Gone Fishin'

Not really, but will definitely be doing some snorkeling! So, yes, I will be gone all week. It is remotely possible I might end up writing something if I land at an internet cafe (h/t, SusanUnPC!), but most likely not. So, in my absence, again, I recommend these sites to you: No Quarter, The Divine Democrat, Logistics Monster, Bluelyon, and others listed along the side there (Uppity Woman, who can also be found at No Quarter, and Insight Analytical are good ones, too!)

If you are so inclined, and feel like taking a walk down Memory Lane (you know, when Hillary had yet to be forced out of the race), you can check out some of my earlier posts. Or you can just spend more time at your other haunts. In any event, have a good week. See you back here October 5th.

Reid v. McCain - UPDATED

REMINDER: I will be out of the country for a week from 9/27 - 10/4 enjoying a long-awaited Caribbean vacation. Most likely, I will have no computer access, so Friday will be the last day I will be posting until Sunday, 10/5. May I recommend faithful readers check out No Quarter, The Divine Democrat, Logistics Monster, Bluelyon, and others listed along the side there (Uppity Woman, who can also be found at No Quarter, and Insight Analytical are good ones, too!).

It would seem that the Democrats are playing the ultimate game of "GOTCHA!" with Senator McCain. No doubt, if you have paid ANY attention at all to the discussion around the Bail Out, you will hear Democrats reaming McCain for coming back, saying it was unnecessary since he wasn't needed, and he isn't saying anything anyway. Unlike Obama, who took over the meeting at the White House. It was shades of his time in the IL Senate from what I can tell. What do I mean? That it dissolved into shouting and yelling. What a leader. What a uniter. And by the time you read this, Obama will be winging his way to Oxford, MS, for the big debate - the first time he has ever shown ANY interest in debating. Huh. That raises an eyebrow for me...Anywho, he's on his way, and McCain, who has the audacity to put country before presidential politics, though the Democrats accused him of doing that as well, has not left Washington.

Which leads me to an interesting article by Amanda Carpenter, "Reid Uses Clout To Trip Up McCain." In it, Carpenter writes:

Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to be doing all he can as the Senate’s most powerful member to cause trouble for GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

Reid indicated Thursday that he will not hold any votes in the Senate on Friday so McCain has “no excuses” to skip the debate scheduled for that day.

Wait a second here - I thought the Senate and House were supposed to be working for US, to get our economy back on track. And Reid is already claiming he won't hold any votes? Is he playing politics here? Evidently, because:

Reid’s move is curious since several news outlets reported earlier this week that Reid told the White House it was essential McCain take an active role in crafting the bailout—something that would certainly keep McCain off the campaign trail. “We need now the Republicans to start producing some votes for us, we need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands," Reid publicly told reporters.

Let me make sure I understand this. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, ASKED Senator McCain to return to DC to help get this bill worked out. Because McCain agreed, Senator Reid, who, IMHO, has been an incredibly ineffectual leader, castigates Senator McCain for coming back?? That sure seems like a "Damned if you do, Damned if you Don't" scenario in bold relief. Carpenter seems to think so, too:

As soon as McCain announced he was suspending his campaign and possibly postponing a presidential debate in order to get to Washington to work on the bill, Reid began criticizing McCain for doing so.

"It appears to me John McCain is trying to divert attention to his failing campaign," Reid said during a press conference Wednesday.

Shortly before McCain made his decision to return to Washington and had yet to make any statement on the bill, Reid distorted McCain’s position on the yet-to-be completed bill. “I’ve got some good news,” Reid told the press. “it appears Senator McCain is going to come out for this.”

When told by the Washington Post about Reid’s comment McCain flatly responded “I did not say that.”

Throughout the debate on the bailout package, McCain has refused to reject or endorse the plan. He has only said the final version of it must include stricter oversight standards and limits on CEO pay.

Reid is not the only one - every Democrat I have seen, from Rep. Barney Frank to Gov. Bill Richardson (here's a newsflash to all of the news organizations - we don't give a CRAP what Bill Richardson, that sexist, homophobic, back-stabbing creep has to say, so STOP giving him a platform already!!) has HAMMERED Senator McCain, claiming this was just a stunt on McCain's part.

Wow. You might recall, well, only if you didn't blink, that Sec. Paulson HIMSELF asked Senator McCain to return (SusanUnPC had it at No Quarter). Yeah, I figured you hadn't heard that, the way the media has been busily spinning this. So, yes. Secretary Paulson asked McCain to do it, and in the interest of the country, McCain did. What is more, while McCain was being mocked and belittled by House and Senate Republicans, he didn't say a word about Sec. Paulson having asked him to do this. That takes some character right there, if you ask me, something Harry Reid sure hasn't demonstrated in all of this. No, rather Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Party have blamed McCain PERSONALLY for a bill not getting struck(
Deal May Be Dead: Democrats Blaming McCain). Yes, that's right, it is ALL McCain's fault.

And now is when I remind you of this Roll Call article:
Reid Seeks McCain Pledge. Oh, this is rich:

Fearing a political backlash against Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has told the White House that it must serve up support from Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) if it hopes to ensure bipartisan backing for a massive economic bailout package by week's end.

Reid made his position clear to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Monday night, as well as to his Democratic caucus, which shares many of the GOP's concerns that the $700 billion bailout has been drafted too hastily and is a risky remedy for an economy on the brink of crisis. Reid, according to Democratic Senate sources, also wants assurances from Senate Republican leaders that an evenly divided, bipartisan group of Senators will pass any legislative fix so his party isn't left with the burden of doing an unpopular White House's bidding — again.

"If the administration wants us, we are going to have to go hand in hand or at the end of the day, it's not going to happen," Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said.

Democratic leaders have privately been eyeing a strategy — to be worked out with the White House and GOP Senate leaders — that would call for an equal number of Senators in each party supporting the final bailout plan. Talks have included splits of 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans or higher to ensure neither party is labeled with being responsible for the costly package.

"Harry Reid would like Republican Senate support, whatever remedy we come up with," Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said. "Right now, there's significant opposition on the Republican side. Democrats have serious concerns about Paulson's proposal, but we are willing to work with the Treasury Department and the Fed to come up with the right solution."

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) agreed, saying, "we need help from both parties" if a bill is to be completed in the coming days. Casey, who sits on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said the administration needs to do more to get Republicans invested in a solution.

"I think if you look at the Republican side, at the McCain campaign and the leadership, I'm not convinced they are working to get their side to the table," Casey said. "But the week is young."

McCain holds the key to such a bipartisan vote, according to Reid, because Republicans are likely to defer to his position on a bill that holds political peril. McCain on Tuesday night joined Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in lending qualified support for the $700 billion package, but it remains unclear whether his backing is strong enough and timely enough to persuade the Congressional rank and file. According to a Democratic aide familiar with the discussions, Reid told Paulson this week that "if McCain didn't come out for this thing and come out for it quickly, it was going to begin bleeding Republican votes." Democrats "have a very real concern that opposition [from McCain] is going to drive away potential Republican votes," this aide said.

Well, as they say, "No good deed goes unpunished." And for reasons that escape me, the media is allowing Reid to get away with this duplicity. It truly does seem like the ultimate case of "Gotcha" - they ask McCain to come back, then do nothing but criticize him for coming back. Meanwhile, the president has to call Senator Obama to get HIM to come back to do the work he is supposed to do. That just falls by the wayside, the man who after 100 days, threw his hat into the Presidential ring, has done blessed little actual WORK in the Senate. He's like a petulant teenager, who has to be forced into doing the right thing by his parents. But he didn't stay long, and seemed to only contribute acrimony.

