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.

Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.

Warren, one of the most influential religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic.

But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances — including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party’s most liberal wing.

At odds? How could the Democratic liberal wing have expected otherwise? Throughout the primary, P.E. Obama made all sorts of promises to try to get the edge over Hillary Clinton, then went about reneging on every one of them. Remember FISA? Once he secured the nod, he arrogantly said “I understand if it’s a deal-breaker, but where else you gonna go?”

That’s right. You are now a notch on his bedpost. He got what he wanted from you and since he knew most of you would NEVER vote Republican, he blithely went about pandering to the next group he required to get him where he wanted to go. As far as he was concerned, since Hillary was gone, you had no other choice but to vote for him.

And this comment really said it all:

“[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now,” Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.

Now Andrew Sullivan wants to complain???????????

I have finally found one thing I have in common with Obama’s supporters. My head is going to explode along with all of theirs. How could any of them have voted for this man? Or had half an eye open this entire year and pretended for a moment that Barack Obama was anything but allergic to GLBT rights? Or to women’s rights, for that matter – but we’ll get to that later.

As to Mr. Sullivan, you coulda had Hillary, my dear. You know, the one you trashed with every fiber of your being despite the fact that she is the one who actually stood up loud and proud for you and your man to have equal rights. Did you ever see Barack marching in the Gay Pride parade? You should check with Hillary as to Barack’s whereabouts, ’cause she’s always there.

Instead you chose to worship at the foot of Obama. Yes, Andrew, P.E. Obama is the one who campaigned down south repeatedly with the likes of Donnie “ex-gay man reformed through prayer” McClurkin, ‘cause Barack needed to court all those evangelicals and homophobes.

Dear Andrew, let me explain how politics works. You know what every nominee wants? To get elected. You know what every first term President wants? A second term. And as Rick Warren himself just said:

“For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population.”

Ya’ get it now, Andrew? You are too small a percentage for Barack to sweat it.

Obama don’t care about you and yours because there are a helluva lot more evangelicals, religious conservatives and homophobes in this country than there are of you and your Gay brethren and sisteren. Got it? He figures he’s got you lined up anyway. He’s gonna go after the harder nut to crack that will give him a bigger reward at the polls for next time.

How does it feel to be under the bus? With the rest of us? Like I said before, plenty of room under here. We serve bitter burgers with arugula every day at 4 pm. Bring your own chips and pickles. And you might try eating a little crow while you are at it.

You could ask us women Hillary supporters how it feels under the bus. We were told very loudly this year that we did not matter, either.

To Andrew, and every other member of the GLBT community who fell for Obama and deserted Hillary – when she was the candidate who always stood up for you – how does it feel to keep chasing a club that doesn’t want you as a member?

That is exactly what Andrew Sullivan did in 2000. He enthusiastically jumped on the Bush bandwagon, even though Bush and the neo-cons would just as well have rather rounded up all the Gay folk in a football stadium and pretend they didn’t exist. Andrew was all for the Iraq war. Then in 2004, he changed his mind, did a big mea culpa and rejected Bush and his cronies.

Now if a man has the advantage of hindsight and the empirical evidence to know that his own judgment is suspect, wouldn’t you think that he wouldn’t rush off half-cocked and make the same mistake yet again? Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan is not blessed with the gift of self-awareness.

Mr. Mooney’s article goes on to report:

People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is “deeply disappointed” with the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has “consistent mainstream American values.”

“There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson,” Kolbert said. “The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical.”

Dobson, a social conservative leader, is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”

“The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues,” Douglass said. “But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”

I see, Linda. Common ground? Nice sound bite. Well I invite you all to go back and read Barack Obama’s interview with The Advocate if you want to see more of his “nuanced positions” and his “search for common ground” re abortion or GLBT rights. I defy you to discern where he stands on either. He also delivered a “nuanced position” on Prop 8 in California telling people to vote no, while simultaneously saying marriage is only between a man and a woman. No mixed message there.

Warren’s support of California’s Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws same sex marriage in the state, sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents earlier this fall.

Warren, … wrote in October that the issue of gay marriage is not a political issue, but instead “a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.”

Warren also stirred controversy earlier this week when he told Beliefnet.com his grounds for opposing same-sex marriage laid primarily on his right of free speech.

“There were all kinds of threats that if [Proposition 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech.”

You’re kidding me, right? I see, Rev. Warren. But not allowing the GLBT community to have equal rights – what do you call that?

