Here is the story, as detailed in Saunders’ piece, In This Brave New World, Girls Disappear:

The world is becoming unbalanced. In pockets across the globe, women are giving birth to too many boys. In China, the sex ratio is 121 boys to 100 girls. In India, it’s 112 to 100. Sex selection also is a force in the Balkans, Armenia and Georgia. In her eye-opening book, “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,” journalist Mara Hvistendahl estimates that ultrasound and abortion have “claimed over 160 million potential women and girls – in Asia alone.” That’s more than the entire female population of the United States.

If you think that scarcity makes women more valuable, you are right – but that does not mean females benefit. As “surplus men” have trouble finding mates, young girls are forced into prostitution. Others are forced into arranged marriages. On Taiwan’s eBay, Hvistendahl finds three Vietnamese women for sale for $5,400.

Those women who do well economically in the new order sadly are more likely to abort daughters in favor of sons.

Is this not disconcerting? Not only are girls being aborted in greater numbers by choice, but the decreased numbers of girls does not translate to girls being treated better. Not even close, unfortunately. Most disturbing is that women are buying into this mindset, and how that is made manifest.

Saunders points out, though, that this isn’t just bad for women:

The results are equally bleak for men. Many boys grow up knowing they are unlikely to marry and start a family. In two years, 1 in 10 Chinese men will lack a female counterpart. The Chinese have a term – fenquing for “angry youth” – to describe the legions of young men likely to grow old alone. They find release in places like the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar, “where for the price of a few drinks, customers can pummel one of the bar’s hired hands.” In that equation, both men are losers.

In three decades, Vietnam – a poor country that provides brides and kidnapped prostitutes to affluent overly male nations – will have 4.3 million surplus men.

Holy cow. The difference the shortage of women will make in such a brief period of time is astonishing.

Saunders touches on the path of good intentions, whose result seem to fulfill the old adage paves the path to hell:

Hvistendahl finds no shortage of villains in this story. There’s China’s one-child policy, which resulted in untold forced abortions. Western governments and charities threw money at family-planning efforts to stem population growth in Asia, with little concern to the methods – forced sterilizations and abortions – employed. Then there are the willing participants – doctors, nurses and parents – who choose to engage in female feticide. French demographer Christophe Guilmoto recalls an Indian woman who was livid because she had aborted a boy after a doctor misdiagnosed the gender of her fetus.

I was struck at the distortion of good intentions. Family planning does promote prosperity, while overpopulation is unhealthy and destabilizing. Researchers develop technologies to help families. But in a world where technology moves faster than ethical thinking, giving would-be parents the gender they prefer is good business. So you get fertility clinics like the Los Angeles outfit that advertises, “Be certain your next child will be the gender you’re hoping for.”

Of course, sex-selection abortions happen in America, often among immigrant families. Hvistendahl reports that 35 percent of Asian American pregnancies result in abortion. [snip]

Oh, yes – definitely “good intentions” paved the way to this hell, which affects girls on a massive scale. And the numbers are just staggering.

Saunders concludes with the following:

[snip] Canadian sociologist Sharada Srinivasan has another suggestion. As she told Hvistendahl, at some point, feminists have to define sex selection as a human rights abuse. That would be a good start. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it would be a good place to start – it is a human rights abuse, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such, the better.

I will leave you as Saunders did in her piece, with the following quotes. These should get your blood a-pumping: Thoughts On Parenthood

“You can choose whether to be a parent, but once you choose to be a parent, you cannot choose whether it’s a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short.”

- Delhi gynecologist Puneet Bedi

“Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later.”

- Mumbai ultrasound ad

“Less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.”

- President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a 1965 speech in San Francisco

So imagine my surprise, no, SHOCK, when I saw this article mentioned by a Facebook friend, “Laura Bush Tells Larry King She Supports Gay Marriage, Abortion Rights.” Yep, that’s what she said:

One of the best things about marriage (whoever it is between) is that the two partners are allowed to disagree sometimes. First Lady Laura Bush gave a perfect example last night while she was on Larry King Live to promote her new book. King began asking the former first lady about her views on gay marriage and abortion laws and it turns out that, on both topics, she disagrees with her husband as well as the majority of social conservatives in the country.

In her new book, Bush discusses how she asked her husband not to make gay marriage an important issue in the 2004 election. After mentioning those passages, King pressed Bush to clarify whether or not she supported the legalization of gay marriage and clarify she did.

“Well, I think that we ought to definitely look at it and debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally being between a man and a woman. But I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has.”

Holy moley. I am telling you, I never saw this coming from Mrs. Bush. Ever.

Get this:

For the record, that makes Laura Bush a stronger supporter of gay marriage than Barack Obama. However, the surprises from the interview didn’t end there. After talking more about gay marriage, the discussion moved to abortion where Bush had an equally liberal viewpoint.

“I think it’s important that it remain legal, because I think it’s important for people for medical reasons and other reasons.”

Afterwards, King asked Bush if the discussions she had with her husband on the two topics were argumentative. She said no because the former President understands her viewpoints and she understands his, which would imply that the conversations going on at the Bush family dinner table are more civil than 99% of those in the media on these subjects.

Clearly though, this interview showed promise for the future of the American marriage. If Laura and George can keep things going strong despite these inflammatory issues, then those fearing marriage’s demise don’t need to worry at all.

I know, right? I guess it’s a good thing she wrote this book, because I sure didn’t know her positions were so progressive. It also says a lot about her marriage, not to mention George Bush. Wow, never saw THAT coming, either. He clearly respects her and her opinion. I would think their marriage is a good role model for their daughters. And I never thought I would be saying THAT, either.

