to embrace our oppressors. Never, ever, would he pick someone who was antisemitic, or racist, nor SHOULD he. But he has NO qualms doing so to the GLBT community, and expects us just to take it. In other words, Obama’s interpretation of “coming together” is just more of the same. No freakin’ thank you. So much for “change we can believe in.” The only change is the redefinition of “Change.” The offense is still the same.

So, welcome to the reality based world, Rep. Frank, the one in which we know people actually SHOULD be judged by their associations and close friends. It really does help to give a window, or in Obama’s case, a DOOR, into who he really is. And the one through which we could all see that Obama didn’t, DOESN’T, give a damn about the GLBT community. Sad, but true – it was there to see all along…

Maybe you shouldn’t have leaned on Clinton for an early exit, Rep. Frank. I bet you know that now. We, of course, knew it then, but you caved. And now you are surprised? Spare me. You knew the best one was Clinton, but you pressured her out of the race, and paved the way for Obama’s rule-breaking ascent. And now you are crying about how he is treating us? Cry me a river, Rep. Frank. You enabled it.

And they did a substantial amount of damage, over $1 million. What is more, people were actually inside the church at the time the fire was set. Thankfully, they were unharmed.

Now, this is not the first church (or other religious building) that has been targeted, not by a long shot, unfortunately. As many of you know, I am a retired UU minister, and a number of UU churches have been vandalized over the past few years, usually for two reasons: general support of the GLBT community, and for our open-mindedness regarding theology. One church in MD had its Peace Pole from its Meditation Garden ripped down and defecated upon by the vandals, other churches have had windows broken out, burning of leaves in the shape of a cross, and more. The worst was this year, the shooting in Knowxville, TNin which two Unitarian Universalists were killed, six injured, in the sanctuary during a service.

Many of you may recall that back in 1996, there was a rash of African American churches targeted by arsonists, primarily in Alabama, though 8 states in total were affected. By the time it was all over and done, over 30 churches were set on fire. It was a horrible time when racism reared its ugly, cowardly head. Sadly, a decade later, more churches were burned, some completely destroyed, in Alabama.

Synagogues in this country have also vandalized in the 21st century, one in Chicago on behalf of Palestine,two in North Miami had hateful speech written on the walls, and two in Boston had molotov cocktails thrown at them at the start of the Jewish New Year.

Even a Hindu temple in Minnesota was attacked, walls broken, windows shattered, statuary that took two years to receive destroyed. One of the trustees, Kumad Sane, said,

“We have had dreams to have this place for the past 30 years, we have worked so hard. Why would someone come here and do this type of action.”

Sadly, these are just a few examples of this kind of hate crime.

You know, it takes a particular kind of person to attack a religious institution. Check that – a particular kind of COWARD. Not for nothing, but it is missing the point just a bit from what it is SUPPOSED to mean to be a person of faith. Little things like, “Do unto others as you would have done to you,” or “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.” (Matthew,25:40). Or, when asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV) Regardless of the motivation, whether it be theological, social, or political, it is unacceptable. And cowardly.

The attack on Sarah Palin’s church was all of these things. With one big difference, though – it was also personal. There is not a doubt in my mind why THAT particular church was targeted for arson. It would seem that Palin is concerned this was a hate motivated action because of her, too, since she apologized to her church for this hate act, in the event she was the cause.

Now let me say, my theology is about as far apart from that of the Wasilla Bible Church as it can be. Heck, I’m not even a Christian. But, there are some places that should be off limits for political hate speech, and churches/synagogues/mosques are just such places. Regardless of one’s theology (and just to be clear, atheism is a belief system, too), to attack a building when there are people IN IT is reprehensible, to say the least.

