But the numbers don’t stop there. Here’s another number for you: 11/3/10. That would be the date the Obama Administration’s DOE apparently wanted Solyndra to wait for its announcement of layoffs. Yep, they wanted to hold that little piece of information until after the elections to help skew them. Nice. Another date to bear in mind is: 11/17/11. That is when Secretary Chu will be facing the music in front of the Senate about all of the Solyndra machinations.

Speaking of Solyndra, fully 80% of the Stimulus money for Green Energy went to Obama donors. That’s EIGHTY percent of our dollars. Here are just a few examples from “Throw Them All Out,” Schweizer’s new book: Bright Source Venture Partner raked in a $1.6 Billion loan, and its Senior Adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr. Obama’s current Deputy Assistant, Michael Froman, bundled $200,000 – 500,000, and for his efforts, not only did he get a job in the White House, but the company for which he had been COO received a tidy loan in the amount of $737 million dollars. Then there is Nancy-Ann DeParle, White House Deputy Chief of Staff. Before her WH job, she was the Managing Director of CCMP Capital, and the company for which she was a majority owner, Granite Reliable Wind Generation, received $168.9 million in our tax dollars. Yep, Obama’s bundlers have made out like bandits with our money.

Of course, these little paybacks with our money fly in the face of yet another promise broken by Obama, also highlighted in the book, “Throw Them All Out”:

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy… After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends…

…But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies…

…In the 1705 government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Uh huh. That seems to be all Obama has done – reward his donors with our money, and with cushy White House jobs to boot. It’s a Numbers Game, alright, but with Obama at the helm, the numbers just ain’t adding up.

Check that – the numbers have added up, but way too much. In just three short years, $4 trillion in debt has been accrued under Obama’s “leadership.” Those are numbers, and leadership, we can do without…

The warning comes after Kenya sent troops across the border into Somalia to pursue Islamist Al-Shabaab militants. The terror group has threatened Kenya with retaliatory attacks, saying it considers the forces’ incursion an affront to Somalia’s sovereignty.

Al-Shabaab, which is linked to al Qaeda and has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, is fighting to impose its own interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, on Somalia.

Wow, yes, I can understand why they would be concerned about this danger, especially since two days after this alert was made, a grenade was detonated at a Kenyan pub. Yikes.

What I cannot understand, given the above and a host of similar dangers, is why our DOJ felt compelled to take back their current training manuals on terrorism. As one might expect, the manuals included information on Islamist terrorists. Well, CAIR, the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood connected organization in America, along with another Muslim organization, threw a hissy fit about the US mentioning Islmaist terrorists in their manuals. So, what did the Obama Administration do? They kowtowed to CAIR:

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

The DOJ is removing ALL references to Islam in these manuals. I am sorry, but this is just insane. This nation has suffered attacks at the hands of Islamists, and is under threat from Islamists around the globe even now. How dare our DOJ capitulate to an organization associated with the Muslim Brotherhood which has waged jihad against the United States!

Oh, but wait – there’s more:

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.

In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So let me make sure I understand this. The very groups who have ties to Islamist radicals are making demands on just how our government goes about finding these groups, and how they deal with these threats? And the DOJ is acquiescing to this? Are you kidding me with this?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it precisely this kind of political correctness that allowed Major Nidal Hasan to stay in the Army? Despite his preaching radical Islam, associating with known terrorists (Anwar al-Awlaki),and poor performance reviews, he was allowed to stay in the Army. As a result, he was able to gun down a number of soldiers in cold blood at Fort Hood. Had it not been for the actions of a couple of people, there is no telling the amount of carnage he could have waged.

How CAIR, an organization the FBI determined was an organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has amassed so much power in the United States is beyond me. What is even more startling is that it is not held in high regard by the majority of Muslims in this country: Although widely publicized in the media, CAIR is regarded as a leadership group by only 12 percent of Muslims in America, according to an August 2 report by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center. Muslim groups that separate politics from religion, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, do not ally with progressive groups and get little media attention.

That said, considering high officials are submitting to them makes it clear that this DOJ needs a massive overhaul. From the top on down, including Eric Holder, and Deputy AG Cole, who acknowledged that these materials had been returned (at taxpayer expense to placate these groups, they need to go. They do not have our best interests at heart, and are putting us in danger by their caving to groups like CAIR. We have been attacked by radical Islamists, and those same groups are planning to do us harm even now. To deny this, to put US citizens at risk, is downright criminal, or it should be.

How many more American lives are we willing to lose in the name of political correctness? Naming an enemy and preparing for that enemy are not the same as being intolerant or biased, it is just the reality in which we live.

To ignore known and real threats as the DOJ is willing to do lest they offend is sheer insanity. At least that’s what I think. What do you think?

Wow. Don’t you just love it when the president is all kumbaya and stuff? Doesn’t it make you all warm and fuzzy when he is so bipartisan? Uh huh, sure. Here he is, in his own words (or whoever writes this crap and slaps it on TOTUS):

President Obama launched a three-day bus tour through two states critical to his 2012 reelection campaign by kicking Senate Republicans for blocking his jobs bill, saying he is breaking up his plan because “maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing at once.”

Right. That’s the problem with it. Not that the plan sucks, or is yet another stimulus bill, like the other one worked Oh-so-well.

He wasn’t done yet:

“I need you to give Congress a piece of your mind,” Obama said. “These members of Congress work for you. If they’re not delivering, it’s time to let them know.”

Obama also discussed the Republican jobs plan, called the “Real American Jobs Act,” saying it “boils down to a few basic ideas: they want to gut regulations, they want to let Wall Street do whatever it wants, they want to drill more and they want to repeal healthcare reform.”

The president said that the Republican plan means “dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.”

“So far, at least, I feel better about my plan,” Obama said. (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the thing, Mr. Obama. The Senate is actually controlled by the Democrats (as one astute commenter noted). You are aware of that, aren’t you? If not, maybe you shouldn’t be casting stones about who isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack. Just sayin’.

In another classic Obama flip flop, the president is now claiming he is all for the long term care provision in his terrible Obamacare law (pushed through solely by Democrats, just to remind everyone, against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans – and he is saying the Republicans don’t get it? Gotcha). Yes, just last week, his Administration acknowledged this about the “CLASS Act”:

The administration announced late Friday it did not see a way to make the long-term care CLASS Act, which was crafted by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), pay for itself. But perhaps even more damning is how the White House mishandled the controversy; consumer advocates accused the administration of being disingenuous and gutless.

But that was then, this is now:

“We do not support repeal,” said White House spokesman Nick Papas. “Repealing the CLASS Act isn’t necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country.”

Huh? Which one is it, exactly? Repeal it or leave it?