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights campaign, said Wednesday he feels a “deep level of disrespect” over the choice of Warren and is calling on Obama to reconsider the move.

“By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table,” Solmonese said in an open letter to Obama that was released by his organization

Does anyone think Hillary would have chosen Rick Warren to deliver her inaugural invocation?

I think P.E. Obama has made his views quite clear. Actions speak louder than “words, just words.”

Furthermore in that interview with The Advocate where he discusses trying to see all sides, i.e., never answering where he truly stands on GLBT rights, Obama then insults women by saying

“…Many Democrats don’t understand that abortion is a wrenching moral issue.”

Oh? Do we not, Barack?

Which brings me to my next complaint. Ladies, for any of you who were seduced into voting for this affable young shape-shifter, you are a notch on his bedpost, too.

It was Hillary, not him, always fighting for the rights of women, and their rights of choice, their rights to have all available contraception and health care. She put groups like NARAL and NOW on the map only have them abandon her for Obama’s seductive smile – though he has never done anything for women’s or GLBT rights that I could see. Hillary also said she believed that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare. And to add further insult to injury:

In his recent interview with Beliefnet, Warren also sparked outrage among supporters of abortion rights for criticizing those who have said abortion would be “safe and rare.”

“Don’t tell me it should be rare,” he said in the interview. “That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that — I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

Warren is comparing a woman’s right to choose to the Holocaust? That is outrageous. Further, it is a horrible and highly irresponsible thing to say. A man who makes this kind of statement is invited to make the invocation at Obama’s inauguration? How can women stand for this?

How can the Democratic Party stand for this? We are supposed to be the progressive party that stands for women’s equality and the right of women to have dominion over their own bodies. To have true equality, we cannot have our private health choices legislated to us by religious leaders or a bunch of rich, old, white men in Congress. We are also supposed to be the party that stands for equal rights for the GLBT community. What happened there? What kind of doublespeak is this? Mooney’s article concludes with the following disturbing piece of information:

[Warren’s] book “The Purpose Driven Life” has sold more than 20 million copies since it was first published five years ago, and Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.

“Many believe that Warren … is the successor to the [Rev. Billy Graham] for the role of America’s minister,” Time wrote in 2005.

If that is so, heaven help us. President-Elect Obama sends a very disturbing message with this choice and makes quite clear where his priorities lie. Surely, they do not rest with progressive men, women or the GLBT community. His latest action only bears out what we have been saying all along: he is not who he pretends to be.

Which all leads me to this. Obama has backtracked on yet another one of his promises. I think the title of this article pretty much gives it away: Obama Says He Won’t Try to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask’ on His Own. Yep. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Here’s more of the article:

Democrat Barack Obama said if elected president he would not try to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about homosexuality on his own.

Obama said in an interview to run in gay publications Thursday that he wants to work with military leaders to build a consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members in the armed forces.

He said that would not be accomplished by attaching a signing statement to a military spending bill, a process that President George W. Bush has used to set other military policies.

Uh huh. Because it has not been made ABUNDANTLY clear what bad law this is. Because other countries have not shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transsexuals can serve OPENLY in the military with no problems. Unless, of course, you are saying their military personnel are better than ours. Is that what you are saying, Backtrack?? Maybe you need to take a little listen to this man:

I might add, it is not like the Service members Legal Defense Network has not done a ton of research on this issue, or that General Wesley Clark, the former SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t work. Hey, maybe THAT’S why Obama threw him under the bus - because he believes that GLBT people should be able to serve their country proudly and openly.

Obama continued:

“I want to make sure that when we revert ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ it’s gone through a process and we’ve built a consensus or at least a clarity of what my expectations are so that it works. My first obligation as the president is to make sure that I keep the American people safe and that our military is functioning effectively,” Obama said. “Although I have consistently said I would repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be.” (Emphasis Mine.)

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In 1993, President Bill Clinton implemented the policy, a compromise after he was unable to make good on his campaign pledge to open the military to gays.

Well, what the hell do you mean by that, Obama (bold parts)?? Safety? Effectiveness? Functioning properly? What the hell does that mean??? That if you let gay people serve their country openly, that those things might be in jeopardy??