Tell me again why this man is the Democratic nominee?? Really - how in the WORLD did Obama get this far? I am guessing that the first term senator who has $860 million, that's MILLION, dollars in earmarks in his first THREE years, is having strings pulled by someone, or several someones. Who else would have that kind of hubris? In their first term?? No one of whom I can (if I am wrong, tell me who has asked for more). So now, he is on his way to Oxford, acting like he has always wanted to do these debates, never mind that he REFUSED, flat out REFUSED to do any more than three, despite the frequent requests from the McCain camp. And this is the guy who has so hoodwinked so many Democrats.

After seeing the remarks of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last night, and the way he mocked and criticized McCain (as he is doing right now on tv - saying the "interjection of presidential politics was harmful" - which he repeated, and said McCain had done nothing but stand in front of the cameras. Um, did he not see OBAMA doing that???) - I remarked that it almost made me embarrassed that I have been a Democrat all these years. My partner responded that this must be what REAL Republicans felt like when their party was taking over by the Right Wing. I have to agree. I see these blatant lies, maneuvers, and traps set by the Democrats for McCain during a time of TRUE crisis for this country, all in an attempt to try and pave the path with gold for their inept selected candidate. This is deplorable. Reid is sacrificing the good of the COUNTRY for the good of the party, and that is simply unacceptable to me. This is not the time. This is NOT the time, Senator Reid. (He just did it again - blamed McCain for everything falling apart.) Here's the bottom line:

One senior GOP Senate aide said Republican Senate leaders are making the case to their Conference that the ramifications of doing nothing are too great, following through on what was described as Paulson's sobering assessment of the crisis. This aide said of Paulson's personal appeal to Senators on Tuesday, "It's fair to say it convinced a number of Members we needed to act, and we need to act quickly."

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking member on the Budget Committee, said afterward that Congress cannot address the economic meltdown in a partisan way. It will not get done, he warned, unless Democrats and Republicans work together to craft a solution, and that includes the support of McCain and Obama.

"It has to be bipartisan. There's no choice," Gregg said, adding, "I would hope that wherever we end up agreeing to here it includes both presidential candidates being comfortable with it(emphasis mine)."

Senator Reid, instead of constantly attacking Senator McCain for "injecting presidential politics" into this matter, shut your piehole, and actually get to work already. You are an embarrassment to the position. Stop blaming EVERYONE else but the Democratic leadership over the past two years, as you have Senator DODD, of all people, NUMBER ONE on the list of 354 lawmakers getting Fannie and Freddie money, standing beside you. Reid, you are a friggin' hypocrite. Just STOP the BS for ONCE, and do your damn job. And maybe ask your buddy, Biden, to not put any earmarks on the Bail Out bill while you are at it. Get away from the cameras, and go hammer this out. Now. Today. GO.

UPDATED: Larry Johnson has a great article about "Acorn: The Poison Pill" which details why the Democrats were in such a hurry to get this bill passed. You will not believe what is (was?) in it: Three non-profit organizations, ACORN, National Urban League, and the National La Raza would share 20% - I said TWENTY PERCENT of the profits from the Bail Out bill. I cannot even go INTO all of the issues with ACORN - do a search at No Quarter on ACORN and you will get a ton of articles on it. Not only is Obama connected with them, but they have been charged with voter registration fraud in a number of states now, as well as some other issues that have come up with them. This is OUR money we're talking about here that CHRISTOPHER DODD (who is the one who came up with this - with Obama, no doubt) wants to GIVE AWAY. And to give away a TON of it to an unsavory organization currently facing legal difficulties. This has gone WAY beyond the pale. WAY beyond it. Is this the sort of thing toward which we can look forward should Obama end up in the White House? I think the answer is an unequivocal YES, and it scares the crap out of me. And infuriates me. They have hijacked the Democratic Party, and I want it BACK!!!

TWO-FER - Faith Tour AND Same Sex Marriage!

Not long ago, I was able to share The Good News with you on how the Obamessiah is reaching out to the Faithful! Remember this?



How about this?



Oh, and we cannot forget this one - I know it was a hit with the Catholics in the crowd (right, Divine?):



O, ye people of faith - wait until you hear THIS! Hot off the presses! Exclusive: Obama Campaign Faith Tour Starts Next Week Halle-freaking-lujah!

An official with Barack Obama’s campaign tells The Brody File that beginning next week the campaign will start an official faith tour in key battleground states called “Barack Obama: Faith, Family and Values Tour”. The subheading of the tour is as follows: “Voting ALL Our Values”

The Brody File is told that top faith surrogates will hit the trail for Obama. Some of those high profile figures include Former Indiana Congressman and pro-life Democrat Tim Roemer, Catholic legal scholar Doug Kmiec, and author Donald Miller. You can also expect a soon to be named Evangelical North Carolina (red state) Congressman to travel the country as well. All of these surrogates are well versed and comfortable talking faith and politics. This is clearly a sign by the Obama campaign that they plan to target red state and swing state moderates.

Remember this name: Doug Kmiec. I'll be telling you more about him farther along.

Wait - it gets even better:

A campaign official tells me the tour is designed to feature the “strong faith and values” of both Barack Obama and running mate Joe Biden. Issues will range from healthcare to poverty to the economy to climate change to yes, even abortion. The campaign understands tough questions may come their way but they’re ready with an answer of how they can reduce abortions.

Hold the phone - they are going to feature the "strong faith and values" of Barack Obama? Really? Does that mean Rev. Jeremiah Wright will also be going on this tour, illuminating Obama's "rich white people" are to blame for all your ills beliefs? Funny - I don't remember seeing his name listed above! Now THAT I would turn out to see, with a big ol' bag of popcorn - wouldn't you?

Maybe they'll want to include Obama's good buddy, IL State Senator The Rev. James Meeks, on this tour, educating us on the evils of *GASP* homosexuality! And the "Slave Masters," aka MAYORS (by the way - that was the nicer choice of words he used) controlling their lives. Holy Moly - that would be something!

You know that this is just another way to get his Word out to those who may not have heard how he cares for them, yearns for them to know the truth and to be set free. Or it could be this:

While conservative Evangelicals have flocked to Palin, the Obama campaign is targeting voters from so many of the other faith traditions. The Brody File has been told that even with Palin now in the race, the Obama campaign’s internal faith polling shows them to be doing better than expected with other denominations besides conservative Evangelicals.

For example, they have their sites on places like Ohio which is home to roughly 500,000 United Methodists alone.

Oh, goody - they are going for the bitterly clingy churchy gun-toters. Brilliant!

Thankfully for those of us who are apparently going straight to Hell:

This tour will last about a month or so and will be in a town hall format where these speakers and others will give their talks in community centers and gyms and then take questions afterwards.

I don't think I could take hearing about it any longer than that. (Shoot, I don't know I'll last a day, and with the Yankees out of the Playoffs, I have no idea how I will be able to ignore this.)

Just in case you are wondering, and want to be on the receiving end of a lovely button or bumper sticker, check to see if your state is listed here:

Among the states on the list are Colorado Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. Remember, the Obama campaign believes the White Catholic vote is very much in play especially in places like Pennsylvania. Plus, while conservative Evangelicals are not going to head Obama’s way, the campaign believes they can win over those moderate and liberal Evangelicals, Catholics and even some conservative mainline Protestants.