Senator John Thune had this to say about the initial admission that this was a terribly flawed plan:

After ignoring repeated warnings from my Republican colleagues and me about the fiscal solvency of the CLASS Act, the Obama Administration jammed Obamacare through Congress in order to score a political win. Now, over a year later, the administration is finally admitting the CLASS Act entitlement is unsustainable and cannot be implemented. Simply setting aside the program for the near-term is not enough. Repeal is the only solution to ensuring American taxpayers will not be on the hook in the future for this disastrous entitlement.

And before Obama opened his big mouth to say he DOESN’T want the CLASS Act removed, there was this acknowledgment from the White House (according to The New Republic) about the repeal:

It’s worth noting that, behind the scenes, the administration was never wild about CLASS. Internally several officials argued against including it, precisely because they were worried about the finances and sustainability. But some supported it, partly because the case for action was so unambiguous. Harold Pollack, the University of Chicago professor and regular TNR contributor, put it well when he said “CLASS seeks to address a huge need – helping disabled men and women live with dignity in their own homes.”

And skeptical administration officials took solace in the fact that, thanks to a provision inserted by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Secretary of Health and Human Services had discretion to modify the program if, upon further consideration, it appeared unlikely to remain stable. It’s precisely that authority that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius exercised last week. (For more details on the administration’s thinking, see Sarah Kliff‘s account in the Washington Post.)

I see. They didn’t really like it, but figured they would shove it through anyway, and muck around with it if they took too much heat for the expense of it. I see. Oh, wait – no, I don’t. Again, I guess this is what happens when they shove a law down our throats without truly considering the implications or the real costs.

As for where Obama stands now, which one is it? Obama wants it, he doesn’t want it, he wants it, he doesn’t want it. I guess it depends on the day and which way the wind is blowing, or how many petals the daisy has.

What I do know is that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and that is precisely what Obama is doing. He can’t even decide within a couple of days where he and his Administration stand, and he is attacking other people’s intelligence? Please.

I guess I should not be surprised at Obama’s massive flip flop on this. The initial reaction about how crappy an expensive a plan this was was probably one of the more honest things that came out of this White House, so naturally, Obama had to try and walk it back. Ahem. Thank heavens for TOTUS, huh?

And speaking of TOTUS, isn’t it great that Obama had some spares since the truck full of the podiums and stuff got stolen in Virginia? I am not kidding, and no, this isn’t from The Onion. They really did get stolen. It does beg the question, though – just how many of these things does this guy have? The truck the thieves made off with had about $200,000 worth of equipment in it. Just remember, folks, all these TOTI (I assume that is the proper Latin plural form) are YOUR tax dollars at work. He had MORE than the $200,000 worth of audio and TOTUS equipment in that truck. Good grief, how many does he really need?? And, how the hell was the truck stolen in the first place???

One thing all of this highlights is just how free and easy Obama is with OUR money. Frankly, I am pretty sick of it, and pretty sick of the disparaging remarks directed at anyone who doesn’t toe the Obama line. That’s no way to lead, and no way to govern. Enough of the badgering and bad mouthing, Mr. President. Try a little civility and honesty for a change. I suppose I can count on that happening about the same time I get my unicorn, right?

But that is not the point of this post, believe it or not. No, rather it is this: at the very same site, there is this article, “PROFESSOR: Sarah Palin Probably Staged A Gigantic Hoax About Being Trig’s Mother.”

I am not kidding, and it is not a tongue-in-cheek article, either. Oh, Andrew Sullivan must be SO happy that some professor at Northern Kentucky University is taking his assertion to heart. (And I am sure the parents who send their kids to school there are so happy to learn that one of the professors seems to be spending time “proving” that Sarah is not Trig’s real mother.) From what I can tell, the conclusion reached by Scharlotte was mere conjecture, but hey, that’s better than nothing, right? Ahem.

It does make me wonder one thing: just what is it this professor teaches exactly? I mean, with all this time on his hands to delve into such ground-breaking research, and all, it’s gotta be something important, no doubt. (That is snark, by the way.) Actually, he teaches journalism. Yes, journalism. Now you have a glimpse into why our media is in such bad shape, presuming this is representative of the professors in this field (he is also very upset that some “Palin Flack” is trying to squelch discussion on this critical issue facing us today. Again, not kidding.) Uh, yeah. THIS is what he is so concerned about the media not covering now, during this tumultuous time. Wow.

Oh, you’re probably wondering who IS Trig’s real mother according to Scharlotte (and Sullivan). Well, it’s Bristol, of course. C’mon, that’s as clear as the nose on your face, people!

What is really hilarious to me, though, are the comments at this article. The exact same people who demean, belittle, and attack those who would like to see Obama’s birth certificate act like this is a matter of National Security. You know, because Palin ran as the Vice Presidential candidate, so who her baby mama is matters a LOT. Hey, say what you will about Birthers, at least the desire to see an actual birth certificate is to fulfill a Constitutional requirement. And it is a requirement other presidential candidates have fulfilled, I might add.

But this has zero to do with the Constitution. This has to do with Palin Hatred veiled as outrage at a lackluster media, one that hasn’t done its job in reporting this “earth shattering” story:

[snip] He (Professor Scharlotte) concludes two things:

* First, that the “conspiracy theory” is likely true–Sarah Palin staged a huge hoax, and, second,

* The American media is pathetic for not pursuing the story more aggressively
[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes – where has the media been? You know, the one that aggressively pursued Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright, or James Meeks, or his college/grad school records, or why there were ZERO paper recrods from the entire time Obama was in the IL Senate, or how he got everyone thrown off the ballot the first time he ran, or how he got the sealed divorce records of the two front-runner US Senate candidates unsealed right before the election, or any NUMBER of red flags about Barack Obama.

Oh, wait – they didn’t. But this man thinks what they SHOULD have been doing was going after Palin even more. Because the boatload of reporters who descended on Wasilla to turn over every rock they could, or the 11 reporters the AP assigned to check her book, is not the least bit aggressive in its efforts. Kinda makes you wonder how many they have assigned to “fact check” Obama’s books, huh? Yeah. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, either.

It is just comical the complete and utter hypocrisy contained within this one site on such a related issue. And the utter lack of recognition of the hypocrisy, too, is a bit comical.

Yes, by all means, let us spend lots of time and media resources on whether or not Trig is Sarah Palin’s son, because that is of the utmost importance. Never mind Obama’s real back-story – he’s only the President after all. Hey, we have to have our priorities with our media, right? Right. Budget crisis? What “budget crisis”? I need to know who is really the mother of that kid, don’t you?

If you’ll excuse me, I have to go read “People” magazine now to get the REAL news…

But I have seen a number of clips (I couldn’t help it – they would just start showing them!), including one which included this exchange between O’Reilly and Obama about the Muslim Brotherhood:

[snip] “O’REILLY: Are they a threat?