But here’s the thing. If it is true this church was a target simply because Sarah Palin attends it, and it appears that is the case, this kind of behavior is an extension of the despicable behavior we saw by Obama supporters this entire election season. When The One fails, no, refuses to speak out against sexist, degrading speech, or tee-shirts; when He refuses to speak out against violent action (like burning American flags on top of a $70,000 car, urinating on it, burning it with cigarettes, and scratching “KKK” into it simply because it has a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on it), it gives tacit approval to these kinds of actions. We saw it during the Bush/Cheney years, especially in terms of GLBT people in this country. And those of us in the liberal sector of the country decried it. Now some of the same people who decried it under Bush/Cheney are engaging in that kind of behavior, and worse, under PEBO. They could have KILLED someone in that church. And for what, because Gov. Palin exposed some of Obama’s weaknesses? Because she was popular? What possible deluded reason could someone have for attacking her CHURCH? That is personal, and political (as things so often are), and sacrilegious. Whatever one’s faith, whatever one believes, attacking a place of worship is, simply, unacceptable.

The people who did this are cowards. And criminals. We can only hope that they are brought to justice.

One last thing – the human spirit is resilient. And when it is tested, the vast majority of the time, it comes out all the stronger for it. When targeted with hate speech, or destruction based on hate, yes, there is anxiety, or fear, or anger. But there is also resolve, a banding together of community, and hope. It is this for which I pray for the people of Wasilla Bible Church. I do not need to agree with their theology to stand with them as people of faith who did not deserve to have the place where they pray, where they bare their souls, where they engage in communion and fellowship with one another and their higher power, where they laugh, and cry, where they pass major life milestones, defiled.

I’ll let Rev. Chris Buice, the minister of the UU Church, Tennessee Valley, in Knoxville, someone who has lived through a hate crime perpetrated on his church, have the last word on this:

“HATE” is the ugliest four letter word. We have seen way too much of it displayed during the last 18 months.

I’m not talking about criticizing candidates on their policies, actions, decisions, or experience, so long as the content isn’t made up of whole cloth. Lively debate is not always polite.

I’m talking about blatant expressions of hate as revealed as ominous threats or actions that cause others real harm. Many Hillary Clinton supporters who found Barack Obama seriously wanting have learned what being hated feels like. I learned this early on when a threatening coward posted a Google map to my home on another blog.

But turn-around is not the correct response. Despite Richard Nixon’s travails, he had some important things to say in his day, and this quote to his administration from 1974 as he was leaving office is one of them:

“Always remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”

We condemn threats or hate crimes against anyone. Race threats and crimes have apparently increased since the election Barack Obama. USA Today describes cross-burnings, racist chanting among school children, Black figures hung from nooses, racial epithets scrawled on homes, and other documented crimes that exceed the usual rate. The New York Times details a case whereby a Black youth on his way home on November 4th after Obama was declared the winner was attacked with bats by two white men who uttered nothing except the name of the President-elect.

Yes, I know. A mannequin likeness of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose in front of a West Hollywood home was dismissed by both local and federal law enforcement as “artistic expression” that was “distasteful but not hateful” for days until the outrage overwhelmed their wretched, misogynous defenses.

Yet, when something is wrong, it is just plain wrong no matter who the target.

The image above was posted on Post Secret on November 8, 2008. I have no doubt that the dominate narrative of this campaign — the forceful suppression of women — is responsible for the author’s “secret.” In the Obama-realm, feminism isn’t just bad, it’ll ruin your life. One only need to look to Hillary and Sarah Palin as examples.

Dr. Violet Socks writes:

A few days ago I was asking you all to think about why there is still so much deeply-felt resistance to women’s equality. This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution.

Why does there need to be a revolution for equality? Because this year misogyny was used a political tool. As many of us witnessed, this election was so poisoned with hate speech against women that it’s not an exaggeration to say that the FBI would have been investigating the perpetrators if it had been against any other oppressed group.

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton was the choice of most Democrats this year. The Democratic establishment, consisting of Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and many others, worked furiously to keep Hillary Clinton from receiving the Democratic nomination. Their left-wing allies and the media worked to sabotage her campaign at every turn.