Oh, it's a veritable cornucopia of states AND denominations on which the Faith Train will be focusing. Whohoo - y'all will be having SOME prayer meetings!
Look, getting conservative Evangelicals was alw

Okay, just because the end of this article buys into Obama's schtick, I have to share it will you:

(It is) a tough sell for the Obama campaign and it became much tougher after the Palin pick. But the Obama campaign understands that most people in this country consider their faith integral to their lives. The values and religion talk resonates not just with conservative Evangelicals but a whole range of people out there. It means different things to different people. Obama wants to tap into that and also stay true to the fact that his faith has been central to his life.

Well, I sure agree - it does mean different things to different people. I'm guessing this writer (Brody) doesn't understand just what Obama's faith IS, but hey, I'm sure all will become known in time...

Okey dokie. A slight change of gears, but not much. Recently, I had a post based on an article in the NY Times (Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Tied to Obama Factor.) on Same Sex Marriage in CA that has the potential to be overturned on Nov. 4th. The article said Obama bringing out the AA vote might not bode well for California keeping same sex marriage legal since many in the AA community are quite conservative on this issue. As you no doubt know (despite what your Obamatron family/friends may say), Obama DOES NOT support same sex marriage. He supports civil unions, and thinks it is up to the individual states to decide. But, he claims in this article that he does not want to write discrimination into the CA Constitution. Well, guess who does? If you guessed Doug Kmiec, the man mentioned above, you would be RIGHT!! Yes, the one Obama has mentioned prominently to lead off the Faith Train to bring all you folk into the fold is a big ol' homophobe. Hmmm - maybe he and Donnie McClurkin can be roomies as they make their way around the country spreading their joy and sunshine - for straight people only, that is. Ahem.

It Seems dear ol' Doug wrote an editorial to the San Francisco newspaper back in June. Because I care, I will allow for Mr. Kmiec's entire loving, compassionate concern for his fellow citizens to appear below, though I think his title gives it away:

On Same-Sex Marriage
Should California amend its Constitution?
Say 'no' to the Brave New World

The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state Supreme Court's judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense. The initiative will restore to the people what was wrongfully taken from them: the right of self-governance and respect for the marital institution.

The initiative is simple: adding to the state Constitution the traditional man/woman definition of marriage that exists in virtually every state - and that the people approved in statutory form by more than 61 percent in 2000.

Because an affirmative vote is obviously intended to reverse the recent 4-3 opinion that wrongly overruled the people, the supporting ballot explanation should retain this simplicity. To avoid litigation, however, that explanation should explicitly indicate the effect of passage as reversing both the decision and reasoning of the court. Were the initiative to be narrowly portrayed in the ballot pamphlet as only denying that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, the overly litigious would be tempted to argue that the court's additional holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class was untouched by the balloting, leaving an avenue to block the people's will yet again. The state Attorney General and Secretary of State should not allow this judicially active mischief.

Voting to overturn the court's ruling should not be misunderstood. Gay and lesbian individuals are within the humanity acknowledged to be created equal and worthy of respect in the Declaration of Independence, but that responsible reaffirmation of equality of citizenship does not deprive the community of making a necessary and reasoned distinction for its own survival.

Beyond correcting the court's disregard of the separation of powers, insisting upon preserving the link between marriage and procreation: 1) promotes the orderly continuation of the species; 2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing); and 3) takes respectful account of the difficulties of accommodating religious freedom that arise subsequent to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. Oddly, and incompletely, the California Supreme Court managed to ignore these important issues in its 170-plus page opinion.

The proponents of same-sex marriage insist that inventing gay and lesbian marriage harms no one, but the above concerns suggest otherwise. Moreover, it overlooks the national and global decline in fertility, which threatens the economies of Europe and contributes to the weakness of our own. To say, as its advocates do, that the availability of same-sex marriage is not the principal cause of this decline in terms of absolute numbers is a fair point, but giving state approval to non-procreative marriage cannot be denied as a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children.

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

In a depopulating world, the claim that there is a universal right to marry regardless of gender becomes a frightening ally of a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children. People should reject this claim by returning traditional marriage to its rightful place.

What a swell guy. In case you were wondering, here are his credentials:

Douglas W. Kmiec is chairman and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

I guess returning the country to George H.W. Bush's foreign policies isn't the only thing Obama wants of Bush's - he wants his former legal counsel to reach out to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Community, as well. Oops - wrong. I mean, he wants him to shower the people with love, love, exceedingly conditional, narrow-minded, repressive love by someone who is not a minister, but a lawyer, spreading the good news of his particular brand of Christianity. It makes me wonder why in the world Obama picked him - and this was apparently AFTER he came out with his stance against same-sex marriage. Why him? Really - a lawyer who worked for Reagan and Bush. To go out and spread the Word about Obama and the Gospel. Yeah, sure, okay. (Hey! I have an idea - maybe I should start teaching law classes or taking legal cases. Why not? How hard could it be? I mean, really, if this guy thinks he can do MY job with no training - and believe you me, my job required a LOT of training, including an M.Div. that takes longer to get than a JD, so why not? I've seen legal shows! I watch movies! I know I could do it - I am sure the Spirit will move me to do the right thing in the class/courtroom, right? Ahem.) Just one more associate of Obama's whose stands go against who Obama claims himself to be, and whose participation seems a bit out of place, except for his stand against same-sex marriage. Maybe HE's the one who came up with the "Pro-Family (as long as everyone involved is heterosexual)" button. Just a thought.

How many passes is this guy going to get?!? Heaven knows, he has gotten more than he deserves, and more than anyone else in his position would. Just leaves me scratching my head.

And now it is time for someone to please tell me again why anyone thinks that Barack Obama will do one damn thing for the GLBT community? I mean, one POSITIVE thing?? I don't see it, and I sure don't buy it. And, scratching my head that his supporters keep making these claims about Obama based on, well, nothing! No, actually, making claims despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary! So here's you a sign - make that three of them - that Obama is a master manipulator who will say whatever to whomever whenever it suits him.

Sounds like he could use a visit from the Faith Train his own self, don't you think? Maybe they can pray that lying demon right out of him. I'd like to see that, yes, I surely would. Maybe he'd be convicted in his spirit, and would finally admit that he is way out of his depth, and is only doing this for the power, concede, and get the hell out of the rac alreadye. Hey, I can dream, can't I? Have a little faith - it could happen!

REMINDER: I will be out of the country for a week from 9/27 - 10/4 enjoying a long-awaited Caribbean vacation. Most likely, I will have no computer access, so Friday will be the last day I will be posting until Sunday, 10/5. May I recommend faithful readers check out No Quarter, The Divine Democrat, Logistics Monster, Bluelyon, and others listed along the side there (Uppity Woman, who can also be found at No Quarter, and Insight Analytical are good ones, too!).

How Much

Do you think the media is getting paid to push Obama on us? I think Tony Blankley wondered the same thing in his article, "Media Campaigns Hard for Obama." He states:

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

While I take exception to his claim of the "media as liberal and blinkered in its worldview for decades," a claim not borne out when Bush was running against Gore or Kerry, I do agree with his assessment that the media has been woefully inadequate in vetting Obama.