“OBAMA: But they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There’s no doubt about it…[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Talk about your classic understatement about the Muslim Brotherhood and “strains of their ideology.” Wow.

Now, I know I have been discussing this issue a lot recently, but hey – blame Obama. He is the one who insisted that this outlaw group have a place at the table in Egypt. Oh, yeah – and he is the one who invited not one, but TEN members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his big ol’ Cairo speech in June of 2009. Yep – because THAT wasn’t a slap in the face of Egypt and its laws. But hey – he’s Obama, so he is above all of that law stuff.

But wait until you see what this Atlantic article from 2009 says about this organization:

[snip] The brotherhood is a Salafist/ Islamist party with branches in many countries, and it does not have a reputation for liberalism and has supported violent campaigns against Israel (and Egypt’s own government). It has deep roots in the region and traces its intellectual lineage to Sayyid Qutb, a top American-educated Islamic intellectual who was executed — or martyred — by the Egyptian government in 1966. The Brotherhood has direct links with Sunni groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Its standing in Egypt has suffered as of late because of a crackdown by the Egyptian government and a growing frustration that it is too conservative (anti-women’s rights, the whole gamut) for a modern Middle East. Still, it’s the largest Sunni opposition party in the world, and it’s clear that the Obama administration wants to engage the Sunnis — even the less moderate Sunnis — in his “Mutual Respect” tour. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, then, one can easily see why Obama would want to extend “mutual respect” to this organization that is anti-Israel, anti-women, anti-US, and pro-Hamas, can’t you? Yeah, me neither. Bear in mind, that little snippet of history is from The Atlantic, and the author is none other than Marc Ambinder, one of the JournoListers. That explains some of the attempt at minimizing for what the Brotherhood stands.

So let’s turn to an organization that has been following the Muslim Brotherhood in light of Obama’s understatement that there are “strains of their ideology that are anti-US,” the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report. I wish I could tell you who the editors of this site are, but for a disconcerting reason, I cannot:

[snip] The editors of the site choose to remain anonymous because of the “extraordinary lengths that the global Muslim Brotherhood would go to harass, defame, or slander its critics.”

“We saw this happen to others, including venerable university presses and leading news organizations and with the recent controversy over the resignation of the Obama campaign’s Muslim outreach director,” the site explains. “Hence we made the decision to let the information, often originating from the Brotherhood and its affiliates, and backed by public records, speak for itself, and not get lost in the distraction created by Brotherhood harassment. [snip]

Holy crappydoo. That gives you a bit of a glimpse into the modus operandi of the Brotherhood, but that is really just the beginning. In this article, “10 Questions With The Editors Of The Global Muslim Brotherhood Report,” their response to the very first question should give one pause, and highlight the duplicity of Obama’s response to O’Reilly:

[snip] 1. What are the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood?

It must be remembered that at its heart, the Muslim Brotherhood is a covert organization albeit with a public face and there is discordance between its public and private positions. Although the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, along with the whole of the Global Muslim Brotherhood network, proclaims it support for democracy, the motto of the organization remains as it always has been:

– Allah is our objective.

– The Prophet is our leader.

– Qur’an is our law.

– Jihad is our way.

– Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

In practical terms, the Brotherhood attempts to gain as much influence for itself as it is able, presumably in the service of its long term vision. Its ability to gain power and influence varies from country to country according to the conditions “on the ground.” That said, its has already been noted that the Global Muslim Brotherhood is a covert organization at its heart and much remains to be learned about its true nature. For example, a secret document unearthed in a U.S. terrorism trial revealed the thinking of a senior Global Muslim Brotherhood leader close to Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi, the most important leader in the global Muslim Brotherhood network who lives in Qatar, and which said:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.(Emphasis mine.)

[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this article.)

I think a “Grand Jihad” to destroy Western Civilization might be construed as “anti-U.S.,” especially considering the whole “eliminating” thing and “sabotaging” from within. Yep, I think I would surely classify that as the Muslim Brotherhood having just a bit of animosity toward the United States. So, thanks Obama, for insisting on giving this organization more legitimacy and power in Egypt. I mean, really, how can that possibly come back to bite us here, right? Right?

Is it just me, or does it also freak you out a bit that our president is being so cavalier about this organization which he seems to be courting, or at least supporting, to get more power? Just wondering…

You may recall during the 2008 Democratic Primary Campaign, Hillary Clinton was attacked by Barack Obama about her connections to Wal-Mart while First Lady of Arkansas. Oh, yes, he got just a tad testy as she was highlighting his constant “WORM”-ing (What Obama Really Meant). So he lashed out at her.

In case you forgot that little window into how quick Obama is to hurl accusations , here it is:

And the media, already well into Obama’s pocket, did this “expose” on Hillary Clinton’s connection to WalMart:

Gee – if they could actually do some investigative reporting on HER, and send a legion of AP reporters to Wasilla, how is it they could not be bothered to do anything of the kind to Obama? Oh, right – I forgot – the JournoListers who were protecting him from any hard writing on his unsavory connections. Silly me.

Had the media actually bothered to do their jobs, instead of reacting with glee when Obama reacts so defensively, perhaps they could have taken a little look see at what Obama’s wife’s connection was to WalMart. But, no. Why would they do anything to impede their narrative of Obama’s holiness, or in any way shift his blame off of Hillary Clinton.

So, let’s just see how the media deals with this new announcement, as reported by the Washington Post, “Michelle Obama, Wal-Mart Announce Healthy Food Campaign.” Now, on the face of it, that looks like a great thing. Except for the arrogant, condescending way Barack Obama talked to Hillary Clinton for having had ANYTHING to do with this company, and Arkansas based company, while her husband was governor. Yet, here is ol’ Michelle, teaming up with that very same company. As far as I have heard, not a whole lot has changed with Wal-Mart, how it treats women, how it treats its workers in general, or any of the other general complaints about this company.

Now to the article:

First lady Michelle Obama joined Wal-Mart executives at a Southeast Washington community center Thursday morning to announce a campaign by the low-priced retail giant to offer more healthful foods and push its suppliers to do the same.

Obama has made fighting childhood obesity and increasing nutritious food options in poor neighborhoods a top priority. She will join Wal-Mart, which recently announced plans to open its first stores in the District, to announce “a major initiative to provide its customers with healthier and more affordable food choices,” Wal-Mart said.

[...]

Wal-Mart said it will make thousands of the packaged food items that it sells more healthful over the next four years, make healthful food choices more affordable and more clearly labeled, build more stores in underserved areas and increase its charitable donations to nutrition programs.

[...]

Wal-Mart praised Obama’s “spirit of collaboration,” and called her a “catalyst that helped make today’s announcement a reality.”

Wal-Mart has drawn criticism from advocacy groups in the District and elsewhere because of its anti-union policies.