Here is the clip from The Larry King Show:

This was eye opening for me, I can tell you. It really changed my admittedly superficial impression of Mrs. Bush. I have to give her props, though – she’s more liberal than Obama on gay marriage (though like I’ve been saying, he isn’t all that liberal on that issue). Who knew? I know I didn’t, and I couldn’t be more surprised. How about you?

As some of you know, my mother suffered a stroke recently. I am currently in my home town spending time with her and getting her house in order. As a result, I rushed a recent post on “DADT” I wrote in order to get to the nursing center in a timely fashion. Alert No Quarter reader, Ed, gently (I am not being snarky here – he really was) pointed out to me that the soldier whose actual case went before the Supreme Court was not at ALL amused at Obama’s lack of support, though the rest of my post stands as is, I think. The point is, he is dong nothing, and too many people are allowing him to WORM (What Obama Really Meant) out.

The soldier whose case was thrown out by the SCOTUS, had something to say about it, alright, and it was not a whole bunch of WORMing, as this article makes clear,

Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout. Check this out:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” (emphasis mine) upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.

I don’t want to overreach or anything, but it does sound like Pietrangelo is a tad hot under the collar, as he SHOULD be. About damn time the MSM bothered to report that not everyone is in love with Obama.

As for “DADT” and Obama’s lack of action:

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.

The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.

“EVENTUALLY”??? Just how the hell long is THAT?? I’m not buying what he’s selling, and neither is Pietrangelo:

Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

But the trouble is that the law was passed by Congress and, if Obama decided to go around the legislature, he would face political blowback. The current law allows gays to serve, so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. The legislation means that a majority of the 535 members of Congress is going to have to vote to undo the ban — and that will have its political fallout. Obama is plainly taking his cue from the 1993 fiasco, which hurt Clinton’s relationship with conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and with many in uniform.

But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”

Here’s what gripes me about this, and the other service members who have been kicked out of the military for being LGBT, including Arabic linguists, whom we could actually use right now: the military has actually lowered its enlistment standards over the past few years because of the two wars we are fighting. I am not kidding. Click HERE to read more about it. Doesn’t that just gripe you, too?

Uh, yeah, so enough with the excuses already about “DADT.” Like I said, if Obama has the time to do a videotaped message for Stephen Colbert, giving a “lawful order,” he sure can pick up the phone to call Pelosi and Reid, and tell them to push this through. Dadgummit!

And here’s another good one, courtesy of faithful reader, SF Indie, who informed me of THIS new pick by Obama,
Head Of Pro-Life* Group Gets Job At HHS (* I take issue with the term “Pro-Life, and prefer “Anti-Choice.”). Well I’ll be darned – he’s throwing NARAL, NOW, and a whole bunch of other women and women’s groups under the bus, too???? Oh, I am so, so, so surprised!!! Not, not, not:

The Obama administration has picked the former head of a pro-life Catholic organization to run faith-based and community outreach programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexia Kelley, co-founder of the liberal group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Thursday to run HHS’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (The administration wouldn’t immediately confirm that, but the Catholic Reporter published a press release from Catholics in Alliance trumpeting the announcement.) Catholics in Alliance’s main goal since Kelley helped found it in 2005 has been to emphasize the Catholic Church’s social justice teachings in the political sphere; like other progressive religious groups, it lines up with Democratic positions on health care, poverty, labor and other issues.

On abortion, the group has mostly worked to find ways to reduce demand, rather than to push laws aimed at curtailing the availability of the procedure. But its Web site makes clear that it isn’t pro-choice. “Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life — from conception until natural death,” says a frequently asked questions page.

Pro-choice activists weren’t happy: HHS oversees health care, including abortion policy, for much of the federal government. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, called it “a defeat for reason and logic.” “The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that,” he told Salon. But “to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion… really beggars belief.” The timing of the appointment — just days after abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in his Wichita, Kan., church — is likely to aggravate pro-choice groups even more. (Anti-choice organizations, though, have criticized Catholics in Alliance for giving cover to pro-choice Democrats, by attempting to shift the debate from banning abortion to simply reducing it.)

Well, golly gee – they aren’t happy with the man they chose to support over the WOMAN who has shown her resolve on this issue time and time again?? As Kathy Griffin would say, they can suck it. Again, had they BOTHERED to look at his record (or lack thereof) or his experience (or lack thereof) rather than jumping on the popularity bandwagon, they wouldn’t be so unhappy now. They brought it on themselves BY themselves.

Oh, and you’ll like this part:

Aides at the White House and HHS didn’t immediately return calls and e-mails for comment.

ROTFMLAO – really? They White House and HHS didn’t want to talk about this?? Yeah, I bet.

One last piece:

Update: A spokeswoman for Catholics in Alliance, Jennifer Goff, just sent over a statement. The group clearly wasn’t happy with the criticism from Catholics for Choice: “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward reaching common ground in order to make real progress on the moral and political challenges our country faces instead of resorting to spurious attacks launched by those who are more concerned with inflaming the culture wars than effecting positive change.”

Okey dokey. Sure. Whatever they say…

By now, I am certain everyone has heard of the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. It was a tragedy indeed, and my heart goes out to the security guard’s family, as well to those who were present at the time. But. And you knew it was coming. When President Obama comes out with a statement tout suite on the security guard’s death, and even Fox News talking about honoring this guard’s service, it makes me a bit irritated. And if you have been reading my posts of late, you know why: because Obama waited DAYS to say anything about the soldiers being gunned down in the street outside a recruiting center, men who were not just doing a job, but giving their LIVES in service to this country (and I meant that in the big picture sense – when you are in the military, it ISN’T just a job. It is your LIFE.). Bottom line is this: Private Long deserved at least as much attention as the security guard did, not to in any way, shape, or form diminish the tragic, senseless loss of life at a museum dedicated to memorializing one of the most horrific periods in world history (and it is an amazing, amazing place).