Blankley asserts:

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign. Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

Well, those of us who are still thinking human beings know that to be true. We have been presented a hopey-changey-unicorn riding man who has nefarious associates who must never be mentioned or investigated by the media; who has a dearth of experience and legislative accomplishments; who seems hell-bent on acquiring power for power alone, beginning with his time in the IL State Senate (Obama's Lost Years, "Obama And Me"); a man who has flipped and flopped so many times he should have been on the US Men's Gymnastics team; who has lied, and lied, and lied about his family, his upbringing, his career, and his opponents; and who has demonstrated an arrogance and sexism not usually on display by public officials, especially one who wants to be president. Yes, WE know who the real man is, and it is NOT the one the media has been hell-bent to promote.

Blankley continues:

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

He noticed! Just like we non-Kool-Aide drinkers! Yes, we know FAR more about Governor Sarah Palin in a very short time than we have learned about Obama. And about those universities Obama attended - transcripts, please!!!

And here is an issue we have discussed a good bit.

It is about damn time someone else picked this up: But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Besides some outstanding work at No Quarter (Larry Johnson, LisaB, DrKate, Steve Diamond, and SusanUNPC, among others), Stanley Kurtz has been one of the very few journalists looking into the Ayers/Obama connection. He was a guest of Greta Van Susteren's last night, and was also on with Bill O'Reilly recently. Here is the LINK.

I have heard so many Obamabots, including members of my own family, tout Obama's line that Obama was only 8 when Ayers bombed those buildings. As if that is the only issue. Exceedingly narrow bits of truth can only take one so far, yet that is to what they are clinging. His relationship is much more expansive than he, or the MSM, would like us to know. Same with much of his time in the realm of Chicago-style politics:

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
.
That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

Well, he's got it right, IMHO, but for many people, the MSM is the only option they have. That is not a comforting thought. Especially when you have people like George Will trying to frame McCain's persona in a negative light. In his recent article, "McCain Loses His Head," he states:

It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

I'm sorry, George - you are going to attack McCain on temperament?? You mean, like THIS?



Yeah, okay. Thanks, George, for proving Blankley's point. I have seen more and more recently about McCain's temper, something I have not seen from him, but I have seen it PLENTY from Obama. Go back and look at the last debate he deigned to have with Senator Clinton, or anytime he was actually questioned about his policies and associates. He does not like for ANYONE to challenge or question him. Ah, just what we want in a world leader - a thin-skinned, arrogant, inexperienced, shallow man who got where he is today by getting any real challengers removed from his path. Perfect. Thanks, MSM!!! It is only our nation's health at stake, but keep it up and you'll get your wish fulfilled - another president on a par with George W. Bush. I can hardly wait...

"Sisterhood Is Powerful"

FYI, I will be out of the country for a week from 9/27 - 10/4 enjoying a long-awaited Caribbean vacation. Most likely, I will have no computer access, so Friday will be the last day I will be posting until Sunday, 10/5. May I recommend faithful readers check out No Quarter, The Divine Democrat, Logistics Monster, Bluelyon, and others listed along the side there (Uppity Woman, who can also be found at No Quarter, and Insight Analytical are good ones, too!).

Since I have been discussing women in politics a good bit, I thought I would share this opinion piece from July 28, 2008. The author will be revealed at the bottom of the page:

Rwanda's Women Are Leading the Way

I have recently returned from Rwanda. I was last there in 1994, at the height of the genocide that claimed the lives of more than 800,000 Rwandans. The memories of what I saw haunt me still.

I wasn't sure what to expect all these years later, but I found a country that has found in its deep scars the will to move on and rebuild a civil society. And the renaissance is being led by women.

Women are at the forefront of the physical, emotional and spiritual healing that is moving Rwandan society forward. One of them, from eastern Rwanda, told me her story -- a violent, tragic and heartbreaking testimony of courage. She spoke of surviving multiple gang rapes, running at night in fear of losing her life, going days without food or water and witnessing the death of her entire family -- one person at a time, before her eyes.

The injuries she sustained left her unable to bear children. Illness, isolation and an utter lack of hope left her in abject despair.

And yet the day I met her, she wasn't consumed by hatred or resentment. She sat, talking with me and a few others, beside a man who had killed people guilty of nothing more than seeking shelter in a church. She forgave him. She forgave the perpetrators of her tragedy, and she explained her story with hope that such cruelty would never be repeated.

It is a humbling experience to be in the presence of those who have such a capacity for forgiveness and care. It is also instructive. If wealthy nations want their assistance programs to be effective, they should look to the women who form the backbone of every society. With some education, training, basic rights and empowerment, women will transform a society -- and the world.

Women today make up a disproportionate percentage of the Rwandan population. In the aftermath of the genocide, they had to head households bereft of fathers. They had to take over farms, and take jobs previously done by men. But there were opportunities, too: Today, 41% of Rwandan businesses are owned by women.

I saw their impact first hand at a coffee project in the city of Nyandungu. All the washing and coffee-bean selection is done by hand, by women there. Women for Women International1, a remarkably active and innovative nongovernmental organization, has already helped over 15,000 Rwandan women through a year-long program of direct aid, job-skills training and education.

The organization is launching a project to train 3,000 women in organic agriculture, and is reaching out to females across the country. The women who instruct their fellow war survivors in economic development are an inspiration to those who cherish the essential benevolence of humanity.

But that is just the beginning. A new constitution ratified in 2003 required that women occupy at least 30% of the seats in parliament. (In our House and Senate only about 17% of the seats are filled by women.) Some wondered at the time whether it was feasible to meet this target. Now, nearly half of parliament and a third of the president's cabinet posts are held by women. Rwanda today has the world's highest percentage of female legislators.

Rwanda has a dark past but a bright future. It has a long way to go -- the country remains one of the world's poorest, and the social reverberations of the genocide are evident everywhere. Yet in the midst of tragedy, the women are building something genuinely new. Perhaps it is fitting that a nation so wracked by death could give birth to a vibrant new age. I know that one thing is clear: Through their bold and courageous actions, these women should inspire not only their fellow Africans, but all individuals -- men and women -- across the globe.

Mrs. McCain, the wife of Sen. John McCain and mother of four, founded the American Voluntary Medical Team, which helps bring doctors to war-torn countries.

Now that's some solidarity. Something in which we have been sorely lacking in this campaign season, if you ask me. Moreover, Mrs. McCain makes a GREAT point in her piece - the importance of supporting women because they are typically the backbone of the community.

I admit, I had no idea Mrs. McCain was involved in so many humanitarian efforts (and I found out yesterday on the Rachel Ray Show that Mrs. McCain was a Special Ed teacher before she got married to John McCain - who knew??). Not only does she work with this group, but she works with the Smile Train (their adopted daughter had a cleft palate) and The Halo Trust, an anti-landmine organization. And I have to admit, learning this about her made me see Senator McCain in a new light. Not unlike Elizabeth Edwards did for John Edwards (let's face it - she was the more compelling person, and is totally awesome in her politics. Without her John was just okay. Which makes his cheating on her all the more offensive, the putz.). I figure if he is married to someone like Cindy, he's a pretty decent fellow (I have said before that I have always thought of him as honorable, and this confirmed it). Cindy McCain seems to have internalized the bibilical mandate which basically says, to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48).

You know who else is like this? Hillary and Bill Clinton. Yep - they care a lot about others, and spend millions helping them out. Bill Clinton's Foundation is an amazing organization, with extremely low Administrative costs - most of the money goes to doing the actual work. And we all remember Hillary's brilliant speech on Women's Rights as Human Rights, along with her efforts on behalf of women and other disenfranchised people before and after, that speech. Frankly, this country is lucky as hell to have these two dedicated public servants, a fact at least John McCain acknowledges, certainly in terms of Hillary Clinton and her work in the US Senate. Know who else thinks so? Senator Joe Biden! Yes, I am sure we have all seen the YouTube video of him claiming Senator Clinton is certainly qualified enough to be President, and as qualified as he, if not more, to be vice president (if you did not see it, here is the LINK).