Obama resigned from the board of a Wal-Mart vendor in 2007, days after her husband – then vying for the Democratic presidential nomination – said he would not shop at the store. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

If you needed any more proof of Michelle’s connection to WalMart during the campaign, that last line should suffice. If her board position was NOT closely aligned, there would be no need for her to retire, would there?

Yes, it is amazing what just a couple of years will do. Now the once hated, despised, union busting, women hating Chinese-product selling behemoth is now the shining light for the First Lady’s pet project (not that there is anything wrong with healthy eating – I am all for it – it is the hypocrisy that bugs me).

I cannot WAIT to see how Obama’s supporters are going to spin this one. Any guesses? Feel free to talk about that, or anything else on your minds today!

NOTE: Friends, my partner and I are embarking on a major construction project at our home starting Monday, Jan. 24th. I am not sure how much this will impact my writing, but I am assuming it may affect the regularity of my posts. That is to say, I will write when I can, but no promises about how often. And, I will certainly keep checking in to see what’s going on with the awesome readers here at NQ.

And just what is this issue? Well, Gibbs is now trying to convince people that Obama is really a mainstream Christian, not one who buys into Black Liberation Theology, as this article from the Daily Caller, White House Distances Obama From Liberation Theology, highlights.

Um, what? Since when? Well, since Gibbs decided to make this ridiculous claim followng Glenn Beck’s recent rally in Washington, DC:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs implied Thursday that President Obama does not subscribe to a version of Christianity dubbed as “liberation theology,” and argued that the president’s beliefs are more akin to traditional Protestantism.

“The president is a committed mainstream Christian,” Gibbs said, when asked whether Fox News personality Glenn Beck has been correct in describing Obama’s faith system as “liberation theology.”

“I have no evidence that would guide me as to what Glenn Beck would have any genuine knowledge to what the president actually does or does not believe,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs did not say outright that the president rejects liberation theology, which in general interprets the gospel of Jesus Christ as primarily a mandate to help the poor and needy, but also has many streams and variations on finer matters and points of emphasis.

“I don’t know the answer to that,” Gibbs said. When pressed again, he said, “I can only imagine where [Beck] conjured that from.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

He doesn’t know from where Glenn Beck got that idea? Really?

Well, perhaps Spokesweasel Gibbs should have watched the following video before making such an assertion:

Or maybe Gibbs should have done a little Google search on Black Liberation Theology, TUCC, and Jeremiah Wright. He would have found articles like this one, “Black Liberation Theology, In Its Founders Words.” And in this particular story, he would have noted very clear connections between Black Liberation Theology, TUCC, and Jeremiah Wright.

Oh, and then there is this one from The Christian Century, “Africentric Church: A Visit to Chicago’s Trinity UCC.” In this particular article, Gibbs would have found this:

[snip] James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, dude – it wasn’t that long ago, and we are not that stupid or gullible.

I cannot help but wonder how my former professor, James Cone, feels about this new disavowal from Obama’s camp. Or my former TA, Dwight Hopkins, another theology professor, and fellow congregant at TUCC. Though after the way Obama treated his former “uncle,” Jeremiah Wright, maybe they aren’t all that surprised. Or they shouldn’t be. I know I am not. How about you?

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

But Obama has even bigger problems than his reversal on Offshore Drilling. And that is the recent ruling that the court has made on wiretapping. Now, MANY of us were furious with Bush for doing this, and thought it was unconstitutional. Guess what? We were right, as this NY Times article, “Court Ruling on Wiretap Is a Challenge for Obama,” spells out:

As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama declared that it was “unconstitutional and illegal” for the Bush administration to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. Many of his supporters said likewise.

But since Mr. Obama won the election, administration officials have avoided repeating that position. They have sidestepped questions about the legality of the program in Congressional testimony. And in lawsuits over the program, they followed a strategy intended to avoid ever answering the question by asking courts to dismiss the lawsuits because the litigation could reveal national security secrets.

But the ruling on Wednesday by a federal judge that one instance of such spying had been “unlawful electronic surveillance” may force onto the table a discussion of how aggressively the Obama administration should continue to defend from judicial review the contentious Bush-era counterterrorism policy.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the ruling had highlighted the “awkwardness” of the Obama administration’s ambivalent stance toward its predecessor’s surveillance program.

“They have a lot of discomfort with the legal arguments the Bush administration made, but they’ve tried to avoid having to acknowledge too publicly those differences or to air them in court,” he said.

Uh huh. Bush II, as I, and others, have written ad nauseum (honestly, I have written so many posts on the similarities and flip flops by Obama, I cannot list them all here). He was telegraphing how much he was like Bush at the same time he was demonizing him. Yet, his followers couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see the comparisons.

But they are definitely there:

[snip] There are some reasons that the administration might appeal, legal specialists said. Among them, it may not want Judge Walker’s narrow interpretation of the state secrets privilege to stand because it might influence other cases, and appealing on those narrow grounds would allow the administration to still avoid engaging on whether the program was legal.

In addition, the administration may fear political attacks from the right if it agrees to pay damages to the plaintiffs, which include an Islamic charity in Oregon, Al Haramain, which the government has said had links to Al Qaeda. (The charity is defunct and its assets are frozen, however.)

But several legal specialists said that the administration may instead want to let the ruling stand. That would terminate a case that has been a political headache for the administration since the month after Mr. Obama took office, when the Justice Department’s decision to keep pressing forward with the Bush administration’s assertion of the state secrets privilege in the matter created an uproar among liberals.

A decision not to appeal would also ensure that the ruling against the government went no higher than a district court judge’s decision, which — unlike one by an appeals court — would not set a binding precedent.

“This is a very hard decision for them,” said John P. Elwood, a Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration. “The thing that makes it hard to appeal is that they apparently are of two minds about it and don’t want to be pinned down on what they think of it now, but also the fact that they might end up with just as bad a precedent from the court one rung up.”

Still, if the administration lets the judgment stand, Mr. Holder — who in 2008 said Mr. Bush had authorized the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program in “direct defiance of federal law” — would be left with a ruling from a federal judge that such warrantless wiretapping by government officials was illegal. That could prompt calls to begin a criminal investigation. It is a felony to violate the surveillance law requiring warrants.

“Despite the government trying to throw up every procedural roadblock imaginable in this case, the judge has ruled that the Bush administration broke the law,” Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who is on both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, said Thursday.

And there you have it. So, now the Obushma Administration has the decision to make of appeal, or let stand the ruling:

Most of the lawsuits brought against the government over the program in the past have faltered because the plaintiffs could not prove that they were spied upon.

But Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for Al Haramain, observed Thursday that if Mr. Holder chose to open a criminal investigation, he could easily obtain all the evidence of wrongdoing he needed.

