There was an error in this gadget
0
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Travis <twmccoy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Congressman on Stopping Illegal Aliens: 'I'll Do Anything Short of Shooting Them'
To: baconlard@gmail.com
From: Travis <twmccoy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Congressman on Stopping Illegal Aliens: 'I'll Do Anything Short of Shooting Them'
To: baconlard@gmail.com
Why holdback?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/congressman-illegal-aliens-ill-do-anythi
Congressman on Stopping Illegal Aliens: 'I'll Do Anything Short of Shooting Them'
Thursday, June 30, 2011
By Eric Scheiner
(CNSNews.com) - On Wednesday Rep. Mo Brooks (R.-Ala.) told Alabama TV station WHNT-TV, that he will do "anything short of shooting" illegal aliens to address the issue of illegal immigration.
"They have no right to be here," Brooks said. "They're clogging up our emergency rooms. They're making our education system more expensive, and if you go to the Madison County jail, far too many illegal aliens there because they have victimized Americans."
Brooks added, "As your congressman on the House floor I'll do anything short of shooting them, anything that is lawful. It needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens."
The illegal immigration issue in Alabama has come to the forefront after the passage of a state law that imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. It requires all businesses to check the legal status of workers using the federal E-Verify system.
The law also requires public schools to determine the citizenship status of students.
The Alabama law takes effect Sept. 1.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY?
According to President Obama, he has no higher duty than to protect the American people. But that's not what the Constitution says.
"As President, I have often said that I have no greater responsibility than protecting the American people," wrote President Obama in the new "National Strategy for Counterterrorism" (pdf) that was released by the White House yesterday. A similar sentiment appears in the Introduction to the new Strategy, which states that the President "bears no greater responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of the American people."
This seems like a fateful misunderstanding. As chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces, the President obviously has responsibility for national security. But to claim that he has no greater responsibility than "protecting the American people" is a paternalistic invention that is historically unfounded and potentially damaging to the political heritage of the nation.
The presidential oath of office that is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution (Art. II, sect. 1) makes it clear that the President's supreme responsibility is to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." There is no mention of public safety. It is the constitutional order that the President is sworn to protect, even if doing so entails risks to the safety and security of the American people.
The new Strategy document attempts to foreclose the possibility of any conflict between constitutional values and public security by asserting that the two always coincide. "We are committed to upholding our most cherished values as a nation not just because doing so is right but also because doing so enhances our security." It just so happens, the document says, that constitutional values are instrumentally useful in advancing security. "Adherence to those core values -- respecting human rights, fostering good governance, respecting privacy and civil liberties, committing to security and transparency, and upholding the rule of law -- enables us to build broad international coalitions to act against the common threat posed by our adversaries while further delegitimizing, isolating, and weakening their efforts." (p.4).
But the idea that adherence to constitutional values always enhances security is wishful thinking. The Constitution imposes burdensome limits on government authority and guarantees various rights in order to advance individual freedom, not collective security. As a result, the interests of security and constitutional freedom are often in conflict, and it is necessary to give priority to one or the other. One has to choose.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Obama made a big show 7 weeks into his first term of signing an executive order to do so
-- Funny a genius constitutional lawyer didn't know DOMA would prevent that
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
Obama did not extend benefits to partners of government employees.-------------------------------
Well duh! He can't!
DOMA?
Is this a joke?
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
At 06:12 PM 6/30/2011, you wrote:
>The Border Patrol had the authority to come onto our farm without
>asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens.
>---
>as it should be
>The Border Patrol had the authority to come onto our farm without
>asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens.
>---
>as it should be
Government should VIOLATE (natural) rights with impunity? Do tell.
>How are all these things reconcilable with a free society?
>=---
>we're free because of our ability to uphold our laws
Except this is NOT upholding our laws.
You sound like the Tyrant Lincoln ... by
DESTROYING and acting CONTRARY to what it is your
are 'saving' or 'protecting' you imagine you will somehow 'preserve' it.
