Following on the heels of their macabre Afghan war protest at a White House Halloween party that targeted children of military families for psychological abuse, leftist Obama ally Code Pink issued a statement justifying the terrorist attack at Fort Hood as opposition to the war from officers and put out a Veterans Day appeal seeking to raise money off the Fort Hood terrorist attack.

Signed by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, the appeal was published at Code Pink’s website on Veterans Day and sent out the same day to the group’s e-mail list. The terrorist attack at Fort Hood is cited three times in the fundraising letter.

As appalling as cashing in on the mass murder of 14 innocents is, Code Pink tops that by invoking sympathy for the alleged terrorist as a reason to give money to Code Pink–even putting his act of terrorism on the same moral plane as the recent protest resignation of a former officer who left his diplomatic post in Afghanistan over Obama’s war policy:

“This Veteran’s Day, you can support Under the Hood and the soldiers who walk through their doors with a cash or in-kind donation…

“Click here to see how else you can support Under the Hood (in-kind donations accepted too).

“Our soldiers clearly need more care; the last thing they need is to be put into more harm’s way. Even US military officers think so–Matthew Hoh resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of the lack of clear mission and achievable results in Afghanistan, and of course the Ft. Hood shooter was a Major who did not wish to be deployed to Afghanistan.”

Think about that. Code Pink says a mass murder terrorist act against unarmed soldiers is the moral equivalance (sic) of a protest resignation.

I don’t know about you, but this is disgusting. I don’t know how else to categorize it. It is disgusting to equate one man’s respectful resignation to another man’s alleged mass murder. What the hell is WRONG with these people?? If only it stopped there:

Code Pink is even more direct in their justification for the terrorist attack allegedly by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in a statement posted to their website that they encourage opponents of America in Afghanistan to send to President Obama:

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood and the resignation of top Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh demonstrate how even our military officers are opposed to US strategy in Afghanistan.

Code Pink claims the money will be used to fund a campaign operated out of a coffee shop near Fort Hood called Under the Hood that preys on soldiers and their families. However, the donation link goes to Code Pink’s fundraising page and not to Under the Hood’s website. Note, fundraising links in this story are deliberately not active.

This is some organization with which Obama has aligned himself, isn’t it? I am just thoroughly disgusted. TO read the rest of the story, which includes more about “Under the Hood,” the relationship between Obama and Jodie Evans, and additional articles about Code Pink, please click HERE. Disturbing, just disturbing.

And it makes this Krauthammer piece that much more salient, Explaining Away Mass Murder. Indeed That is exactly what the Code Pink fudnraisers are doing with their despicable fundraising efforts:

– What a surprise — that someone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. … I think he’s probably just a nut case,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists … to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.” While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Uh huh. And why is it that someone can’t be nuts AND a terrorist? Many people would see those words as not being the least bit contradictory when used in conjunction. Oops – silly me – inserting logic into that ridiculous argument:

They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists — not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics — who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

I wonder if Dr. Krauthammer would pay a visit to the entire fundraising staff, Obama’s allies, at Code Pink? Now THAT would be a visit I’d like to see, especially since Dr. Krauthammer, like me, thinks this is, well, in my word, obscene:

Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It’s a danger, clear and present.

Consider the Army’s treatment of Hasan’s previous behavior. NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital — attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

I’ve been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia — as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers — consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This “really freaked a lot of doctors out,” reported NPR.

Nor was this the only incident. “The psychiatrist,” reported Zwerdling, “said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird?”

Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague’s religion?

One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

So many excuses, so little relevance:

What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu Akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.

The delicacy about the religion in question — condescending, politically correct and deadly — is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”

Ah yes, those Jersey men — so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Indeed. Ahem. That organizations like Code Pink are painting this mass murderer of unarmed soldiers in such a sympathetic light, and with such moral superiority, indicates just how far from our moral base we have strayed. At a time when the fallen from that massacre are being buried, for this organization to depict Hasan as nothing more than a victim of US policy, and on the same level as a distinguished war veteran and US State Department employee who resigned with integrity is simply reprehensible.

In other words, the fundraisers at Code Pink, Obama’s ally, have lost their frikkin’ minds. I would say they should be ashamed of themselves, but they clearly, CLEARLY, have no shame at all. And that is most disturbing of all.

One last thing, to the families and friends of those fallen, it breaks my heart that in addition to such a grievous loss, you now have to deal with such outrageous fundraising attempts by a group excusing the actions of this man, Nidal Malik Hasan. I regret that you have to even deal with such additional lunacy an disrespect at this very difficult time. My heart and prayers go out to you all.

And that brings us to this article, Heroes Took Huge Risks To Save Others. Not only are we learning more about Hasan as time passes by, but we are learning more about the actions of that tragic day on Fort Hood, and others who acted selflessly. No doubt, the big hero is Sgt. Munley, and I will get to her in just a minute Here is another hero:

Pfc. Marquest Smith, on his way to Afghanistan in January, was completing routine paperwork about a bee-sting allergy when the sounds erupted.

A loud popping noise. Moans. The sudden, urgent shout of “Gun!”

Smith poked his head over the cubicle’s partition and saw an extraordinary sight: An Army officer with two guns, firing into the crowded room.

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native quickly grabbed the civilian worker who’d been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

After the shooter stopped to reload, Smith made a run for it. Pushing two other soldiers in front of him, he made it out of the Soldier Readiness Processing center — only to plunge into the building twice more to help the wounded.

Smith had survived the worst mass shooting on an American military base, a rampage that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

It could have been much worse, but for the heroics of Smith and others — including the diminutive civilian police officer who single-handedly took down Hasan.

Of course, that would be Sgt. Munley. More on her below as the picture of what happened on Fort Hood gets filled in. A big piece of that is we are getting some information on where the shooting began:

Decisive Action

At the processing center on the southern edge of the 100,000-acre base, soldiers returning from overseas mingled with colleagues filling out forms and undergoing medical tests in preparation for deployment.

Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man authorities later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

Packed into cubicles with 5-foot-high dividers, the 300 unarmed soldiers were sitting ducks (emphasis mine). Those who weren’t hit by direct fire were struck by rounds ricocheting off the desks and tile floor.

Let’s just reflect on that for a minute. Hasan chose an area in which the soldiers were close together. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s pretty much what he did after he jumped up onto the desk and started firing. Just picture the logistics of that – man on desk firing on unarmed soldiers (only the MPs and contracted civilian police officers carry guns), 5 foot dividers, 300 soldiers. The potential for mass casualties was set in motion:

When he decided the shooter wasn’t close to being out of ammo, Smith made a dash for the door. He’d made it outside when he heard cries from within.

“I don’t want to die.”

“This really hurts.”

“Help me get out of here.”

Smith rushed back inside and found two wounded. He grabbed them by their collars and dragged them outside.

Around this time, Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley got the call of “shots fired.” The SRP isn’t on Munley’s beat; she was in the area because her vehicle was in the shop.

Munley, 34, was on the scene within three minutes.