“If Holder wanted to be really aggressive, he could go into the Justice Department’s files and pick out some of the people who were wiretapped and prosecute those cases,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “But do they want to do that? No. The Obama administration made a decision a long time ago that they are not going to prosecute Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.”

Mr. Holder already faced a similar decision over whether to investigate Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who conducted harsh interrogations of detainees during the Bush years despite antitorture laws.

But Mr. Holder decided not to investigate any interrogators for conduct that at the time had been blessed as lawful by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. That office wrote similar memorandums declaring that warrantless surveillance was lawful, and Mr. Golove, the New York University law professor, said that precedent was likely to be repeated.

“I assume Holder would say there is the same rationale — if they were acting under Office of Legal Counsel authority, we’re not going to investigate them,” he said. “Does he have to announce that? I don’t know — it depends on how much political pressure is brought to bear.”

Sure will be interesting to see how Obama and Holder decide to play this off, won’t it?

At this point, I planned to grab a video on Obama’s Flip Flops, but I cannot begin to tell you how many there were at YouTube. I’m not kidding – go put it in, and you’ll get a ton of them.

But this one is pretty darn good – and it was done a year and a half ago before the election:

Just think how many more Flips and Flops Obama has made since then. His followers will shrug and say it’s different now. We know better, though. The flips and flops are mighty numerous, with the illegal wiretapping being just one. Feel free to list the many others!

Lady de Rothschild has continued to stay in the political landscape, and has the following post in The Daily Beast. What a post it is:

Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain’s most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president’s fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda.

The failures of the Obama presidency were clearly telegraphed by the Obama candidacy. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, “I love my country more than my party.” Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.

His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America.

After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that, during the campaign, we already knew what kind of president he would become.

Yes, most of us DID know what kind of president Obama would become, hence why so many of us supported Clinton:

The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama’s fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, “We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America.” But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.

Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business,” a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.

Oh, sure he would. Many of us knew Obama would give the same kind of attention to the issues that came before him as he did while an IL Senator (“Present!”) or as a US Senator (“I changed my mind!” like he apparently did in regard to a promise made to John McCain), and so many more (remember FISA, for instance?). Ahem. Some of us were paying attention, though:

Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted “present” on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.

So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign. Standing on the steps of the old Illinois State Capitol, announcing his candidacy for president, Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. He had said so all along. His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America. It is telling that under Obama’s presidency, according to Sunday’s CNN Poll, 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans see the federal government as a threat to the rights of Americans.

Holy crapoli. There are some pretty bad numbers, especially for the “Transformational King” that was supposed to be Obama, especially this soon. Again, “We Told You So:

Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope. (Lady de Rothschild is chief executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.)

Interesting points by Lady de Rothschild, don’t you think? Here she is explaining why she said, “Told You So”:

I love this woman – an excellent role mode during Women’s History Month. I think she is fantastic – so eloquent, so knowledgeable, so diplomatic, so RIGHT, especially about Bill Clinton, and SO right about Barack Obama. Told you so…

“In the oval office, you can’t just vote present.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton

“If you want to know what someone is going to do, take a look at what they’ve done.”
— General Wesley Clark

Huffington Post of all places offered a brilliant article by Drew Westen, Ph.D*.,entitled Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator. Westen’s skillful deconstruction of President Obama laments that Obama doesn’t believe in anything enough to fight for it. He points to the real reason Obama’s polls are tumbling –- the American people are waking up to his continuously voting “present” on issues that matters to them.

I am humbled by Westen’s comprehensive article. I may not agree with everything he says, but this is a true believer with a rational argument. I will not quote the bulk of it, though I’d like to. While principle stops me from including a link to H/P, I do suggest you read it in its entirety. So many of us who were ostracized and insulted last year more than suspected this would be Obama’s style of “governing.” Prof. Westen states it very well:

What’s costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

Bingo. By the way, if this piece appears on HuffPo with many echoing agreement in the comments, hell has indeed frozen over:

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn’t hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president’s leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress’s penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What’s costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn’t a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

Consider the president’s leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there’s a conflict, because if there’s a conflict, he doesn’t want to be anywhere near it.

…We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty exhortations on issue after issue.

But the true fighter who would have been able to act as Westen wishes is Hillary. She would lead, unafraid to deal with a tough issue or go to the mat and fight for it. Her frank demeanor, history of reaching across the aisle, indefatigable nature and willingnesss to take on President Bush (as she did with RU486, benefits of Guardsman and first responders) demonstrates her credentials in that regard. Her tireless work now as SoS only enhances that reputation. Westen continues:

The president has, on more than one occasion, gone to Wall Street or called in its titans (who have often just ignored him and failed to show up) to exhort them to be nice to the people they’re foreclosing at record rates, yet he has done virtually nothing for those people. His key program for preventing foreclosures is helping 4 percent of those “lucky” enough to get into it, not the 75 percent he promised, and many of the others are having their homes auctioned out from right under them because of some provisions in the fine print. One in four homeowners is under water and one in six is in danger of foreclosure. Why we’re giving money to banks instead of two-year loans — using the model of student loans — to homeowners to pay their mortgages (on which they don’t have to pay interest or principal for two years, while requiring their banks to renegotiate their interest rates in return for saving the banks from “toxic assets”) is something the average person doesn’t understand. And frankly, I don’t understand it, either. I thought I voted Democratic in the last election.

Same with the credit card companies. Great speech about the fine print. Then the rates tripled. …

The president has exhorted the banks, who are getting zero-interest money, to give more of it to small businesses. But they have no incentives to do that. …

The time for exhortation is over. FDR didn’t exhort robber barons to stem the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the upper 1 percent, and neither did his fifth cousin Teddy. Both men told the most powerful men in the United States that they weren’t going to rip off the American people any more, and they backed up their words with actions. Teddy Roosevelt was clear that capital gains taxes should be high relative to income taxes because we should reward work, not “gambling in stocks.” This President just doesn’t have the stomach to make anyone do anything they don’t want to do (except women to have unwanted babies because they can’t afford an abortion or live in a red state and don’t have an employer who offers insurance), and his advisors are enabling his most troubling character flaw, his conflict-avoidance.

Westen’s next comment is as surprising as it is damning.

Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn’t stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can’t stand them because I realize he doesn’t mean what he says — or if he does, he just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can’t seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He’d make a great queen — his ceremonial addresses are magnificent — but he prefers to fly Air Force One at 60,000 feet and “stay above the fray.”

As a lot of bloggers on this and other sites have noted, who would have thought the façade would peel away so quickly?

It’s the job of the president to be in the fray. It’s his job to lead us out of it, not to run from it. It’s his job to make the tough decisions and draw lines in the sand. But Obama really doesn’t seem to want to get involved in the contentious decisions. They’re so, you know, contentious. …

Do you think Americans ought to have one choice of health insurance plans the insurance companies don’t control, or don’t you? I don’t want to hear that it would sort of, kind of, maybe be your preference, all other things being equal. Do you think we ought to use health care as a Trojan Horse for right-wing abortion policies? Say something, for God’s sake.