By the way, there was a consensus with all of the Democrats running this year - “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” DOES NOT WORK. It is offensive. Congresspeople have been working on this for SOME time. They have been speaking out on it for some time. Rep. Susan Davis of San Diego (big military base there, by the way), has been a very outspoken critic of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Or how about Rep. Patrick Murphy, a veteran, maybe what HE has to say will help you:

This Congressman, an Iraqi War veteran, is saying it it WRONG, and it diminishes our military for people to claim it cannot function if LGBT people serve openly, Obama, you mealy mouthed, backtracking, spineless jerk!

Oh, but wait. There’s MORE! Don’t think this is just limited to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Oh, no. How about the Defense of Marriage Act?

Obama also declined to commit to have his attorney general support a lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the right to refuse to recognize such marriages. Obama said he’s not sure the 1996 law would be overturned by the courts and he prefers a legislative solution.

Now, to all of you who keep trying to convince me what a great guy Obama is, and how he will do SO much for my community, SCREW YOU. Screw you for not looking more closely at his associates, for blowing it off when he toured all around SC with Donnie McClurkin, the “CURED” homosexual. Screw you for not paying attention when Obama asked Gavin Newsome to throw a fundraiser for him, but REFUSED to allow Newsome to have a photo taken with him because of Newsome’s support of Gay Marriage. Never mind that Newsome himself is STRAIGHT. SCREW YOU for ignoring Obama’s CLOSE relationship with IL State Senator, The Rev. James Meeks, an actively anti-gay minister, the one to whom Obama went the day after he won his Senate Seat. SCREW YOU for brushing off his CONSTANT refusal to talk to our press organizations. It was only at the VERY end of the primary that the Advocate finally got him to sit down with him, and only then because HILLARY CLINTON had come out saying she would grant us FULL FEDERAL BENEFITS. SCREW YOU for treating like shit the person who CONSISTENTLY met with our press, who marched in our parades (Obama has never marched in ONE), who assured us she would not just meet with us when she was a candidate, but when she was PRESIDENT. SCREW YOU. And SCREW YOU, Philadelphia Gay News, for saying shit like this in your interview with Obama:

You are the most LGBT-friendly candidate running for president in history. Are you concerned that John McCain and the Republicans might use this as a divisive issue as they did in 2004?

Especially after you had REAMED him for NOT speaking to the Gay Press!! What total BULLSHIT!!! What total and COMPLETE hypocrites!!!

Screw YOU, Meliisa Etheridge, for singing at the Democratic Convention and validating this invalid candidate - since when do we celebrate SELECTING a nominee instead of ELECTING one?? Screw YOU, Jodie Foster, for going to that ridiculous Hollywood fundraiser for Obama the other night - you finally start to admit you are a lesbian, and THIS is what you do?? Great. Just freakin’ great. I guess it was the “cool” thing to do, so there you go…

SCREW YOU PEOPLE who voted against your OWN SELF-INTEREST AGAIN for what - the “trendy” guy with no legislative record, and nothing but “words” for our community, and who has demonstrated by his ACTIONS that he doesn’t GIVE a shit about us! What the HELL were you thinking, Human Rights Campaign, for not endorsing the woman YOU said was LIGHT YEARS ahead of YOUR OWN THINKING on our issues for OBAMA?

If you don’t think this is a clear indication of HOW LITTLE Obama will do for our community, you are a fool. If he reneged on his other major stances, what the HELL makes you think he won’t throw US under the bus already? He has already started. Actually, he started long ago. Thanks SHITLOADS for being so incredibly naive, and supporting HIM over the one person who really WOULD have kept her promises to us. Another four years before we will have the chance again to get someone who WILL care because you SCREWED IT UP for this year, and for all of us.

And while I am at it, SCREW YOU OBAMABOTS who keep claiming those of us who won’t vote for this sham of a candidate are going to be setting back women, and Roe. v. Wade. If you had GIVEN A SHIT about women, really given a damn, or about Roe v. Wade, you would have supported the person in the race with a CLEAR and CONSISTENT record on women, and choice. But you didn’t. So, SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY.

From the first moment, McCain faced questions about Governor Palin, the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Slavery (yes, Whoppi asked if she should be concerned about slavery under a McCain administration!)