I’m just saying enough WORMing on Obama’s lack of support to our military, for those lost through an unequal law, or through a politically, religiously motivated attack on service members on our own soil. And, enough WORMing on the poor choices Obama continues to make. Enough already.

Again, big thanks to Ed and SFIndie…

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

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

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

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

And this:

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

It only goes down hill from there.

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

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

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

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

But which blogs are reporting this story? Reports Newsbusters.org:

While Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, Red State, and other conservative bloggers have denounced Tiller’s murder, Keith Olbermann, Think Progress, the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, and AmericaBlog haven’t even mentioned William Long’s murder at the recruiting center as of this writing.

That is to say, the same people who rushed to denounce Tiller’s murder have been quiet about Private Long’s, at least so far. I hastily add, I am not a fan of people like Bill O’Reilly, whose name has been bandied about regarding Tiller’s murder, but there does seem to be a double standard here in the media.

Here is the full report from CNN:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were “political and religious motives” in the shooting.

Military officials initially believed the shooting was a random act, but Thomas said police believe the shooter acted alone “with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel.”

The soldier who was killed was identified as Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, and the wounded soldier is Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, Thomas said.

Ezeagwula is in stable condition and expected to recover, the police chief said.

“I’m relieved there’s a suspect in custody,” said Capt. Matthew Feehan, commander of the center.

Feehan said seven other recruiters were in the building, but nobody else was injured.

Thomas said police recovered three guns from Muhammad’s black Ford SUV: an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol.

I am relieved there is a suspect in custody, too, and very thankful that Pvt. Ezeagwula is in stable condition. I still have a hard time believing this happened, and that a young soldier’s life was lost in a Little Rock street:

The victims were just out of basic training and had not been deployed, said Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, commander of the Oklahoma recruiting battalion that oversees the Little Rock recruiting center.

Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis, Tennesee , who was listed on the police report as Muhammad’s father, declined to comment, referring questions to Little Rock Police.

The soldiers were part of a recruiting program called “hometown recruiting assistance,” Artis said. Under the program, recruiters have the soldiers tell their stories to potential recruits. It’s a volunteer position taken while soldiers are visiting or based back in their home region, Artis said.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the incident, said Steven Frazier, spokesman for the agency’s Little Rock office. “Based on what we find, we will determine whether there is any federal jurisdiction to prosecute,” he said. (CNN’s Mike Phelan, Mike Mount and Terry Frieden contributed to this report.)

Wow – this is just hard to believe. These young men were doing nothing but serving their country, and encouraging others to do likewise. They were, literally, gunned down on the street. In the United States of America.

My prayers are with their families, their friends, their fellow soldiers, and the city of Little Rock. And my prayers are with our country, in which such a thing could happen…

and SUsan

This is not the first time a doctor who performed abortions has been killed. A Unitarian Universalist doctor, John Britton, along with his escort, Lt. Col. Barrett, was killed in Pensacola, FL in 1994. Dr. Britton had taken up the position to replace another doctor who had been killed for providing abortions, Dr. David Gunn. Ironically, the man who killed Dr. Britton and Lt. Col. Barrett was a Presbyterian minister. Yikes.

This tragedy, this murder of Dr. Tiller in his church, while not the first time for someone who performed abortions, I sure hope will be the last. But if “history is prologue,” as they say, I fear it isn’t. I lived in Boston at a time when a Planned Parenthood was attacked by a lone gunman, killing two people, with five injured. That was also in 1994.

I have long thought that people like these were domestic terrorists, before the term was used with such frequency, before 9/11, before Timothy McVeigh, even. Their agenda was/is to terrorize women who sought abortions, and those who worked in the clinics, thus fulfilling the definition, in my opinion.

That is to say, this has been going on for some time now. It is horrifying, it is mind boggling, and those responsible should face the highest possible punishment for their actions, whether it be Scott Roeder, the man who shot Dr. Tiller, or people like Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics (which, by the way, also provide family counseling and other women’s health services – they aren’t just abortion clinics). No matter the party in power, no matter the political climate, it seems there will always be people, no, domestic terrorists like Roeder and Randolph, will engage in violence against women and those who work to help us in our time of need. No doubt, there is a lot of blame to go around for why this is so, who spurs these ideas, and so on, but people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. In this case, for whatever his crazy reasons, Scott Roeder decided to end this man’s life.

To Dr. Tiller’s family, my heart, and prayers, go out to you. I pray that you may be comforted by your family, your friends, and your faith. To the congregation that had to witness this tragedy, my prayers go out to you as you try to deal, and heal, from the sudden loss of a valued member by this senseless act committed in your sacred space. And for us all, that this act remind us that we do indeed face terrorists at home as well as abroad. That we must be vigilant in protecting the rights of Americans here, and that we must act swiftly to see that justice is done to those who violate those rights. And throughout it all, may we act with compassion toward all those whose lives have been affected by this crime…

Today Governor Kaine [DNC Chair] announced that he will sign SB 817, which authorizes the creation of a “Choose Life” license plate and will funnel thousands of dollars to anti-choice, deceptive “crisis pregnancy centers.” “We are disappointed that Governor Kaine refused to recognize that when faced with an unintended pregnancy, women need information, not ideology,” said Tarina Keene, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. “In their zeal to prevent women from accessing abortion services, crisis pregnancy centers frequently mislead women about their options and completely disregard the neutrality that is a commonly accepted tenet of counseling. Organizations like these should not benefit from a state-approved funding stream.”