All that is to say, the hearts of the ones in the White House matter. How they see others, and treat them, matters. I think there is a world of difference between how the McCains and the Obamas see other people. I cannot imagine for the life of me, Senator McCain flipping off Senator Clinton or Obama. I cannot imagine Cindy McCain saying she is just now proud of her country. What I have seen in both McCains is humility, and the desire to serve. What I have seen in the Obamas is arrogance, and the desire for power (I might add, this perception is borne out in fact by the Citizens Against Government Waste who said McCain voted 100% FOR the taxpayers in 2007, and Obama voted only 10% of the time for the taxpayers. WOW.). I'll take a servant's heart any day (I don't mean this with a specifically Christian connotation, but in terms of being a true public servant, one who cares about the people whom one serves, who takes THEIR concerns to heart and works to ease their trials and tribulations, who wants to make their lives better, to raise up the disenfranchised, who works for equality for all people, who fights the good fight because it is the right thing to do, not because of the accolades it will bestow. Like that.). Hillary has it, Bill has it, and so it seems, do John, Cindy, and Sarah Palin, too. I don't agree with a lot of their politics, but I cannot deny their dedication, commitment, and humility. I think I can live with that for four years. I cannot live with arrogance, condescension, and bullying for four years. Just sayin'.

"Are You Threatened BY Me?"

Today was the day that Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin were to speak at the Anti-Iran Rally at the UN. As everyone knows by now, Senator Clinton decided not to speak once she learned Gov. Palin was going to be there, and then Gov. Palin was unceremoniously UN-invited to speak. Wowie zowie. In the midst of all of this came an article by wcbstv.com, "Sources: Intense Pressure Led TO Palin UN Snub." I am SO surprised to hear that, especially given the above-board manner (hahahaha) by which the Democrats have been acting this year - surely they would not force the Jewish groups holding this rally to rescind their invitation! Oh, but yes they would. Below is the text of the article, but if you want to see a very good video on it, click the link above and there is one in the story:

Hillary Clinton won't be speaking at Monday's anti-Iran rally at the United Nations -- and neither will Republican Sarah Palin or any other politicians for that matter.

The reason? A heated behind the scenes tug-of-war.

Sources tell CBS 2 HD that a decision to disinvite Palin from the high profile rally after Clinton pulled out in a huff came as the result of intense pressure from Democrats.

"This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, told CBS 2 HD.

Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

"I have never seen such raw emotion -- on both sides," said someone close to the situation.

The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, "it could jeopardize their tax exempt status" if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.

So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.

"It's an absolute shame that this has happened," Hikind said. "To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism."

Another Jewish group tried to step into the breach by inviting Palin to a different protest a day earlier.

"I'm absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats," said Bob Kunst of Defenders.net. "I'm a Democrat and for the first time in my life I'm going to vote Republican. I can't take it anymore."

As for Sen. Clinton, she brushed right past CBS 2 HD's Lou Young when he tried to ask her about the issue on Thursday night.

Lou Young: "Were the organizers of Monday's rally right to depoliticize it?"

Clinton walked past Young, said "Thank you all very much" and started hugging people.

Clinton's people tell CBS 2 HD she intends to make some statement of support for the protestors. She is also expected to attack Ahmadinejad's pro-nuke, anti-Israel stance.

Since Gov. Palin was uninvited, she made her remarks available to the New York Sun, if you care to read her remarks.

Here is the LINK to Senator Clinton's letter to the organizers of the Anti-Iran Rally (damn, I miss hearing this woman, and how I wish she had spoken at this event regardless of Gov. Palin being there. That is just SO Un-Hillary-like. Gee, what are the chances that SHE got the hard-sell, too? I'm gonna bet 100%. Any takers?)

I don't know when this became the DNC. I really don't. This, along with all of the other immoral, unethical actions by the DNC this campaign season(previously listed about a gazillion times), along with the news about the source of the Palin rumors, now documented to be an orchestrated event (and covered by Easten McNeal at No Quarter), and one well connected to Obama and the DNC, just boggles the mind. Now, I realize I may have been very naive about the DNC and how it REALLY operates - I know I was shocked to learn that two people in Chuck Schumer's office created a false credit report as a way to discredit Michael Steele (former Lt. Gov. of MD) just two years ago. But how could it get to this place?

Well, here we are, and where we are is a political party that strong-arms private groups to do its bidding. Great. Never mind that it was a GOOD CAUSE, one about which both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin feel strongly. Never mind that it would have given more POSITIVE coverage to those groups and their issue - the potential problems with Iran in terms of Israel. Now, the "disinvite" is being seen for what it is - and what it is ain't pretty. Way to go, DNC - winning the hearts and minds of anyone who thinks bullying is the answer. And who is threatened by having two powerful women anywhere in the same vicinity of each other (oh my gosh - a CATfight could break out!! Or, NOT - and that would be WORSE, right?!?). Or is it that the DNC knows people will look at these two women, and know that HILLARY should be on the top of the ticket and not Obama? That SHE is the one who would have made the selection of Gov. Palin a non-starter? Yeah, that sounds about right to me. How about you?

Gang Raped?

OK - I have more than had it from liberal women attacking Gov. Palin. Again, I hasten to add that I was always one clinging to the far LEFT corner of the Democratic Party, so no centrist or Republican am I. First it was Gloria Steinem, then it was Eve Ensler (and don't let her current diatribe against Governor Palin fool you - she was always for Obama. If you haven't read Ani's EXCELLENT piece at NoQuarter, "Ladies, If You Didn't Vote For Hillary..Why Are You Screaming About Your Rights Now??", I urge you to do so.). But - this has gone too, too FAR, courtesy of Sandra Bernhard. What she said is so reprehensible, it makes me ill to even write about it. So, I won't. Instead, I'll let Tim Graham describe it for me:

The Washington Post isn’t the only daily D.C. newspaper to rave about Sandra Bernhard’s anti-Palin ranting. Wednesday’s Washington Examiner joined in, with the headline "Comedienne delivers enraged optimism." Barbara Mackay claimed "in the end, oddly and subtly, Bernhard’s message is positive."

That’s not the impression you’d get from the blog of Theater J, where Bernhard is appearing. It has video of Bernhard calling Palin "Uncle Women," a "turncoat b—h" and a "whore." One complaint on the blog that Bernhard crosses a line of political incorrectness draws a defense from Ari Roth of Theater J that really drops the curtain on how coarse this show is:

"In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as "A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a F–ked Up White Man’s Racist World" and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.

The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a "disgusting show." there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as "disgusting." I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra. Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge." [Profanity editing is Graham's.]

Forgive me if gang-rape jokes don't greet my ears as oddly and subtly positive, as the Examiner suggests, and forgive me if gang-rape jokes aren't "a rotating sprinkler that a spectator washes in most happily," like the Washington Post insists.

(If you feel compelled to see the video of Bernhard, you can go to the blog link above and it is in there. Have at it.)

I gotta agree with Tim here. As a lifelong feminist, I don't see one damn thing funny about suggesting ANY woman be gang raped. Nothing. Not anywhere close to funny. And when it comes from a WOMAN about another woman, well, that just screams internalized misogyny to me. Oh - and I don't see how that can end up being "positive" at all.