If you haven’t already done so, I highly recommend that you take the time to watch Senator McCain’s visit on The View. Here it is in three parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

A few items that stand out for me:

• Barbara Walters led off with a challenge to McCain to confirm his conclusion that Governor Palin was “the greatest vice presidential candidate in the history of the United States.” McCain deadpanned, “We politicians are never given to exaggeration. He went on to explain “The fact is I think she’s a great person, she’s a great governor, she’s the most popular governor in America, she understands the energy issues.”
• Regarding McCain’s successful and popular ads against Obama, Ms. Behar challenged, “We know those ads are untrue, they are lies.” McCain confidently responded, “They are not lies.”
• Regarding Obama’s insults to Governor Palin, when asked, McCain noted that Obama “chooses his words very carefully and he shouldn’t have said it.”
• Probably the most ridiculous and uninformed question came from Whoppi Goldberg who asked, “Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?” under a McCain administration and strict Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. Barbara Walters reassured her and Ms. Baher, “… we’ll take care of you. Us white folk will take care of you.”
• Queried about bipartisanship, McCain specifically addressed Hillary Clinton, saying:

“I know that she wants to stay in the Senate, but I will work with Hillary Clinton because I’ve worked with her in the past, we’ve traveled together, Barbara, you know that, we have a working relationship that’s of mutual respect and frankly, appreciation,” he said. As she comes back to the Senate, he said, “she will be one of the most influential and powerful members of the Senate. You got to work together.”

• Cindy McCain joined the group on the couch in the latter minutes of the show and they then asked how many houses the McCain’s owned, Cindy drew a line on this question saying to substantial applause:

“You know something, that’s not part of this campaign. We’re fortunate enough to come from a family, particularly my dad and mom, who worked very hard to give me the best that they could and we are fortunate to be able to live a good life and share and give to other people who are not so fortunate.”

• McCain lamented, more than once, that Obama refused to travel the country with him for a series of townhall meetings. He suggested The View host them both, together.

McCain showed a presidential presence in sitting on The View with a mostly hostile group of women, many openly supporting Obama and several with a record of very hostile comments toward McCain and Palin. He used a warm smile and deft touch, even appeared to relish the questions. For the life of me, I cannot see Obama facing a group of successful women opposed to him.

This continues to be the big stick with which Democrats are trying to get those recalcitrant Hillary supporters and believers in DEMOCRACY to toe the line and support Obama.

Oh, yes - if we let those nasty Republicans anywhere NEAR the White House, all is lost. Apparently, they have forgotten that George Bush has had almost 8 years to dismantle Roe v. Wade, and has been unsuccessful.

And, they seem to forget, or never acknowledge, or are ignorant of, the fact that Senate Majority Harry Reid is equally anti-choice. Oh, shucks - there I go again interjecting facts into the argument!!!

In yesterday’s Boston Globe, then, we have this statement on “The Fate of Roe v. Wade“:

Those who seek to preserve the right to choose ought to be prepared to make some distinctions. As it was written in 1973, Roe v. Wade was far from a model of legal reasoning, and conservatives have been correct to criticize it. The court failed to root the abortion right in either the text of the Constitution or its own precedents.

Moreover, it ruled far too broadly. In its first encounter with the abortion question, the court failed to focus on the particular abortion restrictions at issue, some of which were unusually draconian, forbidding abortion even in cases of rape. Instead, the court took the highly unusual step of a setting out a series of rules for legislatures to follow.

It is no wonder that millions of Americans felt, and continue to feel, that the court refused to treat their moral convictions with respect. Nor is it surprising that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - the most important women’s rights lawyer in the history of American law, but also a judicial “minimalist” - has sharply criticized Roe for doing so much so fast.

Holy CRAP - they are starting already!!!

Except that isn’t the McCain/Palin team. This comes courtesy of Cass Sunstein, one of Obama’s advisors. Alert reader Andy sent in this story from TalkLeft today, “Roe: With ‘Friends’ Like Sunstein, Who Needs Enemies?” by Big Tent Democrat (BTD). BTD, like Sunstein, is an attorney, and had this to say about Sunstein’s comments above:

This is nonsense in my opinion, particularly Sunstein’s statement that Roe was not rooted in the text of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s precedents (Roe particularly followed Griswold to its logical conclusion.) Sunstein is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to serve in a Democratic Administration or to be a Supreme Court appointee of a Democratic President.

Gee, BTD - why don’t ya tell us how you REALLY feel?! BTD took particular umbrage at the following quote by Sunstein from the Boston Globe article above:

But it is one thing to object to Roe as written in 1973. It is another to suggest that it should be overruled in 2008. American constitutional law is stable only because of the principle of stare decisis, which means that in general, the Court should respect its own precedents.