Just over 5 feet tall, Munley is an advanced firearms instructor and civilian member of Fort Hood’s special reaction team. She had trained on “active shooter” scenarios after the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. She didn’t wait for backup.

As she approached the squat, rectangular building, a soldier emerged from a door with a gunman in pursuit. The officer fired, and the uniformed shooter wheeled and charged.

Munley was hit at least three times in the exchange — twice through the left leg and once in her right wrist. Hasan was hit four times.

From the first shots to the last, authorities say the whole incident lasted less than 10 minutes.

Sgt. Munley’s fast response time, not waiting for backup (I wonder if she’ll get lectured about that?), and her willingness to put herself in harm’s way saved who-knows-how-many lives. Clearly, her training kicked in, and she did what she was trained to do. This article, Hero ‘Civilian Cops’ Emerge After Fort Hood Shooting: Sgt. Kimberly Munley Lost So Much Blood Doctors Feared She Wouldn’t Survive, goes into even more detail as to what Sgt. Munley did that day (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this article), as well as another police officer, Sgt, Mark Todd:

After Sgt. Kimberly Munley helped stop the Fort Hood massacre by shooting Major Nidal Malik Hasan several times, she collapsed from her wounds and doctors who treated her were afraid she wouldn’t survive.

“She was fading in and out of consciousness. She wasn’t saying much,” medic Francisco de la Serna, who began treating Munley when the shooting stopped, told ABC News.

Munley, a 34-year-old former soldier who became a civilian cop on the Fort Hood base, was shot twice in both legs during Thursday’s confrontation. Two powerful “cop killer” rounds allegedly fired by Hasan tore through her left thigh, exited and blasted through her right thigh as well. She was also struck in the wrist.

Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, a retired soldier who also works as a civilian police officer at Ford Hood, also engaged in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute, according to The Associated Press. Todd was not wounded.

Army officials say that an investigation is under way about whose bullets brought down Hasan as there was much confusion following the shooting. Munley’s supervisor initially credited her with the shot that stopped Hasan.

Todd told The Associated Press Saturday that he was unsure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because “once he started firing at me, I lost track of her.”

After firing his Beretta at Hasan, Todd said the suspect flinched, slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd recalls hearing people say, “two more, two more.” He first thought they were referring to more shooters, but he realized that the bystanders were urging him to fire two more rounds, Todd said.

Todd said he approached the suspect and saw that he still had a gun in his hand, which he kicked away. Todd told the AP, “He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking.”

Munley, the mother of two girls, was sped to Metroplex Hospital several miles away where doctors say she lost so much blood that they feared she would not make it.

I suppose we will have to wait to find out exactly whose bullet brought down Hasan – Munley’s or Todd’s, but there is no dispute that had she not started firing on Hasan, he would have inflicted more damage on the soldiers.

Her wounds were clearly severe, especially after being hit by “cop killer” bullets:

Munley proved to be as tough in the operating room as she was while confronting Hasan in their close-range shootout.

Dr. Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley at the Metroplex Hospital, said her first words in recovery were concern about Hasan’s victims.

“She opened her eyes and said, ‘Did anybody die?’ That’s what she said, ‘Did anybody die?’” Matlock said.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the make up and constitution of this woman. Her first thought, her first question, wasn’t about herself, but others. I am in awe.

Sgt. Munley got her question answered:

Munley now knows that the man she shot is alive, and that he is accused of killing 13 unarmed people and wounding 38.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Munley in the hospital today and later described her as “understated.”

“She is a classic public servant who is not interested in anything other than getting on with her life,” Perry said.

Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at Fort Hood, said many more would have died if Munley had not leaped into action.

“If she had not responded the way she had, we would have had an extremely high number of dead and injured,” Medley told ABC News Friday. “The number of lives that this person saved … We will probably never know. But there is a lot of ammunition left, a lot of magazines,” he said referring to what Hasan was allegedly carrying.

Uh, yeah. That, along with Hasan giving away his worldly goods, screams premeditation to me. No doubt about it.

While much of this has been covered already, the way in which this is written really paints a picture:

Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s Shootout With Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Medley described a scenario worthy of a Hollywood script. He said Munley, who is a member of the base’s SWAT team and a weapons expert, ran towards the gunfire and came upon Hasan when she rounded a corner and saw him pursuing a soldier who had already been wounded once.

“She fired on him twice and drew the attention toward her. He immediately spun around and charged her,” Medley said. “She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire.”

Despite getting struck three times by Hasan’s fusillade, Munley stayed upright and kept firing at the charging gunman.

Let’s stop right there. What kind of person is capable of doing this? What kind of person puts herself in the line of fire to save someone else? What kind of intestinal fortitude must this woman have to STAY UPRIGHT after being seriously hit, firing at the gunman?

I have a close friend who was a police officer at one time before he became a minister. I asked him that question – what makes some people run into danger, be it firefighters, police officers, military personnel, when everyone else is running away as fast as they can? What kind of courage and bravery must someone have to do something like Sgt. Munley? It is hard to fathom. Sure, many of us would like to THINK we would, but honestly – WHO would rush into this situation, size it up, and intentionally put herself in the line of fire to protect others? It is simply remarkable. This breed of human being is rare indeed.

At least according to this report, if it even matters at this point, it was Munley who brought Hasan down (as mentioned above, ballistics will have the final say):

“She struck him a couple times in the upper torso and he went down,” Medley said.

“When she rounded that corner she made a split-second decision to put her life at risk,” he said.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley’s aggressive tactics averted even more carnage.

“She had been trained in active response,” Cone said. “They had rehearsed scenarios like this. Oftentimes, the idea is you would encircle the building and wait until you have more backup. What the belief is, if you act aggressively, to take the shooter out, you’ll have less fatalities.”

Munley acted aggressively, not waiting for backup. She went after the gunman and quickly found him. As Cone put it, Munley decided “to seek him out, to confront hm.”

Medley said he visited with Munley early Friday. “She’s doing very well. She was in good spirits. She was smiling and laughing,” he said.

Her boss said he told Munley, “The action you took saved countless peoples’ lives. People are healthy, alive and walking around today because of the action that this officer took. She’s a hero.”

Munley’s grandmother, Monirie Metz, told ABC News that the former South Carolina surfer girl would probably object to being called a hero.

“Kim doesn’t want be called a hero. She’s worried about everyone else right now and is very concerned about her colleagues with whom she is very close,” Metz said.

Of course Sgt. Munley would object to being called a hero. After what we have learned about her, who would be surprised by that? Not me. That speaks even more about her remarkable character. Can anyone not be impressed by this woman? I imagine her family is extraordinarily proud of her, as they should be.

Speaking of family:

Her husband, Matthew Munley, is a soldier at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was flown to Fort Hood. She also has two daughters, ages 15 and 2, from a previous marriage.

Needless to say, Sgt. Munley’s daring feats are already garnering tributes:

Facebook Tributes to Fort Hood Hero

In the hours after the shootings, two Facebook groups sprung up dedicated to Munley and her heroic actions.