I respect that the issue of abortion is a very volatile one for many. There is certainly room for debate and common ground but the answer is education and making resources available to women, not denying them their options. We can see quite clearly where DNC Chair Governor Kaine falls on this issue and it is anything but progressive. NARAL President, Nancy Keenan, in abandoning Hillary Clinton last year during the primary in order to endorse Barack Obama, turned her back on the lady who helped put her organization on the map. Keenan is a hypocrite of the first order and is getting her comeuppance in having to protest Kaine’s actions.

While I firmly believe in a woman’s right to choose, I am in agreement with Secretary Hillary Clinton’s long stated position on abortion: safe, legal and rare. But wherever one is positioned on this debate, we have to trust that a woman is capable of making a moral, healthy and informed decision for herself and her family.

It is preposterous to me that we were voting on the possibility of a woman being president and vice president, yet in this day and age we are still debating whether a woman has the right to dominion over her own body. This is an equal rights issue. Women should not have to be legislated to by rich old white men. Until a man has the ability to pass something the size of a bowling ball through his privates, he can keep his big mouth shut about my reproductive rights. Period.

Governor Kaine is the man hand picked by President Obama to be the new leader of the DNC. This is a man who is anti-choice, anti-stem cell, anti-GLBT and pro-Iraq. Wow. Sure sounds like a Democrat to me. I wonder to whom President Obama was pandering with this choice of the most un-progressive, reactionary Democrat he could find. As he did during the campaign, President Obama wishes to have it both ways.

According to Boston Globe’s article, NARAL blasts DNC chief, “[t]he abortion-rights wing of the Democratic Party is none too happy today with a top leader.” I can see why. Governor Kaine today….

…signed a bill including state funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which abortion right advocates calls “anti-choice organizations.”

The NARAL Pro-Choice America political action committee said today that Kaine has “taken action that’s inconsistent with the strong pro-choice platform adopted by party leaders last August.”

“This is the first piece of legislation involving a woman’s right to choose that Kaine considered since being elected chairman of the national party,” said the committee, which says it sent 17,266 messages from activists to the DNC urging Kaine to veto the measure.

Nancy Keenan further stated:

“It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women’s health… This action reminds America’s pro-choice majority that we must hold elected officials in both political parties accountable when they take actions that are inconsistent with mainstream pro-choice values.”

Unfortunate? Perhaps. But not unexpected.

This is another time we get to say, ‘I told you so, Nancy.’ When she went against her district offices and much of her membership, unilaterally deciding to come out and endorse Barack Obama for President, she left many in her organization fuming. She endorsed a man who, in his interview with The Advocate last year, said that “many Democrats do not understand that abortion is a wrenching moral issue.”

Oh? Do we not? How insulting. I can assure you that is not the case. And now, he demonstrates not only his insensitivity to his constituency, but chooses someone to lead his party who panders more to a right leaning agenda than anything else. Who did his voters select again? Even if Kaine wishes to say he is acting as Governor of his state in this instance and not wearing his other hat, he is sending a powerful message by signing this bit of legislation in Virginia. And well he knows it. Governor Kaine’s action is hardly consistent with President Obama’s stated platform to his supporters.

And by the way, the right of choice means exactly that – which means defending Governor Sarah Palin’s choice as much as anyone’s.

Hillary Clinton always fought for women’s rights and cared about their reproductive health. As Secretary of State, she continues to fight for the rights of women.

How ironic that Nancy Keenan chose to ignore this fact and abandoned the principles her organization is supposed to stand for, only now to be abandoned in return.

Just desserts, anyone?

A US Cardinal and several Bishops denounce the University of Notre Dame for inviting Barack Obama to deliver a speech at their commencement ceremonies. They are also pissed off about the Honorary Law Degree to be given to Barack “God Damn AmeriKKKa” Obama. A lot of Catholics are pissed of too, and over 210,000 of them signed a petition denouncing University of Notre Dame. For the Bishops, Cardinals and many Catholics the problem is Obama’s stance on LIFE:

US Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston:

“Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning.”

Texas Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin:

“it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.”

Indiana Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend:

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

Arizona Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix:

“I am saddened and heavy of heart about your decision to invite President Obama to speak at Notre Dame University and even to receive an honorary degree,” began Bishop Olmsted.

But the prelate went further, charging that Fr. John Jenkins, the university’s president, has committed “a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States” by inviting Obama to the May 17 Commencement.

These are fighting words. But the Cardinal and the Bishops miss the point. It’s not just life that is the issue here. It is also about fake Catholic Father Pfleger. Allowing Obama to speak at Notre Dame grants this trash credibility:

Cardinal DiNardo needs to reread his statement.

Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a ‘Teacher,’ in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

Obama’s more than a teacher of law and of abortion. Friends with Father Pfleger, who Obama called a friend and an advisor, Obama is a teacher of hate.

The 2004 Sun-Times article noted that “friends and advisers” such as Pfleger, “who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep his (moral) compass, he (Obama) says.” Based on Pfleger’s remarks, either he or Obama, or both, have, uh, lost their bearings.

Pfleger has had a working relationship with Obama since the late 1980s. As noted, he was one of Obama’s spiritual mentors. Between 1995 and 2001, Pfleger contributed a total of $1,500 to Obama’s various political campaigns.

Giving Obama a free degree and letting him speak is to accept the hate of Father Pfleger, who mentored Barack Obama. I am sure all those rich white Irish, Italian, Polish and Lithuanian kids from the suburbs of Chicago who work hard to pay money to attend the Catholic college mommy and daddy attended will want to sit and listen to a guy whose mentor said all white people are responsible for slavery and racism. I am sure all those rich white Catholics who will get a job in daddy’s business or with daddy’s friends from the old parish want to hear a man whose mentor said all of them are responsible for white privilege. I don’t think people go to a Notre Dame graduation to be told they are all white people who feel entitled.