He doesn’t need a chief of staff. He needs someone to shake him until he feels something strongly enough not just to talk about it but to act.

Odd that Westen describes Obama, a man elected because of his “vision” as clearly lacking a coherent vision or message, likewise condemning his willingness to throw women and gay voters under the bus to the bargain…

He doesn’t want to talk about social issues, even though they predictably have gotten in the way of health care reform and will do the same on one issue after another. Abortion? You don’t advance a progressive position by giving a center-right speech at Notre Dame that emphasizes cutting back on the number of abortions without mentioning that sex education and birth control might be useful means to that end, mumbling something about a conscience clause that suggests that pharmacists don’t have to fill birth control prescriptions if it offends their sensibilities, and allowing states to use health care reform to set back the rights of women and couples to decide when to start their families based on somebody else’s faith. If you believe that freedom includes the freedom to decide when you will or won’t have a child, say it, say it with moral conviction, and follow it up with action. Perhaps something as simple as this: “I won’t sign a health bill into law that forces women and couples to have a child they did not intend and are not ready to parent because of the dictates of someone else’s faith or conscience.” You know what? A message of that sort wins by 25 points nationally, and you can speak it in Southern and win with evangelical Christians in the deep south if you speak to them honestly in the language of faith. That shouldn’t be hard for a president who is a religious Christian.

Gays? Virtually all Americans are for repealing don’t ask/don’t tell (except for conservatives who haven’t yet come to terms with their own homosexuality — but don’t tell them that, or at least don’t ask). This one’s a no-brainer. Tell Congress you want a bill on your desk by January 1, and announce that you have serious questions about the constitutionality of the current policy and won’t enforce it until your Justice Department has had time to study it. Don’t keep firing gay Arabic interpreters. But that would require not just giving the pretty speech on how we’re all equal in the eyes of God and we should all be equal in the eyes of the law (a phrase he might want to try sometime). It would require actually doing something that might anger a small percentage of the population on the right, and that’s just too hard for this president to do. It’s one thing to acknowledge and respect the positions of people who hold different points of view. It’s another to capitulate to them.

Make your case to the American people, make it evocatively, and draw the line in the sand. That’s how you earn people’s respect. That’s the only thing that will bring Independents back.

This White House has no coherent message on anything. The message on health care reform changed even more frequently than the interest rates on credit cards last Spring, and turned a 70-30 winning issue into its current 30-50 status with the public. Last week on the Sunday news shows, I remember watching in disbelief as Larry Summers smugly told the 15 million Americans out of work that the recession was definitively over and that all economists agree. Then Christina Romer, another of the President’s chief economic advisors, announced on the next show that the recession is definitely not over.

That’s simply inexcusable. [snip]

To be honest, I don’t know what the president believes on anything, and I’m not alone among American voters.

[snip]

Abortion? Who knows. Gays? I suspect intellectually he believes in equal rights but deep down he thinks they’re icky. Something is sure holding him back from doing the obvious. Immigrants? He probably has an opinion, but he’s not going to waste political capital on them; he sold them out in 15 seconds on health care. Foreclosures? Nice speeches, and I’m sure it really concerns him when he hears the stories of families firsthand. But not enough to divert the cash from the lenders to the borrowers. And the problem is, the average American knows it. Job creation? Would be nice, and I presume he believes that people who want to work ought to be able to work. But when 700,000 people were losing their jobs a month in his first few months of office and over millions have lost their jobs on his watch… three letters should have come to mind: W – P – A. President Roosevelt had no legs to stand on, but he sure had spine.

Westen concludes by discussed the concept of “Obampromise” – no policy or principle is enough to fight for if it means pissing off the moneyed interests he relies on.

And here are a few more choice quotes. Frankly, I couldn’t agree more:

…[The] international community is just starting to learn that his eloquence doesn’t always have much behind it.

…[I]t would be hard to name a single thing President Obama has done domestically that any other Democrat wouldn’t have done if he or she were president following George W. Bush.

What’s they’re seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That’s a recipe for going nowhere fast — but getting there by November.

If one’s entire being has always been about pleasing people, ‘being a blank slate onto whom people can project their dreams,’ how should such a person suddenly grow a spine of steel when the number one quality they possess is the ability to craft a façade and protect it at all costs.

Secretary Clinton warned everyone about voting for a man who voted “present” 130 times in the State Senate, and who waffled on his positions constantly on the campaign trail. His stalling for months on the Afghanistan decision, then pretty much doing what we figured he was going to do anyway, is just one case in point. President Obama had never before evidenced the ability to lead or make tough decisions. In 2008, we were told that didn’t matter. The very qualities he lacks are precisely the ones he is lost without. Only no one is willing to give him memo. Certainly not his staff.

Years from now, books will be written on the mass delusion that captured the nation to put such an inexperienced and insincere man in office.

*Westen is a Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

Welcome to the party, Marc:

With a new NBC/Wall Street journal poll showing Obama hitting his lowest rating in that poll, and the poll showing that people are getting fed up with Obama, the Democrats and how both have handled health care, ( how they handled it, not rejecting things like the public option) those who supported Hillary Clinton for president in the Democratic primaries are starting to say “I told you so”.

Obama’s had the biggest approval ratings drop of any first year president in history. He has disappointed most of his supporters on the left. And he has accomplished little to nothing in his first year that has showed any concrete results in spite of him giving himself a B+.

What he has done is make more speeches and had more prime time press conferences in his first year than any president has had in their first term.

And play golf – Rubin forgot to add that Obama has played more golf in his short time in office than Bush did in three years. So glad he’s working so hard, aren’t you? Well, it shows:

On healthcare reform most of his supportes (sic) are complaining that he sold out and was two faced in his capitulation. Which he was. But these are traits he exhibited not only during his entire 12 years of elected office, but were on glaring display during the Democratic primaries.

Now everyone is angry with him for showing a lack of principle, commitment, experience and expertise and a willingness to sacrifice a principle on a dime but that’s who Obama has always been and he showed it repeatedly during the primaries, whether he was willing to sell out the voters of Florida and Michigan to help himself get elected, or reversing himself on a pledge to use public financing.

Now as Obama’s approval ratings continue to hit record lows for a first term president, and he is bringing the Democratic party down with him, as people are getting fed up with his handling of a propositon (sic) — the public option and health care reform — that 72% supported back in June, many Hillary Clinton supporters are starting to say “we told you so”.