Add on top of that the RACISM of this statement (no matter what Roth says - that is racist), and it just boggles the mind that THIS is the kind of person with whom anyone would want to associate their cause, or campaign, or beliefs. But that's just me.

And there's still more from Roth of the Theater J:

Roth insisted to the complainer that the D.C. Jewish Community Center is loving their Bernhard show, and partied with Bernhard on opening night. They’re in tune with her right-bashing rage:

"We’re proud of our producing -- proud of Sandra’s sense of timing -- taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with. Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are."

"Who we are" at this theater clearly isn't someone who's interest(ed) in presenting anything other than rage. The video itself, presented like a commercial for the show, explains who the show is intended to please. The average person probably wouldn’t find it the least bit funny. But if you really, really hate Sarah Palin or Christian conservatives, this show is for you. Here’s some of what she says in the promo:

"Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the s--t and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat b---h! Don’t you f--kin’ reference Old Testament, bitch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bulls--t! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you b---h! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your f--kin' cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bulls--t moment."

Is it too broad an interpretation to suggest that when Bernhard attacks Palin's "new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bulls--t," she means the New Testament? It sounds like she's telling the Christian(s) to stay away from "her" Old Testament, as if Christians don't have an Old Testament in their Bible. It's quite clear that the D.C. Jewish Community Center is not attempting an interfaith dialogue with this rantfest.

Oh, boy. I have to admit - I just do not see how anyone justifies that type of ranting against anyone anyway. But I guess I do not understand the need to vilify anything and everything even remotely connected to Sarah Palin. As I said above, until May 31st, I was a diehard, yellow-dog Democrat, but I cannot see why there is such a high level of animosity directed toward Palin, ESPECIALLY by women! What the hell with that already? Is it that these women resent SO much how Palin, a conservative Republican, seems to have done EVERYTHING feminists claimed we wanted for ourselves, including labeling herself a feminist?? Are they resentful? Envious? Angry that she has done it her way? Are they that intimidated by her that they feel compelled to diminish her in any way they can, including calling for her to be "gang raped by black brothers in Manhattan"? I'm sorry - there is just no excuse for that. It is not positive, it is misogynistic as all get out, and it undermines the speaker, not the subject. It is offensive, and it is shameful. Women do not need to jump on this bandwagon - as this campaign season has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, there are plenty of men willing to do it for us. If you are interested, there is a site dedicated to documenting the sexist attacks on Palin, including the implication above that Palin had not been properly vetted first - she had (H/T to Medusa for this link).

And I have a dream, too. I dream that one day, and oh, how I wish I would see this in my lifetime, that women will stand with women, without undercutting them, maligning them, attacking them, demeaning them, diminishing their accomplishments, and spreading hate about them. I have a dream that one day, one day, and oh, please let it happen in my lifetime, women will celebrate and affirm one another, no matter their religious affiliation, or political party, or class, or color, or orientation, but will celebrate them for who they are, for succeeding against a stacked deck, for standing strong when the winds are gusting against them, for being themselves, fully, and completely, for loving who they are and what they bring to the world. One day, oh one day...

Same Sex Marriage May Suffer

Oh, dear. Another reason to hate Obama. I'll be the first to admit that I did not see this one coming. So, you know that California passed a law making same-sex legal (Ellen and Portia are probably the two most famous beneficiaries of that law. Except maybe George Takei and his partner, for all you Star Trek fans.) It was great news, and there was much rejoicing throughout the land. More or less.

Well, you know that there are people who are not willing to be content to let this law stand. Oh, no. So, there's a measure in California on which the good people will be voting Nov. 4th to determine if same sex marriage should be banned in their Constitution. No biggie. Ahem. And that leads me (finally) to this article from the NY Times,
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Tied to Obama Factor. The very beginning of this piece sets the tone:

Could Senator Barack Obama’s popularity among black voters hurt gay couples in California who want to marry?

That is the concern of opponents of Proposition 8, a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which was legalized in May by the State Supreme Court.

Well if that ain't a kick in the teeth. Like Obama isn't already a big ol' flipflopper on GLBT issues, and has some amazingly homophobic associates - close associates, not just acquaintances (which don't seem to bother any of his faithful - goddess only knows why - must be some awesomely hip hopey changey unicorn leading them to the rainbow to make people like Meeks and McClurkin A-Okay!).

So, here's the thing, according to the article:

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is against the measure (RRRA here - HAHAHAHAHA!). But opponents of the proposed ban worry that many black voters, enthused by Mr. Obama’s candidacy but traditionally conservative on issues involving homosexuality, could pour into voting stations in record numbers to punch the Obama ticket — and then cast a vote for Proposition 8.

Oh, yippee. Yet another way Obama will SCREW us this year. Only the second state in the entire country that actually treats LGBT people as fully human in this country, deserving of all the same rights as anyone else, and it is facing trouble.

“It’s a Catch-22,” said Andrea Shorter, the campaign director of And Marriage for All, a coalition of gay and civil rights groups that recently started what it calls an education campaign around the state, focusing on blacks and framing the issue of same-sex marriage as one of civil rights.

The Obama/Proposition 8 situation appeals to those opposed to same-sex marriage, who are banking on a high turnout by blacks and conservative Latinos. “There’s no question African-American and Latino voters are among our strongest supporters,” said Frank Schubert, the co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, the leading group behind the measure. “And to the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us.”

To blunt that possibility, gay leaders and Proposition 8 opponents have been sponsoring casual events at restaurants in traditionally black neighborhoods in Los Angeles, meeting with black clergy members and recruiting gay black couples to serve as spokespeople on panels and at house parties and church events.

“This is black people talking to black people,” said Ron Buckmire, the board president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, a gay rights group in Los Angeles. “We’re saying, ‘Gay people are black and black people are gay. And if you are voting conservative on an antigay ballot measure, you are hurting the black community.’ ”

Yes, you are. And everyone else, too, because this doesn't just affect black people, it affects ALL people. It is an interconnection - if you vote to take away some people's rights, you diminish all people, in my opinion.

Black voters account for 6 percent of likely voters in most statewide elections, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, while Hispanic voters make up about 15 percent. But taken together, those two groups could easily decide the election, people on both sides of the issue said.

“If the white Christian evangelic movement believes they can do it alone, I’ve got news for you,” said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference in Sacramento, which supports the measure. “They don’t have the sheer numbers to do it without the minority effort.”

The Obama factor is just one potential element in the battle over Proposition 8.

Great! SOOO glad the African Americans, Hispanics, and Evangelical Christians have an issue on which they can band together! Ahem.

Both sides said they expected to spend $20 million or more to help blanket airwaves. One advertisement by opponents shows a heterosexual bride on her way to the altar thwarted by various obstacles — a broken door, a clingy child — before the tagline: “What if you couldn’t marry the person you loved?”

Polls have shown Proposition 8 is trailing. A Field Poll of likely voters conducted last week found the measure was favored by 38 percent of voters and opposed by 55 percent. Mr. Obama, who has said he does not favor same-sex marriage (emphasis mine - I keep saying this - he is not the advocate for us people claim he is), has stated his opposition to Proposition 8, calling the measure “divisive and discriminatory” in a letter to a gay Democratic club in San Francisco.

At least Obama has stated his opposition to the measure. And we ALL know how well he keeps his word. Hahahaha - sometimes I crack my own self up...

You know there is more, and in the interest of fairness, I am cutting nothing from these quotes:

But opponents are not declaring victory.