That is what Notre Dame wants. Not just God Damn AmeriKKKa but also BLAME WHITEY and HATE WHITEY. Inviting Barack Obama to speak is inviting Father Pfleger and Reverend Wright to Notre Dame. Not a good move.

This is more about life. This is about ignorance and hate. The Cardinals and Bishops need to wrap their heads around that. If they don’t say anything about Obama and Pfleger, we’ll just assume the Cardinals and Bishops and the whole Catholic Church agrees with Pfleger and Obama and the God Damn AmeriKKKa Church both of them went to. That’s not the direction I think Catholics and Notre Dame want to go.

1. Support is only provided to those homeowners occupying the residence. No support for speculators or developers.

2. The government will increase the portfolios of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase mortgages that are refinanced. These portfolios are currently sink holes swallowing billions in taxpayer funds given irresponsible management and pathetic risk management over the last 15 years.

3. The government will work with and incent mortgage servicers to rewrite mortgages to 31% of income for these homeowners.

4. For those mortgage servicers who do not cooperate, repercussions will be made in terms of not providing government assistance to these entities if necessary.

5. Treasury will provide up to $200 billion to support these initiatives. Additionally the governmetn will provide $75 billion to encourage lenders and servicers to modify loans.

6. If mortgage servicers do not cooperate, the government will support judges to “cram down” the principal of the mortgage during bankruptcy proceedings.

The Obama administration believes these steps will support upwards of 8 million homeowners in staying in their homes. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, applauded the steps outlined as being comprehensive. With all due respect to Mr. Dimon, he is playing the political game and currying favor with the government given JPM’s position at the epicenter of this situation.

Make no mistake, the price for these programs is being borne by responsible taxpayers, investors, and future generations. To that end, Obama played the responsibility card at the end of his speech. He did not, however, provide any specifics on the responsibility front.

I would call on President Obama to be more specific by what it means to be responsible:

1. not fathering children out of wedlock…70% of African American newborns are borne to a single parent, 50% of Hispanics, 30+% of Caucasians. The two-parent family is the strongest and most effective social program ever designed!!

2. will abortion on demand promoted via the Freedom of Choice Act lead to greater responsibility? It is beyond naive to think that FOCA will lead to anything more than increased promiscuity and further destruction of the two parent family. How can Obama truly believe this Act will promote any degree of increased responsibility? This Act is pure politics placating the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

3. keeping your kids in school. Let me remind him again that 50% of inner city students are high school dropouts.

Homeownership is a privilege, not a right. Neither privileges nor rights come without responsibilities!! Responsibilities are not words or platitudes, they are actions and disciplines practiced everyday!! I am more than willing to help, but I have no interest in throwing good money after bad.

LD

And as for trying to control the activity of the uterus, God forbid women ever have to face forced abortion, forced sterilization or forced childbirth.

But when a woman appears to take leave of her senses, uses her uterus as an ATM and hires damage control PR agents to pimp out her (many) children for top dollar, well, let’s just say the public has a right to be upset, particularly if said public may end up footing the bill for a mother who doesn’t appear to have thought through the consequences of her actions.

And so we focus on the fecund Nadya Suleman, octomom +6, whose “love of children” led her to consult a fertility doctor who either did not know or didn’t care that she already had six children at home, lives in a cramped house with her bankrupt parents and has no obvious means of supporting her gigantic brood. It’s unclear how she paid for these embryo implantations, which as many hearbroken would-be parents who can’t conceive know cost a king’s ransom. It’s also not clear whether she told the doctor who performed the treatments she already had six children at home, one of whom is a special needs child. But the biggest mystery of all: Which fertility clinic did she consult? More specifically, who is the doctor who callously provided these services?

There are so many repulsive elements to this story it’s hard to know where to start. Her parents may be complaining now, but who enabled her behavior all these years as she had baby after baby after baby? She wants a job as TV “child care specialist”? What, pray tell, is her expertise in this area — cramming 6 young children, 8 infants and three adults into a three bedroom house? Who paid for her fertility treatments? Who is paying for her hospitalization, the team of 40+ medical personnel who assisted in the delivery and the care of the preemies, who will probably need to stay in the hospital for weeks? And what future will these helpless children have? Why did she continue to have children despite the sperm donor’s request that she cease and desist?

It’s fair to say that the Octomom’s popularity numbers are probably in Blagojevich territory. No diaper company has come forward to shower largesse on her. No one has handed her the keys to a spacious, multimillion dollar house. No $2 million for an interview – at least not yet.

This blessed event couldn’t have come at a worst time for Octomom. The economy is in the dumper. People are losing their jobs – and their health insurance. Those who are still employed and have coverage are watching premiums and deductibles skyrocket as benefits get cut. So excuse us for not breaking out the champagne as we contemplate having to subsidize a woman’s obsession with birthing babies she and her family can’t afford to raise.

Oh, and if your insurance company is Kaiser, my condolences.

But there is a silver lining. The cavalcade of hypocrisy displayed by the media is big fun. Notice how the octuplets were cause for celebration until the news surfaced that they had 6 brothers and sisters waiting for them at home — at which point the story ceased to be one of bounty and blessings and morphed into a debate on fertility ethics. So let’s get this straight. Implanting 8 embryos in a young, healthy woman is ok UNLESS there are other kids waiting at home? Sorry media, you lost me. And conservatives don’t know what to think. Abortion is unspeakable, but so is birthing fatherless babies. So the time is ripe to call bullshit on all the wingers who are foaming at the mouth.