More and more of Obama’s staunchest supporters, the same people who turned a blind eye to Obama’s deep character flaws, lack of experience, and brazen political dishonesty, and deceit, are now complaining that he’s not what they thought he was, that this isnt change they can believe in. But it never was in the first place. It was clear to anyone who paid attention that was nothing but a slogan.

Uh, yep – it surely was. Maybe that’s why his supporters were so mean and hateful to those of us in the reality-based world – because they KNEW Obama was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. By that point, they were already in too deep to admit they were wrong:

Ed Schultz, Arianna Huffington, the people at The Nation, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, are just a few of Obama flag wavers now wavering in their support and scratching their heads saying “what happened”?

The answer is nothing happened. Obama is just being the same Obama he always was, the same Obama that was apparent during the Democratic primaries, the same Obama that a 18 months ago after listening to a couple of speeches, write that he was a snake oil salesman and the most underhanded, deceitful politician since Richard Nixon. But the press. who was in Obama’s pocket, refused to see it.

For those who saw through the phoniness, Obama has been exactly what the majority of Democratic primary voters thought he was. Remember that Hillary Clinton actually received more votes than he did and went into the Democratic convention having won the popular vote.

During the primaries Clinton supporters mocked Obama supporters and their beliefs as people who were “drinking the Kool-Aid”. Obama supporters accused Clinton supporters, and anyone who opposed Obama’s candidacy of being racist. This, from the candidate who ran on the fiction that he had the ability to unite people and bring people together. He ran on the fiction that he had some great ability to unite Democrats and Republicans. Which is why every Republican is voting against the health care bill and hasnt been able to unite any disparate group on anything.

Oh, right, how could I forget? Yes, we were all racists for expecting a presidential candidate to actually have some freakin’ qualifications to BE president. Yes, rather than admit they were wrrrooonnnggg, they pulled out the last “refuge of the liberal scoundrel,” as Charles Krauthammer said. They made an attack so vile, there was no way to defend oneself without the accuser acting smug and arrogant claiming we were nothing but liars about our racism. Oh, good times, good times, NOT.

So, now the veil is lifting for those who were too blind to see for over two years:

In a recent article in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes, “Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn’t be surprised. Maybe it’s our fault, for thinking he was different.”

Yes it was your fault for not seeing what was right in front of everyone, and the fact that he pulled a bait and switch shouldnt leave anyone surprised. That was the snake oil Obama was selling during the primaries and a lot of people bought and are now finding out it was all just sugar water.

Why people are feeling more stung by Obama is that he did hold himself up to be a different kind of politician, someone above the petty politics and back room deals. And people bought it. What also makes it particularly insidious is when a snake oil salesman goes into a community that is hurting from disease and tells everyone he has the cure and its right in this here bottle when all along he knows its nothing but sugar water. That’s called a con. And now a lot of people who should have known better are realizing it.

It was clear during the primaries when Obama constantly reneged on promises and pledges and resorted to serial lying both when it came to Jeremiah Wright, and the incident in Ohio when a document was leaked that caught Obama red handed, lying to the people of Ohio about his position on NAFTA. He told the people in Ohio who were hurting economically precisely because of things in NAFTA that if they elected him he;d (sic) get rid of NAFTA. At the same time he caught telling the Candians (sic)to ignore what he said in Ohio, that he had no intention of getting rid of NAFTA that it was just for politics. If a politician is willing to get that low, nothing should surprise anyone. But at the time it was exposed, the same people who are complaining now about Obama betraying them didn’t care and turned a blind eye. If Clinton had been caught doing the same thing the press would have demanded she drop out and would have called her unworthy of being president, that she couldnt (sic) be trusted.

And so it was, the blind leading the blind. Did people REALLY believe that someone who chose Chicago for its style of politics, and who was completely enmeshed with those Chicago politicians, was truly ABOVE those politics? Really? Deep down inside?? If so, that’s just a bit delusional, especially considering what so many of us knew:

The fact that Obama was clearly the least qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination, didnt (sic) seem to matter to his supporters either. And while he claimed he was the person who knew how to bring people together the Democratic presidential primaries were the most divisive in the history of the party. He campaigned saying “voices must be heard” but he did everything in is power to keep the voices of voters in Florida and Michigan from being heard because he was landslided there by Clinton. Instead of fighting for the right to have their votes count on principle, he was quite content to have them silenced in favor of his own ambitions. So why are people surprised now, feeling that he sold them out on healthcare reform?

The other big issue that seemed to matter to Obama’s supporters was that he was black. So they took everything Martin Luther King stood for and threw out the window, which was that a person should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin and decided the color of his skin mattered more.

But while this will come as a shock to them, Obama is not the first black president. He is the first mixed race president, half black and half white. He is no more the country’s first black president than Derek Jeter was the Yankees first black shortstop. In all of Jeter’s hall of fame career no one ever referred to him that way. But his genetic make up is the same as Obama’s. The difference is the random shuffling of genetic material which resulted in Jeter having more Caucasian features and a caramel complexion while Obama’s features and complexion were more black. Maybe now that they feel betrayed by Obama,those who supported him because they wanted a black president will admit Martin Luther King was right the first time.

Oh, if only. People wanted to see what they wanted to see, and decided, for their own, dare I say it, racist reasons, that Obama’s candidacy was MORE historic than the first WOMAN. We’ve had plenty of men, some better than others, but never, ever a woman of ANY ethnicity, yet only Obama’s was historic. What a crock of shit. (And I appreciate being able to work my Derek Jeter into this conversation!)

So were all of Obama’s promises:

During the primaries, Obama’s selling out his promises were rampant. He promised to use public financing if he was the nominee then reneged as soon as became the nominee. He promised to filibuster and vote against the FISA bill if it gave telecoms retroactive immunity then reneged, didnt filibuster and voted for it. And lied, until he couldn’t lie any longer about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and on sending on his economic advisors to the Canadian embassy to tell them to ignore everything he was saying publicly about NAFTA.

This is the person that liberals and Democrats who supported him are now surprised has sold them out when it was apparent that Obama was probably the most underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. The difference between the two is that Nixon used deceit to get even. Obama used it to get ahead. It all goes to character and how that influences decisions. As well as having a vision and sticking up for a principle, something he has thrown overboard on healthcare.

So perhaps Hillary Clinton supporters can be excused if they are now saying ” We told you so”. Because they did.

Still are, and will be until this sham of a president is out of office, this man who cares more about appearing in COMMERCIALS than actually doing the work of the most important politician in the world. This man who seems constitutionally incapable of speaking the truth, or even taking a good long look at himself in the mirror. This man who will put his wife down on national tv in YET another appearance, because NO ONE is capable of doing ANYTHING better than he is. At least in his mind, and he doesn’t give a damn who he throws under the bus to make that point clear, including the mother of his two children.