“At that tragic moment you were able to use your training and abilities to bring an end to a day that will haunt the lives of many for years to come,” one member posted in the group “God Bless SGT Kimberly Munley.” “Thank you for being a true hero.”

And in the group “Sgt. Kimberly Munley: A Real American Hero!,” one woman stationed in Japan with her military husband said that Munley had inspired her to learn how to shoot once she returned to the U.S.

A true hero indeed – I know she’s mine.

Whatever one may think of Rush Limbaugh, the controversy surrounding his attempts to participate in a consortium buying the Rams has made for some strange bedfellows. Apparently Limbaugh was falsely accused of making racist statements he did not make. Juan Williams of FOX News stood up for the truth and was told he should “get back on the porch.” Understandably, Mr. Williams was furious. While he has at times been critical of President Obama, it is not his habit. Imagine his horror when he realized that if he dares for once to tell a truth that is not “politically correct,” he too will be thrown under the bus by race baiters.

Mr. Williams interviews commentator Tammy Bruce and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, PhD, a former NFL player, conservative pastor and African American who is close friends with Mr. Limbaugh. This 7:45 video is well worth your time…*

This segment speaks truth to power. What do you think?

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

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

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

(Photo by rachydachy)

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

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

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

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

Oh, yay! Obama said he might, maybe, could possibly do something about DADT!! Thank you, Rachel, for your ongoing, breathless support of the One, who surely will keep his promise and change this disastrous law. But just not for these people:

One can certainly see why THIS man had to go – I mean, really – educated at West Point?? An officer? Harrumph – clearly unprepared to serve in the duty of our nation! Good thing they got HIM removed from the service. Cough. Choke.

Oh, and I misspoke – Obama did do something. He wrote a letter. A letter! Saying that if only he could do something, he would. You know, if only he had some power, or position, or something that would enable him to end this absurd policy, one that has destroyed thousands of careers. Oh, if ONLY he could DO something … Ahem. Just more words, words, words, from Obama with no action to back them up.

There have been a number of Arabic Linguists kicked out, while we are in the midst of a war in an Arabic speaking nation (and no, Obama, not Afghanistan):

And another:

Here, Jason Jones from “The Daily Show” highlights just how absurd this act is in his usual “serious” way:

Now, if Bleu can ignore THAT, I think he can manage to do the work he was trained to do, don’t you??

What a waste of talent, time, and money. What a disrespectful way to treat people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. What a horrible way for a nation to treat its citizens. Enough words, Obama.

And speaking of words, Pat Racimora tipped me off to this story at Alternet,
Broken Promise? White House Backs Off Obama’s Pledge to Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act. Oh, goodie – more freakin’ words out of the mouth of Obama backed up by no action, or worse, by a reversal. See, this is exactly the kind of thing I kept telling people he was going to do, that his record did NOT back up these promises of his, but would they listen?? No. And now look where we are:

After ThinkProgress and other outlets noted last week’s changes to the Civil Rights page on whitehouse.gov, watering down language on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Tips-Q noted that the website also has completely eliminated the portion objecting to the Defense of Marriage Act. As late as April 28, the website highlighted President Obama’s commitment to “repealing” DOMA, as a cached image shows:

Today, the website states only that Obama supports full “federal rights for LGBT couples”:

He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

According to ProPublica’s Change Tracker, the changes to the DOMA language were made on April 30. During his campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged to seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, telling The Advocate, “I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.” During the primary campaign, he touted his longtime opposition to DOMA, in a strongly-worded “open letter” to the LGBT community:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. Hillary Clinton has, for YEARS now, worked tirelessly on behalf of the LGBT community. As I have said before, the woman has marched in more Pride Parades than I have. Obama? Zero. NONE. Just to remind everyone of just how much she has done, here is a YouTube link to Joe Salmonese of the Human Rights Campaign singing her praises before stabbing her in the back by supporting Obama.

Oh, but don’t you worry. Obama was quick to return to his “words, just words”:

Last week, after bloggers pointed out Obama’s seeming hypocrisy on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the White House quickly revised the language to once again pledge to “repeal” the policy, rather than just change it. Will the White House similarly fix this mistake, and reinstate Obama’s campaign promise to grant gay couples their full federal rights? (Ali Frick is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.)

Just spare me already. Arabic linguists and other military personnel are still being kicked out of the military. Obama backtracks left and right on DADT, and DOMA. Just changing things back because someone actually noticed doesn’t CHANGE anything. DADT still exists, and so does DOMA. If, and when, Obama actually puts some REAL action behind his words, then I’ll believe him. Until then, he has continued to make clear that he will say and do whatever to appease whichever group he’s talking to at the time to get their praises, accolades, and votes. Once that’s accomplished, he could give a shit about the real people involved. If you don’t believe me, go ask Dan Choi.

Buying Brand Obama

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

That is EXACTLY what MANY of us have been saying ad nauseum for MONTHS now – Obama is another Bush, further evidenced by his saying one thing and doing the exact OPPOSITE:

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action,” Naomi Klein wrote in “No Logo.”

Well, ain’t that the damn truth. Sad, but the truth, nonetheless. And it led to this:

Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as “green” energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.

While Gaza was being bombarded and hit with airstrikes in the weeks before Obama took office, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel,” according to Seymour Hersh. Even his one vaunted anti-war speech as a state senator, perhaps his single real act of defiance, was swiftly reversed. He told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” And unlike anti-war stalwarts like Kucinich, who gave hundreds of speeches against the war, Obama then dutifully stood silent until the Iraq war became unpopular.

Oh, yes – a man of SUCH conviction. Hahahaha. As long as it scores him some points, he’s ALL over it.

But get this – if there was any doubt whatsoever in any way, shape, or form, that Obama is the sole result of marketing, check this out:

Obama’s campaign won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference in October. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.

Yep, pretty much – so it doesn’t matter HOW empty the promises, or vague the rhetoric, doggone it, he just makes us feel all tingly inside (blech, yuck, ick).

Hedges has an explanation for how we got to this place:

Celebrity culture has leeched into every aspect of our culture, including politics, to bequeath to us what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. Junk politics personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them. “It’s impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture,” DeMott noted. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes – “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.” It redefines traditional values, tilting “courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains.” Junk politics “miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It’s also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized.” And finally, it “seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst.”

An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle and manufactured pseudo-drama. Scandalous affairs, hurricanes, earthquakes, untimely deaths, lethal new viruses, train wrecks—these events play well on computer screens and television. International diplomacy, labor union negotiations and convoluted bailout packages do not yield exciting personal narratives or stimulating images. A governor who patronizes call girls becomes a huge news story. A politician who proposes serious regulatory reform, universal health care or advocates curbing wasteful spending is boring. Kings, queens and emperors once used their court conspiracies to divert their subjects. Today cinematic, political and journalistic celebrities distract us with their personal foibles and scandals. They create our public mythology. Acting, politics and sports have become, as they were during the reign of Nero, interchangeable.