“We think there’s 15 to 20 percent that are still undecided on this issue,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, which supports gay rights. “We do believe that if we can get our message out at least equal to the other side, we will win, but that’s a fund-raising issue.”

Mr. Kors said opponents of Proposition 8 had raised about $12 million so far.

Supporters of the proposition, which qualified for the ballot shortly after the Supreme Court decision, said they had raised about $15 million.

Those donations include money from religious and conservative groups, including $1 million from the Knights of Columbus and $500,000 from the American Family Association, run by the Rev. Donald E. Wildmon. That group’s Web site includes a fund-raising video for Proposition 8 featuring a clip of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. while a speaker comments on the duty of black pastors to speak out in favor of Proposition 8.

Some supporters of the measure also say they sense a newfound enthusiasm in their ranks since Gov. Sarah Palin became the running mate of the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain.

“I think Governor Palin has obviously energized social conservatives and religious conservatives and all types of conservatives,” said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst with Focus on the Family Action, the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family, a conservative group that has spent nearly $450,000 on supporting Proposition 8. “And if that motivates more of them to get out to the ballot box than would have for John McCain by himself that has to benefit socially conservative issues like Prop. 8.”

Yes, no doubt Gov. Palin has energized the Evangelical/Conservative base, though she herself said quite clearly when pressed on this issue by Charlie Gibson, that she does not judge people.

And here is the crux of the matter:

The black community has long had a conflicted relationship with gay men and lesbians, Mr. Buckmire said, equal parts homophobia and denial.

“For too long, black people seemed to think there were no gay people around, especially black ministers,” Mr. Buckmire said. “They’d say the most insanely anti-gay things, and then the choir would come up and the choir is 50 percent gay.”

Still, the tendency of black voters to oppose gay marriage extends beyond religion. Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor of politics at New York University who has studied black voting patterns on same-sex marriage, said black voters consistently polled much lower than white voters on approval for same-sex marriage, about 16 percentage points, even when religion was not a factor.

Well, that's just jake. Everyone is so excited about the increased number of African Americans engaged in this process, and it IS a good thing when Americans are active in the democratic process - we have too often lagged behind other countries in the numbers of citizens going out to vote. But what does it mean when citizens cast their votes to deprive other citizens the right to obtain, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? How do we address this dichotomy? And is it incumbent upon those who claim they wish NOT to deprive an entire class of people to speak out loudly, not just in a letter to one club? I think so. I think too many of our leaders, both in the pulpit and in politics, are far too silent on this issue. It is a matter of EQUALITY, pure and simple. How can one claim to be a Democrat, yet not vote for democracy? It is a quandary for some, for too many, though regardless of color or religion, in my mind, it should not be. The dominant religions of the world are based on one major concept: love. The subset of that is to treat others as one would want to be treated. How, then, can Christians, Jews, or Muslims vote against the right to love? How can African Americans or Hispanics, or any other group that has been marginalized vote to marginalize others? How does one justify that to oneself, especially when some of these people know all too well the pain of being categorized as "Other"?

This is an issue of justice. This is an issue of equality. This is an issue of Democracy. And, this is an issue of love. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."



Couldn't say it better myself...

Sorry, Charlie

Rangel - you are a freakin' IDIOT. How dare you refer to the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate as "disabled"?? Are you NUTS??? You are the Chair of the incredibly powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and you are making these kinds of statements? What, are you in Junior High School or something?? Not like you don't have enough trouble right now what with all of the tax scandals currently pressing on you, but you thought saying something like this, AND REPEATING IT, was going to help? Holy freakin' cow. (If you feel compelled to watch Charlie Rangel make a fool of himself, click HERE.)

You know, I was so happy when you endorsed and supported Senator Clinton. I thought you were a pretty decent guy, and seemed to make some good decisions. But I started to get an idea of how you really operate from the report of tax scandals, for starters, but then the way you could not WAIT to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus for Obama. That said a whole helluva lot to me about you and your character, none of it good. To recap, Rep. Rangel, you were a bit snarky. And now this - what the hell is the matter with you?

I swear, it is like respected members of the Democratic Party are taking on the thuggish, ill-mannered behavior of many of Obama's minions. I expect better from them than this. A lot better.

Along those lines, to be bi-partisan, what the hell is wrong with CHUCK HAGEL? He, too, made some stupid, ill-informed comment about Gov. Palin, the VP candidate for his own PARTY. Yes. First he said he doubted she had the experience to be vice president, especially in terms of foreign policy. Well, okey dokey - way to be a team player, there Chuck! Oh, don't think that's all - he also made fun of her claiming she said she could see Russia from her house. Really, Chuck? Did you not SEE the whole interview?

I have to say, it kinda makes me wonder about Chuck considering his relationship to Obama and the voting machines-formerly-known-as-Diebold. You know, that he is saying this kind of crap about his party's VP candidate. Just coincidence? Maybe, but it makes me a tad suspicious. And I noticed that Chuck hasn't made any kind of similar statements about OBAMA'S lack of experience in foreign policy! Does he think that being on that little junket with Obama this summer is sufficient "foreign policy" experience??? But Palin's going to Kuwait and Germany, plus having to be on constant alert because of the proximity of Russia doesn't count for ANYTHING? Some double standard that.

And while we are talking about experience, I would like to bring the national down to the local. As some of you may know, Charleston had a horrible fire not too long ago, in which a number of fire-fighters were killed. It was the largest number since 9/11 of firefighters killed in one situation. As it turned out, there were things that could have been handled better. To make a long story short, the fire chief stepped down, and they have narrowed down their list of candidates. Wanna know what the main thing was on which they focused on the news last night and in the paper today? Experience. They list the name, the location in which the person is currently serving, and the length of time they have been in fire service. The LOWEST number of years is 30 - that's THIRTY years. To be a fire chief. In a medium sized city. I am the first to say, I WANT my fire chief to be experienced - hell to the YES, I do. Lives depend on that level of experience. And I am sure you see where I am going with this. I want my PRESIDENT to be experienced, too. I want him/her to have experience delegating, fixing, maintaining, reforming, creating whatever needs to be delegated, fixed, maintained, reformed, and created. Being smart doesn't hurt. Yes, Senator CLINTON fits the bill - and had the DNC acted so immorally and unethically, she would be the hands down winner. But they did, and she isn't. I will never forgive them for destroying the Party of the People the way that they have.

But, what real-life executive experience does Obama bring to the table? None. Well, unless you count trying to strong arm state senators to do his bidding in IL, against the wishes of their own constituents, as indicated here:

And the story doesn't end with Obama's support for set-asides. A Chicago Defender story of 1999 features a front-page picture of Obama beside the headline, "Obama: Illinois Black Caucus is broken." In the accompanying article, although Obama denies demanding that black legislators march in perfect lockstep, he expresses anger that black state senators have failed to unite for the purpose of placing a newly approved riverboat casino in a minority neighborhood. The failed casino vote, Obama argues, means that the black caucus "is broken and needs to unite for the common good of the African-American community." Obama continues, "The problem right now is that we don't have a unified agenda that's enforced back in the community and is clearly articulated. Everybody tends to be lone agents in these situations."

Speaking in reply to Obama was Mary E. Flowers, an African-American state senator who apparently broke black caucus discipline and voted to approve the casino's location in a nonminority area. Said Flowers: "The Black Caucus is from different tribes, different walks of life. I don't expect all of the whites to vote alike.  .  .  .  Why is it that all of us should walk alike, talk alike and vote alike?  .  .  .  I was chosen by my constituents to represent them, and that is what I try to do." Given Obama's supposedly post-racial politics, it is notable that he should be the one demanding enforcement of a black political agenda against "lone agents," while another black legislator appeals to Obama to leave her free to represent her constituents, black or white, as she sees fit.