Yep – we’ve been saying it for over two years. Obama was never qualified to be president, all the words he proclaimed notwithstanding. So yeah, those of us who supported the person who very likely would have been the greatest president in our lifetime have said this until we are hoarse: WE. TOLD. YOU. SO.

This has got to be read to be believed. I know that the Washington Post is hard up for cash, but as Politico reports:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that “a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do.”

She’s canceling the event amid “uproar”? Hey, ya think?

Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity.”
(snip)
She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. “We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do – cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

What integrity do these people have left after their sycophantic coverage of the election last year? Live events? Here’s a taste at what this one might have looked like had they been able to get away with it:

The first “Salon” was to be called “Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate.” More were anticipated, and the flier described the opportunities for participants:

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m.

But in the “CYA” category, the denouncement of this event was loud and hard. You’d have to read Mssrs Allen and Calderone’s article in its entirety to really get the Herculean level of denial – and when I hear that much spinning it leads me to believe they got caught with their pants down:

Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier. “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s “Hosts and Discussion Leaders.”

Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of the Post planned on holding dinners on policy and was scheduled to attend the July 21 dinner at Weymouth’s Washington home, but he said he had not seen the material promoting it until today…
(snip)
The flier promised the dinner would be held in an intimate setting with no unseemly conflict between participants. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No,” it said. “The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

Brauchli emphasized that the newsroom had given specific parameters to the paper’s business staff that he said were apparently not followed. He said that for newsroom staffers to participate, they would have to be able to ask questions and that he would “reserve the right to allow any information or ideas that emerge from an event to shape or inform our coverage.” That directly contradicts the solicitation to potential sponsors, which billed the dinner as “off-the-record.”

“Our mission in the news department is to serve an audience,” Brauchli said, “not serve our sponsors.”

“We do not use the Post’s name or our journalists to gain access to officials or sources for the benefit of non-news purposes,” he continued.

Uh huh. Sounds like a lot of backpedaling.

Brauchli declined to comment on whether anyone on the business side would be held responsible for the abortive plan. He said that would be a decision for either Weymouth or Stephen Hills, The Post’s president and general manager.

We’ll wait to see if someone’s head rolls over this. However:

Charles Pelton, The Post business-side employee listed as the event contact, seemed to dispute Brauchli’s version of events.

Pelton was quoted by Post ombudsman Andy Alexander in an online commentary as saying that newsroom leaders, including Brauchli, had been involved in discussions about the salons and other events. “This was well-developed with the newsroom,” Pelton told Alexander. “What was not developed was the marketing message to potential sponsors.”

According to Alexander, who called the flier a “public relations disaster,” Pelton told him: “There’s no intention to influence or peddle.” …

If POLITICO had not reported on the flier this morning, Brauchli said he expects someone would have seen it before the event and, given the obvious ethical issue, it would have been canceled.

How sure is he about that? And if no one caught it, is he implying the event would have gone forward? The above statement sort of reminds me of the kerfuffle with the E Pluribus Obama imitation presidential seal last summer. When there was a hue and cry about it, his campaign pretended it was a one time thing and they were never really trying to do it in the first place. Certainly President Obama’s administration did the same thing earlier this year when floating the idea of taxing veterans’ health coverage. The immediate outrage triggered by that notion made it evaporate very quickly.

Earlier this morning, Brauchli sent an e-mail entitled “Newsroom Independence” to his staff explaining his position.

“Colleagues,” Brauchli said. “A flier was distributed this week offering an ‘underwriting opportunity’ for a dinner on health care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flier and the description of the event preclude our participation.

“We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.”

Amazing that Brauchli would even have to make a statement like this. One would think it would be obvious. Not anymore, it seems. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about this yesterday.

“I think some people in the administration, writ large, may have been invited. I do not believe, based on what I’ve been able to check, anyone has accepted the invitations.”

Gibbs said that the White House counsel would review such invitations and that they “would likely exceed” what would be considered appropriate.

Yeah, it certainly would have gone beyond what would be considered appropriate.

It is obvious from the above that someone thought giving very expensive access to “sponsors” was a viable way of raising revenue for the paper. No matter how Weymouth or Brauchli offer up noble statements about the integrity of the Washington Post, this sort of behavior should not get a pass. I’m glad to see enough noise was made to put a stop to it. The fourth estate looks to be crumbling as it is. Let’s hope we don’t see more of the same.

* * * * *
UPDATE:

In WaPo’s Sunday edition, Katharine Weymouth writes A Letter to Our Readers. Ms. Weymouth’s first paragraph shows just how big a boo boo was made regarding the “event” that Ms. Weymouth et al had planned:

I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity. A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem. Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the organization, down. The Washington Post remains committed, now and always, to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Nothing is more important to us than that, and nothing will shake that commitment.

Uh oh. Perhaps heads may roll after all? Read the rest here.

So I imagine beyond the big denials reported in the earlier story, there was a huge need for a profound mea culpa. Wonder why?

No, this latest attempt was more of the same kind of response Obama had when the GLBT community was up in arms over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give his Inauguration Prayer. After days and days of people complaining to the high heavens, he decided to have Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop, give the invocation at the Sunday Inaugural Concert event preceding the Inauguration. Except get this – he had HBO take Robinson OUT of the piece they aired on tv. I am not making this up. They couldn’t believe it, either. Eventually, it was agreed he would appear in later broadcasts, but not the one aired at the time.

So, after his backtrack on DADT, despite his campaign assurances; after his backstabbing on DOMA, in which it was made QUITE clear by Obama just who is worthy to be married (and it ain’t me); we get this half hearted attempt on his part to make it up to us. So, he will give SOME benefits to the partners of GLB employees except – wait for it – HEALTH CARE (and a H/T to alert NQ Reader, Mary, for this). You know, the big huge issue he’s going to be pushing on the All Barack Company propaganda channel “forum” coming up, the one he thinks should be for ALL people – except the partners of GLB Federal employees. As one friend (who’s heterosexual, by the way) said, it looks to her like all he’s willing to give in terms of Federal Benefits is moving expenses, to which she responded, “whoopee.”

Here’s a panel discussion on this very topic on Anderson Cooper 360 (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this):

C’mon, you gotta admit the absurdity of that is just laughable. Except that, once again, we are talking about real people and real lives, and one group still getting the short end of the stick.

Once, just ONCE, wouldn’t it be nice if Obama actually walked the walk without being FORCED to do something to cover his backside after he screwed up? To do the just act, the right act, the honorable act without all of the drama? Without trashing someone first, like in the DOMA brief? Or the brief to the Supreme Court over DADT? I’m just sayin’ – it would be nice if he were that kind of person. But he isn’t. And once again, we are talking about Obama’s lame attempts to placate us, to try and keep a voting bloc together. That may work for some (Kool-Aide drinking) people, but not for most of us.

All his false promises, and half hearted attempts, won’t change that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the mayor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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