Yet another reference to Nero – and appropriately so.

But here is yet another sad truth:

In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. We ask to be indulged and comforted by clichés, stereotypes and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities, and that our future will always be glorious and prosperous, either because of our own attributes, or our national character, or because we are blessed by God. Reality is not accepted as an impediment to our desires. Reality does not make us feel good.

In his book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann distinguished between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He defined a “stereotype” as an oversimplified pattern that helps us find meaning in the world. Lippmann cited examples of the crude “stereotypes we carry about in our heads” of whole groups of people such as “Germans,” “South Europeans,” “Negroes,” “Harvard men,” “agitators” and others. These stereotypes, Lippmann noted, give a reassuring and false consistency to the chaos of existence. They offer easily grasped explanations of reality and are closer to propaganda because they simplify rather than complicate.

Pseudo-events—dramatic productions orchestrated by publicists, political machines, television, Hollywood or advertisers—however, are very different. They have, as Daniel Boorstin wrote in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” the capacity to appear real even though we know they are staged. They are capable, because they can evoke a powerful emotional response, of overwhelming reality and replacing reality with a fictional narrative that often becomes accepted truth. The unmasking of a stereotype damages and often destroys its credibility. But pseudo-events, whether they show the president in an auto plant or a soup kitchen or addressing troops in Iraq, are immune to this deflation. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and its power. This is the basis of the convoluted television reporting on how effectively political campaigns and politicians have been stage-managed. Reporters, especially those on television, no longer ask if the message is true but if the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. Those events that appear real are relished and lauded. Those that fail to create a believable illusion are deemed failures. Truth is irrelevant. Those who succeed in politics, as in most of the culture, are those who create the brands and pseudo-events that offer the most convincing fantasies. And this is the art Obama has mastered.

Ah, yes – convincing people to ignore reality and just listen to the sound of his voice. Great – just what we want in our elected officials – to create a little fantasy world in which we can live and not have to deal with all that icky reality stuff:

A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used to bolster illusion and give it credibility or are discarded if they interfere with the message. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusions. When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day, when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of pseudo-events and why pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits peddling these illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control.

The old production-oriented culture demanded what the historian Warren Susman termed character. The new consumption-oriented culture demands what he called personality. The shift in values is a shift from a fixed morality to the artifice of presentation. The old cultural values of thrift and moderation honored hard work, integrity and courage. The consumption-oriented culture honors charm, fascination and likability. “The social role demanded of all in the new culture of personality was that of a performer,” Susman wrote. “Every American was to become a performing self.”

Hard work?? Thrift? Moderation? Oh, my – that is SOOO Twentieth Century! It’s a brand new day, folks, and along with that is a new brand, OBAMA, and his “listen to what I say, and ignore everything I do”:

The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.

Chris Hedges’ new book, “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” will be out in July and can be preordered on Amazon (and please remember that No Quarter benefits if you click the Amazon button at the No Quarter site) or at your local bookstore

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Both Obama the Brand and the man are dangerous with his marketing to mask his real actions. Too many people did not wake up before granting Bush a second term (though even THAT is debatable given the state of our elections, particularly electronic voting machines – shameless plug for “Hacking Democracy” Live Chat and voter fraud in general). We can only hope, and work (in the good ol’ Twentieth Century way), to help more people move back into the reality-based community. To move from the illusion of Obama the Brand to the reality of Obama the Politician. The sooner, the better. And “sooner” can’t come fast enough for me. How about you?

Just as the world can be divided into those who prefer Mozart to Bach and those who don’t, so the world can be divided into those who prefer F. Scott Fitzgerald over Ernest Hemingway and those who don’t.

In my series on the great composers, I found that some of those who preferred Bach over Mozart tended to be very rude and hostile in their dismissal of Mozart (and of my series). These people screamed that after all Bach had done for counterpoint and in his development of the fugue, anyone who thought Mozart was the greater composer was an imbecile. It reminded me of the abuse I attracted for daring to question Obama’s credentials for being President.

I love many pieces by Bach, and ranked him third in the list, but I always felt he lacked the originality, the poetic soul and the expressive range of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven (or even Brahms, Prokofiev and many others). It’s the same thing I feel in comparing Hemingway with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Hemingway, in my opinion, lacked the poetic soul and the expressive range of a great writer like Fitzgerald.

I remember a literary critic I once worked with on a newspaper praising the “lean, sparse prose” of Hemingway. I asked him to give me an example, and he read me the following passage:

“He had a beer. It was good. He had another.”

I was totally unimpressed, but with Hemingway so highly recommended by this literary critic (who had a degree in English literature, which I didn’t), I felt I should give him a chance and tried to familiarize myself with his work. I read some of his most well known novels, but never experienced the same feeling of involvement, of going on a journey of discovery, that I did with Fitzgerald and other writers I came to love and admire.

I also found that those who preferred Hemingway tended to be hostile and insultingly dismissive of me for regarding Fitzgerald as more deserving of the title of “Great American Writer” than Hemingway, who in my opinion was nowhere near as brave or as eloquent as Fitzgerald in baring his soul and capturing both the darkness and the humor of life.

I see the same kind of attitudes behind this, and behind the reactions to my composer series, playing out in many areas of political and social life.

Naked hostility and insults are always a sign of people who are on flimsy ground and therefore feel the need to defend their elitist positions with sneering dismissal of those who don’t agree with them.

Now who does that remind you of?

So, I saw this story yesterday about the kindergarten class that dressed up for Thanksgiving. One parent was outraged, and the school has now put a stop to the practice of dressing up and celebrating the holiday.

Now, I agree that (at a certain age – not in kindergarten) the real story of Thanksgiving should be taught. And when you read the *real* accounts, as written by some, it does leave a bad taste. But the politicization of this holiday, on a group of 5 year olds is, in my opinion, obnoxious.

“After a handful of parents complained that the Native American headdresses and vests were demeaning, cartoonish stereotypes, the Claremont Unified School District eliminated the costumes from this year’s festivities, but allowed the turkey feast to go forward.”

Stereotypes? What did Indians wear 400 years ago? They didn’t wear feathers and leather skinned vests? This picture is of Massasoit, the name used by early English colonists for the principal leader of the Wampanoag tribe. When I go to the Indian reservations in WA, I still see Indians wearing feathers. And when I have been to museums, they have had headdresses and costumes from Indians in the PNW. These are web sites for the Wampanoag Tribes here and here, and these images from the early 1900’s show Indians in feathers and skins. Obviously they don’t run around in those outfits anymore, but there aren’t a lot of Pilgrims running around either. And yes, kids in construction paper costumes can look a little cartoonish, but it is construction paper, on five year olds….

So anyway, the school put a stop to the costumes, and I am sure it will spread to other schools. So, this coupled with the conversion of Christmas to Holiday, I think we need to examine all of our holidays.