It’s not entirely clear why there was such intense animous towards Hillary by such a large and diverse group. We do know, however, that the most vile tactics were used to suppress Hillary’s campaign; caucus fraud, race-baiting, and outright misogyny comes to mind. As examples, the Obama campaign initiated a not-so-secret whisper campaign that President Clinton was a racist when Clinton called Obama’s Iraq War position a “fairy tale,” Hillary was accused of waiting for the unthinkable to happen to Obama when she mentioned the length of the 1968 campaign and Bobby Kennedy and, from January on, there was a constant drumbeat that she must leave the race.

Running below the murky currents of this campaign, however, was a sexism so deep and so pervasive that it can be said that sexism defined this campaign. Indeed, I believe the subtext and central narrative of Obama’s campaign was sexism. Because two women were the biggest political threat to his campaign, Obama needed to unleash sexism.

Dr. Socks continues:

Narratives: think about narratives. Anthropologists of gender, like Peggy Reeves Sandy, talk about “scripts”: the stories that a society tells itself to explain the world. How men are. How women are. How they should be.

The Obama campaign, with the help of the media and “progressives” blogs, pushed a narrative against Hillary and later Sarah Palin, that invalidated them as public servants because on their gender. Misogyny, wrapped in the protective shell of race-baiting, was the central narrative of the Obama campaign.

I subscribe to the bumper sticker view that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” My wife and I are expecting a girl in January. I want this girl to live the full and free life our son enjoys, without gender being an obstacle in her path. I don’t want my daughter to be called a “bitch,” or for someone to wear a t-shirt calling her a “cunt.” Put in those terms, the Obama movement unleashed something very ugly into the culture. The Obama campaign, in its subterranean narrative, encouraged the hatred of women. It is little wonder then that the author of the Post Secret card blames feminism for her unhappiness; she’s witnessed that women who expect equal treatment will be beat down.

Giving him his due, Charlie Rose’s show last night (damn, the video isn’t up yet!) is very interesting — David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, has particularly insightful remarks. Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian, is also on, and I always get the giggles when I see him because I recall how the great Yale Shakespearean scholar Harold Bloom verbally condemned Beschloss and his books to the ash heap of history, as only the acerbic Professor Bloom can.

Charlie’s show last night includes a segment aired in June 2008 with the three Emanuel brothers. You’ve probably heard the remark that his mother said that Rahm is the least successful of her three sons, one being a renowned physician and the other being such a great Hollywood agent that HBO’s “Entourage” character Ari was inspired by the real Ari Emanuel. Perhaps NOW Rahm’s mom will grant Rahm equal status! I write that with affection, all the politics aside. Ah! I found the video of the three brothers last June, in full. Now, POLITICS ASIDE, this should be a fascinating show to listen to (Charlie’s videos rarely require that one also watch, so you can browse our blog and the Web while listening) + I found the YouTube snippet of the show:

In fact, I INSIST that you watch this entire show because Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D. has written what the famed economist Larry Summers (now an Obama economic adviser) calls the most important book on health care — and his ideas may well contribute substantively to the new health care systems for this nation! (I SO HOPE that that plan will be called the Clinton Plan, since it must be HILLARY CLINTON who introduces and succeeds in getting a health care plan for ALL Americans! She deserves nothing less.)

That was the more positive, interesting and forward-looking side of politics at present. Then there’s this: Someone sent me this comment that was posted at Atlas Shrugs. Okay, I’m scratching my head. We get this kind of sociopathic and sometimes psychopathic behavior here too. What happened in four years to change “Democrats” (I use the term advisedly) from civilized people into monstrous thugs?

In 2004, which I recall vividly, we sort of glared at the Kerry supporters at the county convention, and they sort of glared at us, but that was it! In the end — it took a while — we joined in supporting Kerry because at least he had SOME qualifications. When Kerry lost, we were grief-stricken, but soldiered on. Together. But now? Whatever happened to far too many of you?