Regard$,
--MJ
Modern nationalism and collectivism have, by the
restriction of migration, perhaps come nearest to
the "servile state." …Man can hardly be reduced
more to a mere wheel in the clockwork of the
national collectivist state that being deprived
of his freedom to move.... Feeling that he
belongs now to his nation, body and soul, he will
be more easily subdued to the obedient state serf
which nationalist and collectivist governments demand. -- Wilhelm Röpke
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
minimal government is the goal
On Jun 30, 5:10 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Most Americans Fear A Government That Is Too PowerfulWednesday, June 29, 2011
> As the nation prepares to celebrate Independence Day, more Americans than ever see danger in a government that is too powerful.
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that two-out-of-three Adults (66%) think the bigger danger in the world today is a government that is too powerful rather than a government that is not powerful enough. Just 17% say the larger problem is a government that's not powerful enough. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording,click here.)
> The number of Americans who see more danger in a government with too much power is up several points from findings in surveys back toJune 2008.
> Over half (53%) of Americans now believe thefederal government is more of a threatto individual rights than a protector. Just 23% of voters think the federal government now has theconsent of the governed.(Want afree daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available onTwitterorFacebook.
> The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 23-24, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. Seemethodology.
> Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 72% of Americans not affiliated with either major political party feel the bigger danger in the world today is a government that is too powerful, but that view is shared by just 41% of Democrats.
> However, most voters across all demographic categories agree that a government with too much power is the bigger danger today. Even 64% of government employees feel that way.
> Separate polling finds that45% of U.S. voters agree with the following statement: The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them is now as big as the gap between the American colonies and England during the 18thCentury.
> Sixty-nine percent (69%) remain at least somewhatangry with the current policies of the federal government, including 38% who are Very Angry.Voter approval of Congress' job performancehas fallen to a near five-year low.
> A generic Republican candidate now holds a four-point lead over President Obama ina hypothetical 2012 election matchup. It's a fifth week in a row that the GOP candidate has been ahead and the widest gap between the candidates to date.Additional informationfrom this survey and afull demographic breakdownare available toPlatinum Membersonly. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2011/most_americans_fear_a_government_that_is_too_powerful
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The Border Patrol had the authority to come onto our farm without
asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens.
---
as it should be
asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens.
---
as it should be
How are all these things reconcilable with a free society?
=---
we're free because of our ability to uphold our laws
On Jun 30, 4:34 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Thursday, June 30, 2011Immigration Controls and a Police Stateby Jacob G. Hornberger
> YesterdayI commentedon conservative Pat Buchanan's recent anti-immigration rant. Today, I wish to comment on an aspect of immigration controls that both conservatives and liberals rarely confront the federal government's police-state powers that come with enforcing immigration controls.
> I'd venture to say that most Americans who are upset with the abusive tactics of the TSA at airports have no idea that Americans who live along our country's southern border have had to deal with this type of federal abuse for decades from the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Over the years, the mindset among Americans living elsewhere in the country, I think, has been, "Oh, well, it's not happening to me, so why should I care?"
> Consider, for example, the fact that in Texas the Border Patrol has the legal authority, under the guise of immigration controls, to arbitrarily enter onto any private property that adjoins the Rio Grande. I have personal experience here. I grew up on a farm that adjoined the river. We could easily see Mexico whenever we drove down to the river to check on our irrigation pump.
> The Border Patrol had the authority to come onto our farm without asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens. If we closed the front gate to our farm, they would simply open the gate and drive through, driving and searching all over our farm. If we put a lock on the gate and failed to provide them a key, they'd simply shoot off the lock and just enter onto the property.
> No warrant. No judicial process. Just simple trespass onto our private property and everyone else's along the border.
> Now, I am certain that Pat Buchanan, like every other conservative who favors immigration controls, would be the first to stand up in front of a Heritage Foundation audience and exclaim proudly, "I'm a believer in private property and free enterprise."
> I'm also sure that your standard liberal who favors immigration controls would stand up in front of a Brookings Institute audience and exclaim proudly, "I'm a believer in privacy and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures."
> But with immigration controls, which both conservatives and liberals have long favored, comes enforcement. And warrantless entry onto private property by the Border Patrol has long been part and parcel of that enforcement.
> Oh, I should mention that the Border Patrol's power to arbitrarily enter onto people's private property extends not just to farms and ranches that actually adjoin the border but also to private property that is miles away the border. They call it the "functional equivalent of the border."