Let’s start in December
Christmas. There has been a push to remove the Christ from Christmas, and convert to *Holiday*, so as not to offend those who are not Christian, or that don’t celebrate Christmas. So, if we do away with Christmas, we need to remove Hanukah (12/22) and Kwanza (12/26) from the calendar as well. We can just just call it Holiday week.

And, thinking about it, if we are concerned with those being subjected to the word *Christ* in Christmas, perhaps we should eliminate other words that contain the name *christ*. People named Christina, Christy, Christian, Christopher, need to change. Perhaps X-ina, X-y, X-ian, X-opher will work. And of course we need to eliminate those with the name Jesus (hey soos). Hmmm…and while we are at it, we should also change anyone with the name Peter, Paul, John, Mathew, Luke, Mark, Adam and Eve? Perhaps any biblical name, just to be safe? Crap, there goes my name…

We then of course, need to eliminate all public broadcasting of Christmas Carols – no White Christmas, Blue Christmas, Silent Night, Joy to the World, Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire, nada. Well, maybe Jingle Bells. I think Jingle Bells is ok. we can get that on a loop.

And what about Candy Canes? Do we need to get rid of those? Aren’t they modeled after a shepherd’s staff? And Christmas cake and pudding need to be changed. Chocolate bells? They are pretty controversial…they represent Christmas bells, and all. OK, they have to go too. And no more Chocolate Angels, or Santa Clauses.

And, I guess we need to eliminate personal public religious displays – no more cross necklaces or yamakas or head scarves.

And no more wreaths in public. They represent the crown that Jesus wore, so those MUST go. Even the ones covered with fruit or teddy bears, or candy. Gotta go. Now, Christmas trees, in my opinion are safe, because they started in Germany, and had nothing to do with Christmas but… they are too controversial, even called Holiday trees, so better safe than sorry.

Now, for street decorations, we need to probably do away with those as well. The lights represent stars, and since when Jesus was born, the Star of Bethlehem lit up the manger, so, we need to get rid of the little twinkling lights, too. Hmmm, and speaking of the Wise Men, we should probably be very careful about advertising Gold sales during Holiday week. And frankincense and myrrh, too.

Gift giving? Well, that has to go. That tradition is rooted in the act of the Three Wise Men giving gifts to baby Jesus.

We might want to send out notices to farmers to cover up their mangers during the holiday season to…

I think eggnog is safe, although it is typically only served for Christmas, so I guess we just need to be sure to not call it a Christmas drink.

Poinsettias, mistletoe, and holly? While rooted in pagen tradition, they have become symbols of Christmas, and they are green and red, so they should probably go too. And holly has become a symbol for Jesus’s crown as well.

What about the Salvation Army donation booths, with the people who ring the bells? Those should probably go as well… That falls under gift giving, and goodwill towards men, which is from the bible, so gotta go. I guess that applies to soup kitchens too.

And, now that we remove all those things, it seems silly to just have a week dedicated to consumer shopping and crowds and commercialism. So, maybe we just get rid of Holiday Week too? With birthdays and anniversaries, it seems silly to have a week just dedicated to shopping.

November
Thanksgiving – How to make it PC? That is a pretty difficult task, unless we remove any reference to the Indians. And, if we remove the Indians, then what are the Pilgrims celebrating, since they couldn’t have survived without Squanto, who taught them to grow corn and fish, and the Wampanoag Indians? So, perhaps we just need to do away with the holiday all together. Or else, just make it a day of Thanks, but eliminate the tradition of it. We can just give thanks now to family, and the iPod.

Veterans Day. Now that is an iffy one too. We are celebrating Veterans who are serving our country. But, what about those who oppose the Iraq war, or any war. Hmmm… I don’t know. This holiday seems too controversial. Don’t want to offend those who are anti-war, and anti-military. It better go too.

October
Halloween – this is founded on the belief that ghosts returned to earth. In 800, the three celebrations, the eve of All Saints’, All Saints’, and All Souls’, were called Hallowmas, so this too has ties to religion. Plus, we have seen controversy like the kid who went to school dressed as Jesus for Halloween, and was sent home. So, we are better off eliminating Halloween and not risk offending anyone, again.

Boss’s Day – What about people who don’t have bosses, or jobs? Better do away with this one.

Columbus Day – Indigenous groups in particular have opposed the holiday as celebrating the man who initiated the European colonization of the new world. Opposition often focuses on the cruel treatment indigenous peoples faced at the hands of Columbus and later European settlers and the fact that the European conquest directly and indirectly caused a massive decline in population among the indigenous peoples. Need I say more? It’s gotta go.

September
Labor Day – This could be too insulting to those who are unemployed. It is very insensitive to have a day off celebrating workers, when there are too many people without jobs. Maybe workers should still work on Labor day, and give thanks that they have a job, and work for free, and donate the money to those without jobs? I think we need to rethink or eliminate this holiday as well.

Also in September we have Grandparents day – too insensitive to those who have lost a grandparent or those who can’t bear children. Take it off the calendar. And Patriot Day? This is again controversial for those who believe our Chickens came home to roost on 9/11. And Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur obviously need to come off the calendar.

July
Independence Day – Considering the Declaration of Independence wasn’t really signed on the 4th, but in August, it is a holiday based on misinformation. Also, it only talks about men – all men are created equal, governments are instituted among Men, mankind are more disposed to suffer… and not one woman signed it. It is a sexist document. Also, we need to be allies with Great Brittan so to continue to celebrate an occasion when we succeeded from GB might send the wrong signal to our allies, as well as out British Americans. And we celebrate with fireworks and hot dogs. Fireworks can be very disturbing to some people’s pets, so we need to be more considerate. And hotdogs are very offensive to vegetarians. I think we need to scratch Independence Day as well.

June
Fathers Day – again, inconsiderate holiday to those who have lost their father, never knew their father, or don’t have a father but two mommies’, or those who can’t bear children. Best to do away with this. And what dad needs another tie, anyway?

Flag Day – this is an insult to those American who prefer to burn or stomp on the flag. We don’t want to offend the radical left. Best eliminate this holiday as well.

May
Memorial Day – Now that is an iffy one too. We are celebrating Veterans who have died serving our country, in any military action. But, do we need to specify which wars/battles are PC enough to be a member of the *Veterans Group*? Like, the Veterans of Vietnam….should they count, since some Americans protested Vietnam? Or the Civil War Veterans? Or what about WWII veterans… I mean, we did bomb Japan, and fought Germany and Italy, and we have people from all three nations living in America. We also interred Japanese Americans, so maybe the veterans of WWII shouldn’t be included. I guess it goes without saying that the armies that fought the Indians shouldn’t be counted. Hmmm… I don’t know. This holiday seems too controversial. It better go too. same with Armed Forces Day.

Mothers Day – see Fathers Day.

April
Administrative Professionals Day – I think this is unfair to every other work group out there. Why are admin assistants singled out? Too non-inclusive, and unfair. Gotta go.

Passover – too religious. It’s gotta come off the calendar.

Easter – see Passover.