You people are pathetic!

Your racist fear mongering will not go unchallenged! Soon we will shut down your hate spewing web sites. We will confiscate your firearms. In prison, you will get an education on the error of your ways. We will take your children and raise them as our own and instill in them the values of social justice. We will have a new American Republic of justice and order for all!

You time is almost up! Prepare for the dung heap of history!

Of note, Atlas Shrugs — whose writers would not probably want much to do with me because I’m too liberal for their tastes, but who cares — has a couple articles worth perusing, described below:

SCOTUS SOUTER TELLS OBAMA TO PRODUCE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DECEMBER 1 UPDATED: /OR NOT

– I hope this is entirely true and thoroughly fact-checked. We haven’t taken the considerable days (not hours) it would require to even begin to study this, and we’d need the expertise of many attorneys. So, all i hope is that this story has merit.

PERHAPS IT WAS AHMAD NIHAD’S APARTMENT….

Snippet:

How gruesome. Terrible. Imagine they planning that goes into such a thing. Planning by what was arguably the most modern, cultured state in Europe. So close at our backs, the damaged still walk among us with vacant eyes.

   
Report: Plans for Auschwitz found in Berlin apartment

Those so odious, and sociopathic and psychopathic would find much in common with some people in the U.S. who despise and wish to destroy all who disagree with them: the THUGS who are so mentally ill that, in the midst of a historic victory, they cannot stop hating for one second.

:::::::

* Footnote: Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, based on state-of-the-art forensics, although the body of her three-year-old Kaylee hasn’t been found yet. (I am adding this because one of our writers, who doesn’t watch cable news, didn’t know who Casey Anthony is, and asked me to explain.)

This is one of those cases that has seized the attention of all the cable news networks. This is, and it makes me so upset, yet another instance in which a missing WHITE child or woman gets all the attention and resources of cable news outlets, whereas a missing BLACK or BROWN child rarely gets any attention. And it shames CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News that they go overboard on missing WHITE children or women — particularly if they’re pretty — but so rarely focus on children or women who are not white.

It must outrage people of color everywhere. And they deserve to be outraged.

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

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

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

In other words, he will triangulate on the backs of gay men, lesbians, transsexuals and Others in a vain attempt to curry favor with Christian conservatives and other assorted homophobes who will never vote for him. Some will call Obama’s heteronormativizing discourse nuanced, while those of us who are LGBT will view it for what it is: unrestrained and untempered homophobia couched in subtle but nonetheless injurious terms. Besides, his personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Indeed, it is a constitutional problem, a Civil Rights problem, not a problem of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has a long and elaborate history of homophobia, while Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, has a record of vetoing homophobic legislation and of defending the rights of same sex couples. I revive an article I wrote on this subject last month:

——————————–

BARACK OBAMA’s COMPULSIVELY REPEATED GAY BASHING RISKS THE LOSS OF A KEY VOTING BLOCK

Obama never had the support of the LGBT community. Indeed, 63% of LGBT Democrats supported Hillary Clinton during the California primary, while a paltry 29% cast their votes for Barack Obama. I imagine LGBT support for Clinton was equally strong in other states, for according to a poll conducted last November, this constituency favored Clinton by a staggering 41 point margin.

There are reasons the LGBT community supported Clinton over Obama: Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in 2004, when the San Francisco Mayor was the center of a national uproar for his support of gay marriage; Obama participated in a gay bashing “Gospel Tour” in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an African-American minister who views homosexuality as a disease Jesus Christ can cure; Obama cites his Christianity when he mentions his opposition to gay marriage in his text entitled The Audacity of Hope; Obama stigmatizes and minoritizes gay marriage when he refers to it as such in his political speeches and texts; Obama admits to seeking spiritual counsel from a certain Rev. James T. Meeks, a homophobic minister in inner city Chicago who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement;” Obama refuses to march in gay pride parades; and Obama will not allow himself to be interviewed by the LGBT press. Because Obama has a record of homophobic speech, actions and affiliations, the LGBT community rallied behind Hillary Clinton. And they may rally behind McCain-Palin, for Obama’s continued disrespect for this constituency will compel many LGBT voters to reconsider their support for the homophobic Democrat.