In the meantime, I wish the kids well, but I hope they’re not turned into a circus act by their irresponsible and deluded mother.

UPDATE: January 23, 4:30 p.m. EST] The wait was less than 24 hours after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. For this we thank President Obama. Millions of women will benefit from having access to information. ABC reported that the President rescinded the Global Gag Rule just a few minutes ago.

(Thursday’s Post)

Today, the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize abortion, women earned the right to control their own bodies. That ruling still stands (despite concerns that it could be reversed).

Less well-known than the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is the “Mexico City Policy,” otherwise known as the “Global Gag Rule.”

Repeal of the Mexico City Policy

Remarks
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
Washington, DC

President Obama’s repeal of the global gag rule, which has prevented women around the world from gaining access to essential information and healthcare services, is a welcomed and important step taken during the first days of the Administration.

For the past seven years, this policy has made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and healthcare services. Rather than limiting women’s ability to receive reproductive health services, we should be supporting programs that help women and their partners make decisions to ensure their health and the health of their families.

As I said in Beijing at the United Nations 4th World Conference on Women, women must not be denied the right to plan their own families. I look forward to working with the President, my colleagues in the Administration, and the NGO community to promote programs and policies that ensure women and girls have full access to health information and services.

As described by Pat Bakalian, Executive Director of the Campaign for Gender Equality :

A gag rule preventing federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion, perform the procedure, or advocate abortion access was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan during a population conference in Mexico City in 1984. It has had devastating effects on women in all parts of the world. It is well documented that the health and nutrition status of women and children is linked to family size. Maternal and infant mortality rises with the number of births and with births too closely spaced. President Bill Clinton rescinded this rule in 1993, stating that it had undermined efforts to provide safe family planning in foreign nations. In 2001, George W. Bush reinstated the policy.

As recently as yesterday, the news was that President Obama would overturn the Mexico City Policy today. Fox News announced:

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday [today] reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States. Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

Well, apparently not. According to CBN ,

A source with knowledge of the situation says the fact that Obama will not issue this executive order today (on the same day of the huge March for Life rally in DC) sends a strong signal to religious leaders across the political spectrum that President Obama wants to set a different tone in Washington.

It is unclear whether Obama intends to reverse the Mexico City Policy at some point in the future but this reliable source tells me that this move signals that Obama will stress the need for reducing abortions in this country rather than focus on the divisive tit for tat policy reversals of the past. As a matter of fact, President Obama may actually release an abortion related statement today about this need to reduce them. The point here is that President Obama has opted out of the “in your face” politics of the past. He may reverse Mexico City Policy at some point. Many on both sides of the abortion debate expect he probably will at some point but today is a day where Obama took the more tactful and less confrontational approach.It looks like the debate over abortion is now shifting to not just how to reduce abortions but also to women’s health issues. Clearly, the Obama administration is showing that it has other priorities that they want to focus on and for a President who has said he wants to be inclusive this would be a bold move in that direction.

So, if the Christian Broadcasting Network has it right, women around the world will just have to wait, for how long is unclear. I hope that that missing what would have been an historic day for reversing this policy was not a stalling technique or an attempt to placate the anti-choice crowd. Let’s watch and see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anywho – I ask about their heads exploding because of the following articles (h/t/ to lavender liberal for the Huffington and Aravosis pieces).

First up is none other than Arianna Huffington, who wrote this back on January 16, 2006: Dems Pick Kaine for State of Union Response; What the Hell Are They Thinking? The title alone says it all, doesn’t it? Let me give you some tidbits from Ms. Huffington:

So the Democrats have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to deliver the party’s response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech. Chalk up another one for the What the Hell Are They Thinking? file.

Can’t disagree with her there – and that was BEFORE he and Obama became BFFs!!! Here’s the other good part:

Don’t ask me why, but I actually watched Kaine’s inaugural address on C-SPAN, and I was stunned to hear him dare compare the cause of Virginians like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson to our cause in Iraq: “They stood here at a time, just as today, when Virginians serving freedom’s cause sacrificed their lives so that democracy could prevail over tyranny.”

Iraq as a war to ensure that democracy can prevail over tyranny is George Bush’s talking point. God help us if it’s also the talking point of the man the Democrats have chosen to respond to him after the State of the Union.

And during Kaine’s run for Governor, he adopted another Bush talking point — that it would send “a horrible message” to “cut and run” in Iraq. Could that be any further from Murtha’s message that Iraq has become a civil war — a civil war being inflamed by our continuing presence?

Maybe you are thinking — at least those of you who have a life and missed his inaugural speech on C-SPAN — that Kaine is a charismatic speaker who will really wow the American people. Well, he ain’t. In fact, he scored so low on the scintillating speaker meter, that today’s Note suggests Democrats make it a priority to get the Guv a speech tutor before the State of the Union.

That’s right, all of you Obots who acted like Hillary alone was responsible for the Iraq war, and based your entire vote on that, despite Obama’s non-record, and surrounding himself with people who voted for the war. Yep, KAINE is a big ol’ Iraq war guy who sounds like Bush, and now he is the CHAIR OF THE DNC!!!!! Wheeee! (Oh, and at this writing, the ONLY thing HuffPo had on this was an AP article by Obama’s sychophant, Nedra Pickler.)

The next one, from January 30, 2006, was John Aravosis on “Homophobe To Give Democratic Response To The State of the Union.” Oh, this is good. Yessirree. Here’s Aravosis on Kaine and gay marriage:

On the unlikely chance that you thought there was any value left in the Democratic party after today, we have a homophobe giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union tomorrow…

It’s one thing for the governor to be worried about being “for” gay marriage in Virginia, the state that brought us miscegenation laws. It’s quite another for the governor to not understand the difference between gay marriage and an amendment that rips away all legal protections from gay couples, gay employees, and their children.