To which BTD said, “Say Whaaaaa???” No, not really. This is what he actually said:

To Sunstein, Roe is only defensible as an act of stare decisis. Thus, on a woman’s right to privacy and to choose, he is like Chief Justice Rehnquist was to Miranda, upholding Miranda on stare decisis grounds, instead of on the merits. We do not need, indeed, can not afford, a Cass Sunstein in an Obama Administration or on the Supreme Court.

And now is when I remind everyone that BTD has consistently, if tepidly, supported Obama.

Andy’s response to BTD’s insight was:

BTD’s post proves me that BO is only pro-BO and that is his sole interest. He is no Democrat and has adopted liberals stances when it suited him to win the base only. But he couldn’t care less about the people: BO serves at the pleasure of BO political career only.

This is what I fear the most: BO would govern against the (true) Democrats interests
and Congress will not be able to stop him (Social Security, Health Care and SCOTUS? –after all he was pro-Roberts before Pete Rouse told him to vote no
b/c of the primaries).

Yep. That’s pretty much what I have been saying, too. Barack Obama is for Barack Obama. Love her or hate her (I love her), Hillary Clinton is devoted to serving the people. Love him or hate him, John McCain is a devoted public servant, like Hillary, having given his entire adult life to that service. When people keep saying that the only way to protect Roe v. Wade is to elect Barack Obama, I ask them what in the WORLD makes them think Obama is going to stand up for women NOW when he hasn’t his limited time in office? I have written about this a number of times before, but one needs to look no further than this statement from Obama:

My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.”

Uh, yeah. All I know is that anytime a woman has to have an abortion, at least the ones I have known, they are in “mental distress.” Or how about his ridiculous statement from the Saddleback Forum in which he said this:

Oh, you know I couldn’t resist using that one (maybe it’s funnier to me, living here in SC, which is from where the young woman in the clip hails - she was in the Miss Teen USA pageant. That should tell you all you need to know about the education system here!)!! Yes, he is SOOOO eloquent! What a great speaker!! Ahem. If you want a more serious one, click HERE.

Wow. Add in his “adviser,” Cass Sunstein, and I think it is less a matter of Wade-ing in the waters than MUDDYING the waters on Roe v. Wade. THIS is the person you are trusting to uphold a woman’s right to choose?? Yeah, okay - good luck with that! I sure hope you aren’t holding you breath on this one. I know I am not.

Sadly, the answer from too many people is, “No.” No, they don’t understand the words coming out of my mouth (or in this case, laptop). No matter how many times I have said this: I will not vote for Obama. Ever. See the sidebar on my blog? “NOBAMA.” “I Own My Vote.” “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary!” All of that? No, apparently not. I have received SO much pressure to cave, and vote for this man. No matter how many times I say no, and no matter how politely (I am a Southerner, after all), people still try to get me to commit to Obama. Or call me a Republican. I will not, and I am not.

But since no one seems to be able to understand me, let me share with you a piece by Victoria Brownworth (or part of it anyway, from Curve, Vol. 18#8, pp 30-31). Unfortunately, it is NOT online - it was in an honest-to-goodness magazine (apparently John McCain isn’t the only one who is not wired - oh, they do have a website: curvemag.com, but it does not contain the contents of their recent issues. If you want to read it for yourself, I’m afraid you’ll have to go down to the newsstand to do it.)

Anywho, Ms. Brownworth’s article, “My November Surprise: What Will It Take To Get A Real Progressive In The White House?” could have been written by a number of us, I suspect. No, I know. It could have been written by me, at least, at least 2/3 of it. So, here it is, typed out with my own hands, in an effort to get those who are trying to cajole/manipulate/shame/demand I vote for Obama:

It’s a secret I and many women have been keeping, but the time has come to reveal my big surprise. I will not be voting Democrat in November.

I worked for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign from February through her withdrawal from the race in June. I worked hard, doing action alerts, writing column after column, alerting the media to information about Clinton’s stances on various issues and calling voters in key primary states. I felt that Clinton was the best presidential candidate the United States had seen in years, and I was excited to work for her.

When Clinton came within a hairbreadth of winning the popular vote (RRRA here - she DID win the popular vote), but the superdelegates went in a wave with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recommendations rather than their constituents, I was beyond disappointed. I was outraged, and that outrage did not dissipate, as I thought it might, after Clinton did the good-girl thing and threw her support behind Sen. Barack Obama, rather than contest the primary outcome as previous candidates, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, had done.