Oh, what the hell - here's a bonus quote:

When the 2000 census revealed dramatic growth in Chicago's Hispanic and Asian populations alongside a decline in the number of African Americans, the Illinois black caucus was alarmed at the prospect that the number of blacks in the Illinois General Assembly might decline. At that point, Obama stepped to the forefront of the effort to preserve as many black seats as possible. The Defender quotes Obama as saying that, "while everyone agrees that the Hispanic population has grown, they cannot expand by taking African-American seats." As in the casino dispute, Obama stressed black unity, pushing a plan that would modestly increase the white, Hispanic, and Asian population in what would continue to be the same number of safe black districts. As Obama put it: "An incumbent African-American legislator with a 90 percent district may feel good about his reelection chances, but we as a community would probably be better off if we had two African-American legislators with 60 percent each."

Someone want to tell me again how Obama sitting in the pew at TUCC for over 20 years was NOT affecting his politics??

But I digress - experience. Obama is sorely lacking in it, and it would behoove both Charlie and Chuck to keep their yaps shut lest the glaring jackass in the room is actually discussed by, oh, I don't know, the MEDIA?!?!?! Just a thought. In any event, you "gentlemen" do not reflect well on your respective parties, or on your chosen (apparently, for Chuck, definitely for Charlie) candidate. Try a bit of decorum, would you? It couldn't hurt, and elevating the gutter politics in which Obama and his minions have engaged would be a blessed relief. Just sayin'.

Clyburn, Climate Change, and African Americans

Well, I'll be darned. You live and learn, as they say. How many of you, by a show of hands, knew that global warming disproportionately impacts African Americans above all other people? Show of hands? *Crickets* Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank heavens I have my representative, Jim Clyburn (aka, "Backstabber") to tell me these things. Otherwise, I would be living under the delusion that global warming affects ALL of us. But what do I know?

In this article, House Majority Whip: Climate Change Hurts Blacks More can tell you all about it), Rep. Clyburn said:

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being.”

Well, okey dokey then. On what did Clyburn base this assertion, one he used to help "launch the Commission to Engage African-Americans on Climate Change, a project of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies"? That would be one prepared by an organization entitled Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (EJCC). This group:

"claims African-Americans are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. EJCC describes itself as a “climate justice” advocacy group.

“Though far less responsible for climate change, African-Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites,” the report says. “Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.

“African-Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S,” it says.

Hmmm. Now, I agree that, "health, housing, economic well-being," etc., etc. are impacted by global warming, and while there is no doubt that many in the wake of Katrina were African American, especially in New Orleans, they were not, by any stretch, the only people affected by that hurricane. They were not the only ones who lost homes, jobs, family, pets, and location as a result. I hasten to add, I am in NO way diminishing the horrors that many in New Orleans and other areas in the Gulf Coast experienced during Katrina (or Gustav, or Ike, for that matter), absolutely not. I just wonder at extrapolating from that event to such a broad statement. But it seems like that is exactly what happened:

The commission Clyburn helped launch claims Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans was a preview of how global warming will affect African-Americans.

“[W]hile individual storms cannot be linked specifically to climate change, scientists warn that warmer waters may foster-more intense storms,” the background paper on the commission’s efforts, authored by Michel Gelobter, Carla Peterman and Azebuilke Akaba said. “The flooding of New Orleans still highlights the vulnerability of the African-American community to types of extreme weather events expected with global climate change.”

Uh huh. I agree absolutely that warmer weather will foster more, and more INTENSE storms - I do live on the SC coast, after all. I am well aware. And I am certainly aware that with ANY of these big storms, it is hard for middle/upper middle class people to leave when things get bad, thus MUCH harder for people who are in a lower economic bracket. No doubt about that. And, no doubt that will include African Americans. And Hispanics, who comprise a larger part of the population than African Americans, by the way. I know that the majority of migrant farmworkers in this area are Hispanic. I am pretty sure that is the case in FL, another state frequently hit by hurricanes. And Caucasians live there, here, in LA, TX, MS...I'm just sayin'.

And another thing I find to be surprising in this report is this: HOW is it that African Americans are not as much to blame as all the rest of us for global warming? I mean, they drive cars, warm/cool their homes, and all of that just like the rest of us do, right? But somehow, they are not as much to blame for it as the rest of us? Please tell me if I am missing something here. I just find that claim to be a bit of a stretch.

And really - in all the world, US African Americans are hit HARDEST by global warming? REALLY? More than, say, China, or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Bangladesh or India that have been hit HARD by monsoons? Yeah. Okay.

There's a little more to the study:

But the goals of environmental and race activists don’t include allowing investors to earn the benefits of putting their money into proposed solutions.

J. Andrew Hoerner, director of the sustainable economics program at Redefining Progress and a co-author of the EJCC report, told the Business & Media Institute that solutions to climate change should be designed in a way so investors don’t reap all the benefits.

“There is a certain disconnect between what is good for workers, consumers, managers, and the economy on one hand and stockholders on the other,” Hoerner said. “We found that the combination of efficient market instruments, return of the revenue, cost-effective promotion of new clean technologies and efficiency, and targeted policies for low-income households grows the economy. It increases employment and profits overall, and provides a net benefit for consumers.”

The report suggested implementing a “fee, tax or allowance auction on polluters,” which was meant to “eliminate the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income households.” This would pay for efforts to reduce global warming. Hoerner said that although it would cause product costs to increase, under his policy, the revenue from the “fee, tax, or allowance auction payment” would be redistributed to consumers to offset the higher costs.

“However, this increase in profits may be smaller than the windfall to stockholders if allowances are given away for free, even though this windfall is partially offset by higher product prices, lower sales, lower production and lower profits on the firm’s output, exclusive of the value of the allowances,” Hoerner continued. “Most businesses are energy consumers, not producers, and their interests lie with household energy consumers.”

Oh, boy. Read those last two paragraphs again. Sounds like it might be a hard sell to me - on all counts.

(If you are interested, go check out this organization: The Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative www.ejcc.org. Go to the "About Us" or whatever it's called section. I am not implying anything untoward about this organization at all - And here is the address for Redefining Progress.)

ACTION ALERT on OBAMA and the LOGAN ACT

A number of us have mentioned that evidence is surfacing regarding Barack Obama's recent trip to Iraq. It seems that he may have violated the Logan Act, which says:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

According to this article by Amir Taheri in the NY Post, Obama did indeed violate the Logan Act by trying to impede troop withdrawal from Iraq for his own political gain. If this is indeed accurate, it is beyond obscene to risk the lives of our service men and women to help his presidential candidacy.

Naturally, the Obama camp has claimed this is not true. The author of the original article claimed it was absolutely true in this follow-up article.

At the very least, this serious charge must be investigated. A site has been set up at which you can email your representatives asking them to investigate whether or not Senator Obama violated the Logan Act. For an extra $3, they will HAND deliver your letter. The link is HERE.

It Was Only A Matter Of Time...

And anyone who thought differently was not paying attention at best, and was horribly naive at worse. Who here remembers how strongly Obama came out against FISA, threatening to filibuster it? Then what did he do? Voted AGAINST his Party to grant the telecom industry immunity. I could go on and on about his changes in position, but no doubt, you have heard all (or most) of them by now.

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.