The new breed of Democrat can’t handle the concept of nuance. They can’t handle the concept of some things being difficult to oppose, and other things being easy. Yes, gay marriage is a tough issue. But ripping away the rights of every gay person and their children in the commonwealth should be a no-brainer. You can explain why that’s a bad thing, even to the people of Virginia, if you have half a spine.

Oh, don’t you just love when the chickens come home to roost? I know I do…

Hmmm – I wonder what they are saying over at Daily Kos, that bastion of “All Things Obama”?? Oh, this is good. Poster gladkov has a piece entitled, “Tim Kaine: A Big Step Backwards as DNC Chair?” Just hold the phone – is this person questioning the wisdom of The ONE??? S/he better be careful – you know what happens to people who write posts with which the Orange does not agree – you get No Quarter! Oh, and booted outta there. Perhaps the first paragraph was intended to mollify Daily Kos readers:

I was very disappointed to hear Howard Dean was stepping down but he served his term, went on to new things. I respect him for that. I am a bit non-plussed about the choice of Tim Kaine, however, as DNC Chair.

Dean. Blech. Major sexist pig.

But is is the following where I think gladkov is pushing the boundaries:

Crooks and Liars gives a good run-down of some of the issues:

http://crooksandliars.com/…

Ugh. After Howard Dean, could we pick a more disappointing choice for DNC head? After all, what the spinally deficient Dems need is a more milquetoasty, against stem cell research, pro-life, anti-gay chairman whose actions speak directly to his callousness towards those less fortunate directing the candidates and elections to help retain the Democratic majority, doncha know?

Here’s a little newsflash for you, crooksandliars – “WE” didn’t pick Kaine. Obama did. But why quibble?? Gladkov continues:

Let’s start with the gay marriage/civil unions thing. Now for weeks, many have told us GLBT to shut up about Warren. It’s just a prayer, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s about Obama’s real policy. Ok, so who does Obama put in charge of the DNC: http://sicsempertyrannis.blogspot.com…

Only Kaine, a civil rights lawyer, has spoken in favor of granting certain rights to gay couples in long-term relationships. He said he supports the right of gay people in long-term relationships to enjoy the “civil benefits” available to married couples.

“I have never said I supported gay civil unions, gay marriages,” Kaine told the AP last Friday. “I do believe that people shouldn’t be kicked out of their jobs or discriminated against because of who they are.”

How kind of Mr. Kaine. He thinks I should not be kicked out of my house!
But, um, what about gay marriage or, failing that, civil unions:

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

“Virginia defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and I strongly support that law. Regardless of the court ruling today in another state, I am confident that there is nothing in the Virginia or federal constitutions that would require Virginia to alter its longstanding policy about marriage.”

The Democrat also insisted that he opposes gay marriage and gay civil unions but supports contractual rights for gay and lesbian Virginians.

So, um, for all who said we should wait and see what Obama actually DOES instead of relying on that silly symbolism of Rick Warren, what about a DNC Chair who opposes even civil unions, who will be reinforcing this in his policy arguments? Think we have a right to be outraged now?

No, many of us were already outraged at Obama’s treatment of the GLBT community. A long damn time ago. Glad you could catch up, though. Sorry you’re all upset now. Maybe you should have looked a little closer to the other homophobes in Obama’s life. I could say, “Better late than never,” but now we are stuck with Obama and his anti-gay minions, so thanks tons for that.

I guess watching their heads explode as they realize that Obama really isn’t so great is one small consolation. Not enough, but it’s something, right? I’m sure there are more examples of the sheer hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of the Obamanation. Feel free to share! I imagine over the next four years, there will be more than we ever could have thought possible…

Just one more recap: Obama has chosen the DNC chair a man who is anti-choice, anti-gay, and pro-Iraq war. Gee – he’s just everything the rest of us thought he was…

My, my – funny how things happen. You would have to be living on the moon to not hear about ALL of the people Obama is considering for his Patsy, uh, I mean Vice President. All kinds of names have been thrown out from Chuck Hagel to Joe Biden. The current major leak (but really you are all supposed to know about it – shhhhh!) has Tim Kaine, Governor of VA, as a likely candidate.

Never heard of him? Yeah, well, we lived in VA when Mark Warner was governor, and he was GREAT. Kaine was his Lt. Governor, so when Warner’s terms was up (VA permits ONE six year term – that’s it), Kaine rode in on his coattails.

He hasn’t done a whole lot since then, at least not a lot of positive changes for which he is receiving any accolades. BUT – Obama stumped for him in VA, and Kaine has been stumping for Obama around the world, uh, I mean, COUNTRY, and now they are BFFs! Woohoo!!!!

Kaine has now moved to the short list for VP!! Gosh – he must be really experienced, and his constituents must really love him, right?? Uh, no. Like Obama (wow – I almost typed “Bush” then – I am not kidding, and it isn’t just because I’m tired!), Kaine isn’t all that experienced, certainly not in important matters like foreign affairs. Which would help since Obama has no experience, even with his NINE DAY trip!!!! A whole nine days – that is enough, right??? No. No, Obama, it is not even anywhere in the same ballpark as REAL experience, like Clinton’s. But you know that already. You’re just trying to appease your cultists, um, ah, I mean FOLLOWERS. Oh, that isn’t right, either – SUPPORTERS! Yes, that is what politicians are supposed to have – supporters Okay. Got it. Anywho…

Ahem. Since you may know NOTHING about Gov. Kaine, he is personally opposed to the death penalty as a practicing Catholic, but when he campaigned as a gubernatorial candidate, he assured people he would not impose him personal beliefs on the state. In other words, he would not prohibit death penalty executions. Wow – what a stand up guy. He was not going to allow his personal faith to supersede the Commonwealth of Virginia’s laws (and I hasten to say that I am completely opposed to the death penalty – always have been). Well, okay then.