I assumed that I would feel the way I usually feel when I am at odds with the Democratic Party: disappointed, but nevertheless aligned with them against the Republican candidate.

That didn’t happen this time.

Instead, my outrage grew exponentially as each new story revealed yet another of Obama’s defections from the Democratic Platform. First, it was his embrace of the faith-based initiatives program of President George W. Bush, which has not only failed, but has been grossly prejudiced and bigoted. Then it was his vote for Bush’s telecom immunity in the FISA debate (Clinton and other Democratic senators voted against Bush, so Obama’s assertion that this was the only choice simply isn’t true.) Then it was back-pedaling on his stance on the war in Iraq and a ramping up of the war in Afghanistan.

All those issues affect me politically, not personally, but when I read reports alleging that Obama pays his female staffers markedly less than his male staffers in comparable positions, I was appalled (RRRA here - it is not an allegation - it is a FACT. There are a number of articles on this, including this one HERE along with SusanUnPC’s excellent piece at No Quarter on this topic). Then Obama, who had secured the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America over Clinton (despite his sketchy record on choice and her strong record on the issue), announced that a pregnant woman’s mental illness should never justify a late-term abortion…

…(T)he Democratic Party has consistently disappointed me in the past eight years. In 2000, I felt Al Gore should have fought to be president, since he actually won the election. The United States is not a banana republic; there was no threat of the nation falling into disruption while votes were properly counted and tallied and the actual president was ensconced in the White House.

Had Gore been president in 2000, I have no doubt we would not be in Iraq, even if the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 had still happened.

In 2004, the Democrats disappointed me again, throwing their weight behind Sen. John Kerry instead of Howard Dean (RRRA here - to whom my partner, on a recent DNC request for money, responded, “F–k YOU, Howard Dean!”, summing up my feelings about him perfectly). Four years into the disastrous Bush administration, the Democratic Party went with the safe candidate instead of the progressive, anti-war candidate, once again, moving to the center instead of standing firmly to the left.

Both the Gore and Kerry campaigns were poorly run (RRRA again - that means YOU, Donna Brazile - on Gore, anyway), emphasizing defense instead of offense. Gore should have run on the progressive record of the Clinton administration, of which he was an integral part. Instead, he failed to reveal Bush’s inadequacy, even though Bush was an untested, unproven candidate (RRRA - hmmm - just who does THAT sound like?!?!) whose only political strength was the fact that his father had been a one-term president.

Kerry’s campaign regrettably mimicked Gore’s…

I thoroughly understood Clinton’s frustration during the primary: While she voted and acted progressively, Obama talked hope and change, with nothing to back it up. After she withdrew from the race, he was given his first opportunity to cast a pivotal vote for progressivism and vote against telecom immunity. He didn’t. While Clinton continued her progressive agenda and voted against it, Obama not only voted for it, but asserted that it was a good compromise, the same line anti-progressive Democrats have been proffering for years…

I remember wen being a Democrat meant being for change and actually acting on behalf of it. The first president I actually remember was LBJ, whose War on Poverty and programs like Head Start helped move the nation forward out of the divides of race and class.

There hasn’t been a more progressive American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt; he not only got the country out of the Great Depression, but initiated the New Deal and other safety net programs that would protect Americans if we ever had similar economic disaster.

When Clinton was running, some pundits referred to her as the New Deal candidate with a sneer. But given the economic disaster that the Bush administration has created, being compared to FDR should not have been seen as a negative.

I will not be voting for the Democrats this November. I’d like to, and wish I could, but I can’t. The last eight years of the Democratic Party and its refusal to take on the Bush administration have broken my faith in it…

I won’t deny that part of my decision has to do with the realization that I can no longer continue to vote against my own best interests. I have done that repeatedly, being guilted into voting Democrat when I should have taken a different route. I have argued in my newspaper columns that third party candidates are not the answer, but the past two elections, plus the current presidential race, have made me rethink that position.

The two major parties have failed a majority of Americans, but they have failed queers, women and minorities most definitively…

Vote for yourself this November instead of a party that has failed you. It’s the only way we will ever move toward real and lasting change in the United States. (Ms. Brownworth will be supporting Cynthia McKinney, the Green candidate, in November.)