Obama, according to The Advocate, will launch a gay bashing “Faith, Values and Family” tour with homophobic Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. I quote with added emphasis:

The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off “Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour,” designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California’s Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled “On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say ‘No’ to the Brave New World.” Kmiec’s first two sentences in the piece read, “The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state supreme court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense.”

Obama, in other words, will campaign with a legal scholar who believes “a millennia” of “tradition,” “common sense” and homophobia should be preserved. Kmiec, by the way, is the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Republican jurisprudence is the change in which the LGBT community can believe, I guess.

But it gets worse, for Kmiec writes the following in his 13 JUN op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. I quote with emphasis added again:

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature – a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth – claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

According to Kmiec, gay marriage is a harbinger for a social eugenics that manipulates the human genome in the name of maintaining social hierarchies. A threat to democracy, the LGBT community in Kmiec’s warped mind is attempting to eliminate the heterosexual population. Raising specters gleaned from science fiction novels, Kmiec stokes the fires of a fear of a queer planet.

For some reason Barack Obama finds this entirely acceptable. Indeed, Barack Obama desires to use the campaign funds he has collected from Democrats and from members of the LGBT community to give this Catholic legal scholar of the lunatic, Republican fringe a platform in Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. If we witness a spike in hate crimes against the LGBT community in any of these states before votes are cast in November, we will only have Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec to blame.

We also know who to blame if Barack Obama loses the general election. For the LGBT community does not take too kindly to gay bashing in the name of garnering votes from Evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Barack Obama never had our votes, and he certainly will not gain them if he continues to terrorize devout Christians with the specter of a queer planet.

Obama, by the way, refuses to attend LGBT Democratic events: Michelle Obama was the one who addressed the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City in June, and she was the one who headlined the lunch for LGBT delegates in Denver during the August convention. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found. But then again, the man who has received spiritual guidance from homophobic ministers probably fears that the audience would try to genetically clone him into a gay man.

How odd it is that the Democratic Presidential candidate is a gay basher and the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a woman who vetoed anti-gay legislation. While Obama is routinely criticized in the LGBT press for his homophobia, Sarah Palin receives accolades from Gay.com for joining the cause of the ACLU and nine homosexual couples employed by the state of Alaska and by the city of Anchorage. Perhaps the LGBT community is one of those constituencies Barack Obama and Donna Brazile believe they can shed as so much toxic waste from the Democratic Party’s past. If this is the case, then I guess the LGBT community should consider supporting the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, Palin supported the community while Obama was bashing it with Donnie McClurkin and Reverend James T. Meeks.

And now Obama will bash the community with the former legal counsel to the Bush and Reagan administrations in 12 states. While this may yield one or two Evangelical votes for Barack Obama, Obama’s continued and unrestrained gay bashing will also result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of LGBT votes for John McCain and Sarah Palin. For similar to the Evangelicals and conservative Christians Obama and Kmiec will court, the LGBT community votes “ALL our values.”

Also see Reverend Amy’s essay on Barack Obama’s second gay bashing tour.

—————————————–

Read Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy’s essays for more compelling reasons to reject and rebuff Barack Obama on the grounds that he is a raging homophobe who has a long record of bashing and exploiting the LGBT community.

Because Obama has a pattern of demonizing the LGBT community in a vain attempt to gain the support of Christian conservatives and others who will never support him, I ask the LGBT community to cast their votes for McCain/Palin or for a third party candidate who actually supports the community.

A vote for Obama aids and abets the gratuitous gay bashing of a representative of a Party that has traditionally defended our rights and freedoms. If we desire to ensure LGBT will have a voice in the Democratic Party, we will reject Barack Obama. It is really that simple.