Oh, but wait – there is more. While Governor Kaine wouldn’t impose his religious beliefs on the death penalty, he had/has NO problem imposing them on the issue of – wait – for – it, yes, ABORTION!! So, a woman better not kill a zygote, but it’s A-OKAY to kill a full-grown adult. Yes, indeedy! That makes sense, right?? Oh, yeah, NO. Governor Kaine, before he was governor, said he had a “faith-based opposition” to abortion, and vowed to promote ABSTINENCE focused education – you know, the one that doesn’t WORK. And to ban so-called partial-birth abortions. This was a more popular position in VA than his opposition to the death penalty. In other words, his faith-based opposition takes a backseat to political aspiration. One was not politically expedient – the death penalty issue. The other one was – abortion. Regardless, now that Obama has secured the endorsements of NARAL, and even more importantly, for the second time ever in presidential politics, Planned Parenthood’s, it makes PERFECT sense that he would target an anti-choice candidate to run as Vice President. It highlights that some of the very few times Obama exposed his true colors was his exceedingly patronizing comments to/about women and when they can/not choose to have an abortion.

What’s that I hear? Oh, it is Planned Parenthood being thrown under the bus. And NARAL. Couldn’t happen to two more deserving organizations supporting OBAMA over CLINTON after all of the work she has done on behalf of women, and the sexist, patronizing, arrogant way in which Obama has treated women, especially on choice!

So, all of you Obamabots trying to hold Roe v. Wade over our heads, what say you NOW, huh??? Really think he is not going to turn back the clock on women’s rights like you claim McCain will do, and Obama won’t? Because I think you are dead wrong. He doesn’t give a damn about women and our health. He has made that abundantly clear. In the same way he proved he doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution voting for FISA and telecom immunity (AT&T welcomes you to the Denver Democratic National Convention – I kid you not!), oh, and PLEASE stop calling him a “Constitutional Scholar” – he was a lecturer at the same law school he had just attended. It’s like being a TA, for crying out loud. And he has made it clear as day – HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION! He cares about getting money, and getting elected. Your lives will be SO much smoother once you accept that! He will say and do whatever he has to do to accomplish those two tasks. So, quit with the whole Roe v. Wade scare tactic, because Obama DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WOMEN and our health. He does not. Too bad Planned Parenthood and NARAL apparently cared more about publicity (and money?? Does anyone know if Obama’s “Hope PAC” gave them money?) than they did about supporting the candidate who would work the hardest for the issues about which they claim to care. Thanks a whole lot for the capitulation there, PP and NARAL. How do you people sleep at night?

So, Tim thinks we should care what he thinks about abortion, like so many other men. And he wants to impose HIS “faith-based opposition” on VA, and presumably, the country, should the world got to hell in a handbasket and Obama gets into the White House with him. Holy Cow…

What a surprise that Obama finds a way to get Gov. Kaine in after all. Cough. Ahem. It may not be VP, but a pretty plum choice nonetheless. Kaine and Rick Warrencan have themselves a good ol’ time at the Inauguration talking strategy about getting rid of Roe v. Wade. I’m just sayin’…

Oh, yes. And in the, “Isn’t it Ironic” file, there is this THIS article from November 12, 2008:

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine ruled out serving a new Democratic White House as chairman of the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday.

Speculation about Kaine heading the party began after DNC Chairman Howard Dean announced Monday he will step down in January.

Kaine said at a news conference Obama’s transition team asked him if he was interested in the position. He said his response was that he’d rather be governor and won’t do both jobs.

“That’s not something I’m going to do. I don’t view that, frankly, as consistent with being governor, so I’m going to be governor,” Kaine said. “I would view it as taking my eye too much off the ball about things that need to happen here.”

Except, apparently, it IS!!! Ah, more honest and trustworthy politicians in the Democratic Party! So, not only is Kaine rabidly anti-choice, he’s also a big liar! Great! He should fit right on in with the Obama people, don’t you think? I think his response to the possibility of being in Obama’s cabinet highlights just how well:

For Kaine to accept an immediate appointment to an Obama Cabinet post would force him to turn the final year of his term over to Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.

“It’s not turning the keys over to Bill Bolling that worries me. It’s that I took an oath to be here for my whole term … and I have communicated that to the president-elect already,” Kaine said.

“We had talked about it a number of weeks back, but we’ve communicated since the election and I’ve made that point” to Obama, he said.

And how do you folks like THAT in the great Commonwealth of Virginia?!? Sounds to me like Kaine’s attentions just might be a tad divided…I sure hope you didn’t buy his double speak.

But hey, this is Kaine’s payment (hmmm, that seems to be a common theme) for being the first governor to endorse Obama, and to work his little heart out for him making sure all of those felons were registered as they walked out the door of the prison (felons in VA lose their voting rights for life – unless the governor restores them). As is so often the case with Obama, this is a two-fer – he can pay back Gov. Kaine, and NARAL, PPA, Emily’s List, and NOW all at the same time!! So, thanks – thanks so much for throwing us all under the bus supporting this Hope-y Change-y guy, who isn’t all that change-y at all. Those of us who were paying attention are not surprised. Maybe deep down, you aren’t, either, but it’s too damn late now, isn’t it? Way to sell us out. Thanks a lot for nothing.