I will not vote against my own self-interests again. If more WOMEN, in particular, did the same, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee now, if for no other reason than Nancy Pelosi would have supported HER instead of “the one God has blessed us with to us,” or whatever whackiness she said about Obama, and we would have, according to the polls anyway, the best PRESIDENT we have had in years. But no. Once again, the Democratic Party went with the weaker candidate instead of the sure bet.

Here’s a sure bet, though - they will not be getting my vote this year. They have done nothing to deserve it, and everything to make sure I didn’t give it to them.

Now do you understand the words I have been saying?

In an interview posted on the political Web site Politico, Chairwoman Carol Fowler said Republican John McCain picked a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Fowler later apologized, saying she made the statement during an interview about single-issue voters.

Don’t apologize, “Sweetie”!!111!!!! You helped shave a few more points off of Barky’s White Woman polls. Do more! Please!

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive,” Fowler said in a statement.

“I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue,” she continued. “That was the only point I was attempting to make.”

You see, that’s the problem. It’s not about you or Donna or Howard or Nancy “being clumsy”. It’s about the confusion we women are causing you. We are confusing you and the rest of The Party, right? Why are so many of us Democratic women confusing our Beloved Democratic Party???? The answer lies in a little story:

A farmer was talking to his neighbor about how expensive it is to feed his horse. His neighbor suggested that he mix sawdust in the horse’s feed for filler.

The neighbor didn’t see the farmer till a month later and he asked how his suggestion worked out. The farmer was very sullen. He said, ” I don’t understand it. I mixed some sawdust in my horse’s feed and he seemed to like it. So I added a little more the next day. And a little more the next day. He seemed to like it so I just increased his sawdust every day. But you won’t believe what happened! Soon as I got that damned horse eating all sawdust, the damned thing died!”

It’s kind of like that Carol. (and Donna, Howard, Nancy-The-Exception)

You entrenched party people have been feeding us that Abortion story for decades. Every four years we had to listen to the same shit from you. We are YOUR party, ladies. We care! If you don’t vote for us they will overturn Roe v Wade. We will protect you!

Funny, really. For one thing, if you CARED, you would have legislated this problem years ago. But then, where’s the profit in that? What would you use to keep us scared enough to vote for all of you again, and again and again. In the meantime, so many of us have grown up listening to your tripe –and you know what? We don’t give a shit!. You’ve been feeding us sawdust! We all know Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere, so cut the craaaaaaaaap.

There was more sawdust you kept feeding us too. That “Equal pay for women” sawdust. Do you DNC jerks have any idea how long we have been listening to that horseshit? I mean if you can’t fix this problem in decades, don’t you think you all need to move on? We aren’t eating that sawdust any longer either.

How about the Champion for The Poor sawdust? In my not so short life, I haven’t seen you guys help the poor at all, unless you count keeping them poor! You know…wink …wink…just give them enough to keep them voting for you, but God forbid you should give them the incentive to actually get out of poverty and off the government’s programs. That’s not a good idea, right? I mean if you keep them all just poor enough, they will need you for-evah!

The best sawdust story is the one about Equal Rights for Women. Boy you had us eating that slop for so long I can’t even remember when it all started. But the first chance you got to be a bunch of sexist slobs, you grabbed that ring as fast as you could.

Let me be frank. I have NEVER seen so much sexism and misogyny in a primary, or pretty much anywhere for that matter, in my entire life. And I hung out in Corporate America a lot! If you pigs were in Corporate America you would have all been shown to the lobby for your filth.

The DNC stood right by and watched Barack Obama, his filthy TV surrogates, his online pigs-in-training in their parents’ basements and his PR team on MSNBC and CNN harass, torture, insult, embarrass, humiliate and rip the far superior candidate apart–because she was a woman!. Then we watched you drag a mediocre man’s sorry inept ass over the nomination line against the will of superdelegates’ constituents. Talk about “Putting lipstick on a pig”!! You people are sick! You bludgeoned us because we are women and now you want us to eat more of your sawdust over an “issue” you’ve been using on us for decades????? Are you kidding or what????Do you have any idea at all what a wake-up call that was for us women with brains and some life experience? Anybody? Anybody?

The Democratic Party’s behavior toward Hillary Clinton this year was beyond revolting. We understand exactly what that means. It means you have all been hypocrites for as long as women have been your captives. We understand now that hanging out with you is akin to living in an abusive relationship. So don’t be bringing us flowers after you broke our jaws. You might fool younger women who haven’t been around too many blocks. They are complacent because they didn’t have to fight for their rights, and you know it—so the DNC and Barack Obama take advantage of them. If they can’t see what’s in front of their own faces, well then let them eat vibrating cell phones! As for the rest of us, we aren’t buying. We know exactly what is going on here. You are killing us with the sawdust in our feed. We choose to survive instead.