April Fools Day – This is offensive and not PC. We shouldn’t call people fools. It offends those of lesser intelligence and those without a sense of humor.

March
St. Patrick’s Day – celebrates Saint Patrick, one of the patron saints of Ireland and a national holiday of Ireland. It became a feast day in the Roman Catholic Church due to the influence of the Waterford-born Franciscan scholar Luke Wadding in the early part of the 17th century, and is a holy day of obligation for Roman Catholics in Ireland. Too religious, and if we are going to celebrate a national holiday of one country, we need to have a holiday from every country. It is also unfair to alcoholics and vegetarians and people who don’t like the smell of cabbage.

Palm Sunday and Good Friday – see Passover

February
Ash Wednesday – religious, needs to go. Also Fat Tuesday.

President’s Day – This is controversial. What about people who don’t like certain presidents? Should they be included in this day? This is also a sexist holiday, since all Presidents are men. I think it needs to go.

Valentines Day – This holiday is named after two among the numerous Early Christian martyrs named Valentine. It is the traditional day on which lovers express their love for each other. The U.S. Greeting Card Association estimates that approximately one billion valentines are sent each year worldwide, making the day the second largest card-sending holiday of the year behind Christmas. The association estimates that women purchase approximately 85 percent of all valentines. There are too many things wrong with this holiday – it is rooted in religion, is discriminatory against those who are not in loving relationships, is not environmentally correct (all those cards!) and is sexist. Women purchase 85% of the gifts on Valentines Day? This holiday has GOT to go.

January
Martin Luther King Jr. Day – It is one of four holidays that celebrates a person – Jesus, Washington/Lincoln, and Christopher Columbus. Since we have eliminated the others, we need to eliminate this one as well. Also, it is sexist. They are all men. Also, he is a minority, and if we represent one minority group we should represent all minority groups, including women. It’s gotta go.

New Years Day – Well, hell. Not even this day is safe. This calendar, the Gregorian, was first proposed by the Calabrian doctor Aloysius Lilius, and decreed by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom it was named, on 24 February 1582 by papal bull Inter gravissimas. It is a reform of the Julian calendar. Years in the reformed calendar continue the numbering system of the Julian calendar, which are numbered from the traditional Incarnation year of Jesus, which has been labeled the “anno Domini” (AD) era, and is sometimes labeled the “common era”, otherwise known as the “Christian Era”. So, New Year’s Day is only really the first day of the new year if you believe the Christian version of the calendar, and the whole BC/AD thing. So, this too, is perhaps too controversial. Also, it excludes our Chinese Americans, who celebrate another calendar.

So, that leaves us with….what?

Happy Thanksgiving ya’ll!

Sarah Palin has become my new hero. While I don’t agree with some of her political positions, I love that she is unapologetically herself. And she is a REAL feminist, representing many of us who don’t toe the line of some definition of what that is. The so-called “progressives,” men and women alike, don’t approve of anyone diverging from their definitions. Like me, Palin could care less what they think. From her interview with Curic:

I’m a feminist who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed and to try to do it all anyways…[A feminist is] someone who would not stand for oppression against women.

I like that definition. I like it because I am a lifetime radical feminist who believes that real feminism is not about receiving the approval from a misogynist like Andrew Sullivan, but rather about women living full and free and authentic lives. I may disagree with Palin on some matters of policy, but I agree with her that feminism is about the existential choices women make for themselves. It’s all about freedom: women can stay home or work, get married or have a partner, take their husband’s name or keep their own, have children or not, run for office or run corporations, be a Democrat or a Republican. Feminism is freedom and it dovetails perfectly with American freedom.

I love listening to Palin calling out the Poster Boy of Male Privilege, Obama, for his lies and omissions, and she does it with relish. WaPo quotes Palin:

Okay, so, Florida, you know that you’re going to have to hang on to your hats, because from now until Election Day, it may get kind of rough.

And while the Democrats and the main stream media attack her for everything from her mothering to her idiomatic, “Joe six pack” speech, The Barracuda flexes her muscles and says:

“For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off”

Sharpening her attacks against Obama’s lack of support for our troops, she has the audacity to speak the truth:

Obama doesn’t like American soldiers. He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians’

Palin continues to hammer home Obama’s close association with unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers:

Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room, and they’ve worked together on various projects in Chicago. These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes — remember that’s what Joe Biden had said. “And I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as ‘imperfect enough’ to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.

You can see this speech in a post by SusanUnPc, which also includes Paul Villareal’s videos.

I love Sarah because she’s one of us. As Truthteller documented, like us, she’s been accused of racism for daring to criticize Dear Leader. She’s been accused of being a hick, a barbie, a pig with lipstick, and in Ani’s post about the misogyny that has welcomed her onto the national stage, Palin has even been called “disabled.” The insults range from the horrendous to the ridiculous, as in NewHampster’s post about the extreme closeup designed to expose Palin’s wrinkles. The list goes on and on.

In a brilliant post, feminist writer Dr. Violet Socks suggests that the attacks on Palin from women are sycophantic acts to gain favor with the “liberal,” male power structure:

Whenever women in a patriarchal society buck male opinion, there’s hell to pay and they know it. Women in America really went out on a limb this year by backing Hillary in the face of withering derision from men (and from young women attempting to curry favor with men, consciously or not). Now they’re making amends by piling on Palin.

Ridiculing Sarah Palin as a moron — which she clearly is not — is de rigueur for everybody now in the Obama camp. It’s their preferred sport. It’s true that Palin is verbally awkward in interviews, but then, Obama himself is a man whose unscripted remarks are so confused they defy belief. A teleprompter-deprived Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union, believes Oregon is in the Great Lakes region, doesn’t know which states border his own state of Illinois, and has no idea which Senate committees he’s on.

But still: people always make fun of their political opponents, and they’re rarely fair about it. What interests me about the Palin attacks is their vigor. To a large extent, it’s a continuation of the misogyny that is such an integral part of the Obama movement: from the campaign itself, from the media collaborators, from the male supporters, from the self-loathing young female supporters.

Typical of liberal sexism, PBS’s program NOW has a poll asking if Palin is qualified to serve as vice president, although Palin has more executive experience than any of the three male candidates, their names are conspicuously absent. Why the question is not asked of Obama, a man who was in the senate for 143 days prior to running for president (and before that a part-time state senator) just shows the incredible bias against women who seek power. Vote in the poll here.

The sexists attacks on Palin are the same sexists attacks on Hillary, and from the same sordid cast of characters: Obama, Sullivan, MoDo, Josh Marshall, Chris Matthews, et al. An Obama victory will codify sexism in the media and Democratic Party for a generation. That’s why I can disagree with Palin and oppose Obama.

When asked in an interview what attacks on her REALLY get to her–which ones wake her up at night–Palin just laughed and said something like, none, that it comes with the territory. But then she paused and looking deadly serious for an instant and said that the attacks against her children got to her and brought out her “mama bear.”

Pit Bulls can do serious damage, but if you get between a mama bear and her cubs, you’re lunch.