Frankly, I find it downright stupid that, after all we have been forced to stand by and watch, you all wonder why we defend Sarah Palin. Do you really think we don’t comprende that under Barack Obama, women would have a whole lot more to worry about than Roe v Wade? Do you not think that we understand that crap rolls downhill and the attitude of a President permeates the workplace and the home? Do you think we’ve eaten so much of your sawdust that we don’t understand completely what is going on here?

My party! The Party that kept so many women carrying your water for you for years, when all you gave us in the end was more sawdust in our feed. The only Sharia thing you didn’t do to Hillary Clinton was set her on fire! And that’s probably only because here in America that’s against the law. So far……

…..and now you all simply cannot understand why we women aren’t “one-issue” voters. Well let me explain, then: It isn’t about “one issue” with us. It’s about all of them. All of those issues you dangled over our heads for too long, when it is now abundantly clear the Democratic Party never gave a shit about us at all except to use “issues” as a means to keep us in line on Election Day.

You could have had a winner. But you now have a loser. We aren’t eating the sawdust any longer. On November 4, you and the rest of the Democratic Party hypocrites can eat your own sawdust for a change. Maybe then you all will Get It. Forget Party loyalty from now on. We women aren’t going to suck up to any party any longer. You are going to have to show us your chops instead of flapping your lips if you want our votes. We are the new Independents. When you start looking out for us, we’ll give you a try as a swing block. And that goes for both parties, and right now, your forced choice is not our choice. You had best think about that next time because we have NO intention of ever putting up with what we saw done to the dignity of women this year again. Donna said you didn’t need us, dandy. You can’t have us. But make no mistake, we are watching. We are watching what you do to Sarah Palin.

And one more thing: Every time you idiots trot out Hillary to clean up that inept Pig Barack Obama’s mess, you open the wounds you created and we get even more pissed off.

Copyright © 2008 Uppity Woman. All rights reserved.

It’s official: The witch hunt against the Palins is on. Cybill Shepherd, who ought to know a thing or two about the objectification of women, is now very concerned that Bristol Palin is being forced to have her baby and marry her boyfriend (this I saw in an interview on a Hollywood gossip show late last night; this is what happens when you don’t turn the TV off after watching DVDs). That’s right, a young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. The mother is pro-life. It is logical to assume she raised her children this way. It’s what they believe. The obvious logical conclusion must be the Palins are forcing Bristol to do this. I guess no 17 year old in their right mind would have their child and marry the father….that’s just crazy talk. Obama would no doubt say she is being punished, oh wait…he already has.

I suppose the next step would be to rescue Bristol from the Palin family, deprogram her, and force her to have a late term abortion. That’ll show those right wing fascists.

This has become a witch hunt pure and simple. The Palin nomination is forcing liberal women to look at the fact that women’s rights extends to those who choose not to have abortions; that it extends to women who are diametrically opposed to them politically, and they don’t like it. In fact, they are so against the notion that Cybill Shepherd is essentially declaring the Palins akin to a cult where the girls are forced to keep their babies against their will. These are some of the same people who say the Jewish ritual of circumcision is barbaric and must be stopped.

WE WILL FORCE YOU TO SURRENDER YOUR HEATHEN WAYS AND BE JUST LIKE US!!!

But for some reason Gloria Steinem, Sally Quinn, and presumably Cybill Shepherd, have no problem with the fact that the DNC in Denver opened with a multi-faith convocation where abortion was openly condemned by Bishop Charles E. Blake, and that the woman who organized it, Leah Daughtry, CEO of the DNC and Howard Dean’s Chief of Staff, is Pentecostal…which National Public Radio (NPR) has reported is the same faith as Sarah Palin. Nope, these hypocrites have no problem with that as it’s all in the name of Obama the Messiah.

The women’s movement is going down in flames. It’s credibility is floundering. Does the ERA apply only to those who are pro-choice? If you aren’t going to stand up for women of all religions, backgrounds, and creeds then you are nothing. You are worthless, and I have no time for you or your movement.

Tell you what Cybill; why don’t you just hold a sham trial and sentence the Palins to death? That’ll show ‘em!