(You can watch the two-part interview at the Patriot Room linked here.)

He almost wrecked Barack Obama’s presidential dreams, and now firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright has helped destroy a Dallas church worker’s marriage – and her job, The Post has learned.

You’ve seen the disgusting video of Reverend Wright, in a Sunday sermon, doing the the “hump” to suggest that Bill Clinton “done us wrong”:

The background story to Wright’s second marriage calls into serious question Wright’s “right” to preach to anyone. Here’s more from the Post:

Wright has been married to his second wife, Ramah, for more than 20 years.

The preacher reportedly wooed Ramah away from her first husband in the 1980s, when the couple came to marriage counseling at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Now let’s see more reminders of Obama’s Reverend Wright. Remember this “America’s Chickens Come Home to Roost”?

The 37-year-old Elizabeth Payne admits to the affair but gives few other details.

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

She has since basically been excommunicated from the church, fired from her paid position in the church, and divorced. Her husband dashed to divorce court after the affair was discovered. She did have this to say about her life post-Wright:

Elizabeth Payne said she has been banished by Haynes and the flock at Friendship-West.

“I’m not a member of the congregation anymore; I’m not even allowed on the premises,” she said.

And she had this to say about her affair with Wright, her job and divorce:

“I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that’s why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me,” Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West “found out about the affair in the spring,” Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright’s anti-government rants came to light.

“Liz was by Rev. Wright’s side day and night during those days,” a church source said.

“It’s all true,” said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

In an interesting twist, Wright gave a sermon about trouble in relationships at a church in New Jersey. Here is more on that:

“There’s no such thing as a problem-free relationship,” he told a packed Elmwood United Presbyterian Church. “In life, you’ll have unexpected problems.”

Here are his words minus a controversial statement.

Payne’s husband, Fred Payne, 64, said he learned of the affair in late February, when he discovered e-mails between his wife and Wright.

“There must have been about 80 of them, back and forth,” he said. “Wright said things like he was going to leave his wife for Elizabeth.”

And now we need to be reminded of Obama on his spiritual mentor….

And we know that Reverend Wright/Wrong became a albatross around Obama’s neck. Obama did what he always has — he denied any knowledge of the sermons — the same way he denies responsibility for anything his campaign does!

And this is the man we want leading our country? Not!

Obama your “chickens have come home to roost!”

I stole this brilliant image from Not Your Sweetie blog, illustrating a story on the smear campaign currently being waged against Palin by the Stupid Media, Obama’s surrogates, the so-called “progressives,” the Bots, and the regressive morons who compose the political party formerly known as Democrats.

They first launched baby-gate, a carnival of misogyny celebrated by world-class misogynists accusing Sarah Palin of being her son, Trig’s, grandmother. Then they trotted out Dan Quayle-gate, Barbie-gate, go go boots-gate, trooper-gate, polar bear-gate, pipeline-gate, vindictive bitch-gate, book banning-gate, racist-gate and on and on it goes. And now the Obamacans are using faux personal emails to smear Palin. Here’s the beginning of one that I received from a friend, who received it from a friend, who also received it from a friend:

This is from a Bryn Mawr college grad to her fellow alums

Dear classmates -

As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain’s choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I now more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her. The most accurate description of her is red neck….

This email is allegedly from a former Bryn Mawr graduate (read, she’s no one’s fool) sent as a heads-up to her fellow alums. In the many paragraphs that follow, the email leaves no stone unturned in its attack against Palin. The biggest giveaway that it’s a fake, besides the relentless savaging of Palin, is the claim that Biden will make a much better VP, followed by the assertion that anyone who supported Hillary should now support Barky. But this is line that cracks me up:

Palin isn’t “squeaky clean” and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light.

I have a few names for that light:

William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jesse Jackson Jr.

This email was followed by another:

Books Sarah Palin wanted banned in Wasilla

This was the subject line of an email from my worried sister-in-law. Based on a Time Magazine article, the email includes a list of dozens of books that Palin is said to have wanted banned from the Wasilla library:

[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.” Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library director job in 1999.

I found a rebuttal to this smear from the comments to Conflucian garychapelhill’s very fine post “Sometimes They Write (Fake) Letters.

SimoFish, on September 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Said:

BTW —- the smear campaign is saying the Gov Palin wanted to ban books — but my girlfriend did all the research and guess what — IT’s NOT TRUE.

HERE’S THE RESEARCH AND e-mail she sent back to her friend.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/03/republican-vp-choice-sarah-palin-tried-ban-books

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

hey, so i researched the link you sent me about banning books. i researched this further since I am skeptic about Time.
Time mag had BO on several covers, more than any other candidate. almost monthly. i subscribed to Time and then cancelled after seeing BO on the cover for the 10th time. and was sick of the biased reporting.

check out the first link: i found the article on gamepolitics that reports the story a whole less explosive. no details on books were ever discussed.

i went on line to the Frontiersman and other local papers in Wasilla and Alaska — no such story is depicted. I researched archives 1995- 1999. nothing in the four local and state papers.

which took me to the local board, city council post their records on their local website.
Apparently there are many inquiries, and you will see the link from the City of Wasilla, who has received several inquiries and the Mayor herself says there was no banning.

If she ever made the comment, she didn’t do anything, didn’t pursue, and not a matter of public record. if she ever made more than one comment, it would have made the papers, an ‘letter to the editor’, something. NOTHING is there.

So i don’t buy much into this story line. these are the stories that I call the “sound bites” that feed fear into people who wont’ do the research.

footnote: she is not in support of same sex marriage YET, her first Gubernatorial veto supported securing benefits for same sex partnerships for state employees

I really appreciate SimoFish’s corrective to this smear but, like me, you probably don’t have time to research and debunk each and every attack. As I was writing this, I received two more emails: one citing all the damage Palin will do to women and including the full text of Gloria Steinem’s article in the LATimes. Funny how the same people sending this email called Steinem an old hag when she wrote in favor of Hillary. And the second email contains an article by Charley James entitled “Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.” Damn she’s scary! No doubt these emails will worsen and continue until Obama’s surrogates have filled every inbox in America. So, I’ve come up with the following response. Feel free to copy it and use it as your own and please include your additions in your comments:

BTW: This looks like a good clearing house on Palin rumors.

Dear friend,

I received your email with the attachment about Sarah Palin. While this report might be scary and threatening to some, to me it sounds like the same the kind of trash written about Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama. However, since the Clintons are no longer in the race we can leave them out. But what I wonder is why it’s okay to say that Palin is a fundamentalist Christian but not okay to ask why Obama spent twenty years in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s intolerant church? And why is it okay to allege that Palin wants to destroy Alaska’s wildlife but not okay to ask if Obama plans to support Hamas instead of Israel? And people can can accuse Palin of racism based on rumor and hearsay but not hold Obama accountable for playing the race card, quoting Malcolm X and accusing good people, particularly the Clintons, of racism. While I may not agree with Palin’s politics, I am unmoved by the smear campaign launched against her. Please do not send me any more political emails. While this e-mail goes to great lengths to appear to be politically correct and to be doing me a favor, it’s actually savaging someone’s reputation based on shoddy evidence or outright lies. After forty years of voting for the Democratic candidate for president, I want you to know that these sexist and hateful lies against Sarah Palin you forwarded go against the reason I am a Democrat. Therefore, under no circumstance will I be voting for Obama.

Best Regards,

Political Correctness (PC) neutered everyone such that Obama and his followers could run amok. People in the Democratic Party were conditioned to avoid saying or doing anything that might offend someone. Hopefully that is a lesson learned. The Republicans learned it well watching Clinton get savaged in the primaries. When Obama tried to then play the race card on them they shoved it back in his face and now no one talks about race anymore.

Republicans are shaming Democrats on sexism and Obama’s misogynism. The party, at least Obama, his cult following, nutroots gangs, and adoring media are being painted for what they are racists, sexist, and hate-filled people. Unfortunately, this poison will last beyond Obama’s defeat in the November.

Clinton has faced and fought against the party’s establishment and the hate-filled people supporting Obama. She lost the nomination, in large part to their hate. She too often played nice, played polite, and played party loyalist rather than calling hate, whether racist or sexist, for what it is—wrong and unacceptable. As her supporters we’ve been far more willing to challenge this hate and say no. We own our votes. We’ve now walked from the party’s nominee and with a wide range of emotions will vote for the Republican ticket of McCain and Palin this fall, ignoring Obama and Biden, wishing and working for their defeat.

Back to my earlier post. This is Clinton’s 3 a.m. moment vis-à-vis the Democratic Party: go along to get along or say ‘No, this is wrong and I want no part of it.’ In my post I suggested that Clinton cannot retain her legacy and have a future in the party by becoming a partner in Obama’s campaign. She’s in a lose-lose position wherein she’ll be blamed for Obama’s loss whether she helps him or not. Should he win, he’ll ignore her and toss her aside. As Dean, Brazile, and others have stated, they don’t need whites, women, latinos, blue collar workers, small town residents, people of religion, and others in their new party—if they win, this is confirmed and Clinton might as well either retire or start a new party.

The responses to my original post now number 700 and range from agreement to shock and anger that the topic was even being raised. Take a moment to read through them. Note, importantly, as you do that it was and is a civil discussion, shared emotion, experience, concern, and hope. The few nutroots gang or off-thread comments were politely addressed. The community at NoQuarterUSA is not Daily Kos, TPM, or other places where any inconvenient question is met with hateful and foul-mouthed response, nor where differences of opinion are not welcomed.

The responses can be organized into several views and proposed courses for Clinton to follow:

• Should she be a nice girl and keep her mouth shut and campaign for Obama and/or down ticket candidates? (That might work for expediency but there is there future upside to this course, whether Obama wins or loses. Importantly, if she says nothing of the hate, does this mean it is okay to use hate against another party but not within the party?)
• Should she punt and say that this is not her fight? The party rejected her and she’ll just sit out the campaign, thank you. (Just take a break for a few months. Return after the vote in November to help rebuild the defeated party.)
• Should she fill the moral and leadership vacuum and say no, this campaign of hate has gone on far too long, enough-is-enough, I want no part of it? (My preferred choice as leadership requires grownup action, whatever the cost. Right and wrong are important judgments that are not a matters of expediency and convenience.)
• Don’t talk about it as all we do is feed the critics.

This is Clinton’s 3 a.m. moment. It is not a question of McCain or Palin (and it pained me to see some of the nutroots trash about Palin repeated in the thread). It is simply a question of what is best for the Democratic Party and Clinton.

What are your thoughts on this?

The Internet has also given voice to “citizen journalists”. Some are fantastic writers and dogged investigators. Others, well, not so much. The downside is that any idiot with a modem and an account can post his or her “views”, irrespective of the validity or accuracy of their “reporting”. All of which can make for good sport, sure, but I find that as I get older my patience for this sort of nonsense wanes. Particularly when it comes to politics.

Consider, if you will, this Huffington Post “column” by Rebecca Curtis.

I’m too tired to analyze all the inaccuracies and poorly arrived-at conclusions in Curtis’s screed. One part at the very beginning, however, bears mentioning since reading it accomplished the same end as a plank with nails piercing a car’s tires. If you’re going to deal the race card, might as well make it an Ace:

The Rasmussen Report and Zogby/ATV poll found that Obama’s lost major ground with women, independents, Democrats, even young voters. Polls are just that; they could change. But we might ask: why the dip? If it reflects the fact that Obama acted “uppity” and met state heads in Europe, or that McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors), then perhaps race is in play after all.

Again:

McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors)…

OK, so Rebecca Curtis supports Obama. Fine. That’s her choice. But let’s remember, for roughly the billionth time, that NOT ALL POLL NUMBERS INDICATING THAT OBAMA’S SUPPORT IS ERODING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO RACE. Some people, unlike Rebecca Curtis, see Obama not as a symbol but as a flesh-and-blood man running for the highest political office in the United States. We’ve already seen what happens when an inexperienced non-entity is elected to the Presidency and aren’t much looking forward to another go-around. We don’t believe that a candidate should be granted this office because “it’s time for America to elect a (woman, African-American, fill in the blank) for President”.

But here’s another thing. This Curtis column demonstrates how irrational and desperate Obama supporters are when it comes to any and all criticism of their man. Black people are good at sex and celebrity? What sane person would interpret the McCain ad that way? I’m guessing a person obsessed with race. It looks like she’s the one who needs help, not Obama opponents.

Intrigued by the flabby reasoning, laughable conclusions and arch, self-riteous tone of this article, I looked up her bio:

Rebecca Curtis received a B.A. from Pomona College, an M.A. in English from New York University, and an M.F.A from Syracuse University. Her first book, Twenty Grand and Other Tales of Love & Money (Harpercollins 2007) was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year, an L.A. Times Best Book of the Year, and a San Francisco Chronicle Best Book of the Year. It won the New Hampshire Literary Award for Outstanding Work of Fiction, 2006-7, and was a finalist for the Pen-Hemingway Award and the L.A. Times Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction. Curtis’ fiction and essays have appeared in The New Yorker, Harper’s, Esquire, Jane, Harper’s Bazaar, McSweeney’s, N+1, and elsewhere. Her stories have been performed by New York’s Symphony Space and Chicago’s Stories on Stage and have been anthologized in The O’Henry Prize Stories 2007. She is the recipient of a Rona Jaffe Foundation award, and a Saltonstall Grant. She has taught in the graduate and undergraduate writing programs at St. Mary’s College of California and the University of Kansas. She now teaches in the Graduate Writing Program at Columbia University and lives in Brooklyn.

Impressive qualifications, no doubt – FOR A BOOK REVIEWER OR ENGLISH PROFESSOR. But when it comes to writing about politics, maybe Rebecca Curtis should stay out of the deep end of the pool until she learns how to do something other than dog paddle.