> There are also those infamous border-control checkpoints inside the United States to consider. No, I'm not referring to the passport/drug-war checks at the international bridges that span the Rio Grande or other border crossing points. I'm talking about those official checkpoints that the feds have established entirely inside the United States. For example, at the airport in Laredo and on the highway heading north to San Antonio, the Border Patrol and INS are there, asking travelers for their papers and searching their cars and personal belongings even though most of the people are traveling entirely within the United States.
> For Anglo travelers, there is usually no problem, so long as they show the proper deference to federal officials. Light-skinned Hispanics dressed nicely or driving a late-model car are usually waved through. But if an Hispanic is dark-skinned or obviously poor or riding the bus, he had better be carrying his passport because he is going to be closely checked and returned to Laredo if his papers are not in order or, even worse, deported to Mexico.
> Or consider the countless drivers along the border who are arbitrarily stopped by roving Border Patrol agents. A person can just be traveling along a highway and be suddenly pulled over by the Border Patrol and ordered to open up his trunk. No warrant. Just arbitrary stops based on such capricious standards as "The car was riding a bit low" or "The driver was going a bit too slow."
> How are all these things reconcilable with a free society? They're not. Instead, they are the epitome of a police state. They did these things in the Soviet Union. They do them today in Cuba and North Korea.
> Where do conservatives and liberals stand with respect to these police-state policies? Usually they remain silent about them. But they might well favor them or they might decry them. But what's important to keep in mind is that such policies are an integral part of enforcing immigration controls. Saying that one is in favor of immigration controls and against a police state is like saying that one favors lightning and opposes thunder.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-30.asp
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Most Americans Fear A Government That Is Too Powerful
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
As the nation prepares to celebrate Independence Day, more Americans than ever see danger in a government that is too powerful.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that two-out-of-three Adults (66%) think the bigger danger in the world today is a government that is too powerful rather than a government that is not powerful enough. Just 17% say the larger problem is a government that's not powerful enough. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The number of Americans who see more danger in a government with too much power is up several points from findings in surveys back to June 2008.
Over half (53%) of Americans now believe the federal government is more of a threat to individual rights than a protector. Just 23% of voters think the federal government now has the consent of the governed.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 23-24, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 72% of Americans not affiliated with either major political party feel the bigger danger in the world today is a government that is too powerful, but that view is shared by just 41% of Democrats.
However, most voters across all demographic categories agree that a government with too much power is the bigger danger today. Even 64% of government employees feel that way.
Separate polling finds that 45% of U.S. voters agree with the following statement: The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them is now as big as the gap between the American colonies and England during the 18th Century.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) remain at least somewhat angry with the current policies of the federal government, including 38% who are Very Angry.
Voter approval of Congress' job performance has fallen to a near five-year low.
A generic Republican candidate now holds a four-point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup. It's a fifth week in a row that the GOP candidate has been ahead and the widest gap between the candidates to date.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2011/most_americans_fear_a_government_that_is_too_powerful
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Immigration Controls and a Police State
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Yesterday I commented on conservative Pat Buchanan's recent anti-immigration rant. Today, I wish to comment on an aspect of immigration controls that both conservatives and liberals rarely confront the federal government's police-state powers that come with enforcing immigration controls.
I'd venture to say that most Americans who are upset with the abusive tactics of the TSA at airports have no idea that Americans who live along our country's southern border have had to deal with this type of federal abuse for decades from the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Over the years, the mindset among Americans living elsewhere in the country, I think, has been, "Oh, well, it's not happening to me, so why should I care?"
Consider, for example, the fact that in Texas the Border Patrol has the legal authority, under the guise of immigration controls, to arbitrarily enter onto any private property that adjoins the Rio Grande. I have personal experience here. I grew up on a farm that adjoined the river. We could easily see Mexico whenever we drove down to the river to check on our irrigation pump.
The Border Patrol had the authority to come onto our farm without asking us, in the perpetual quest for illegal aliens. If we closed the front gate to our farm, they would simply open the gate and drive through, driving and searching all over our farm. If we put a lock on the gate and failed to provide them a key, they'd simply shoot off the lock and just enter onto the property.
No warrant. No judicial process. Just simple trespass onto our private property and everyone else's along the border.
Now, I am certain that Pat Buchanan, like every other conservative who favors immigration controls, would be the first to stand up in front of a Heritage Foundation audience and exclaim proudly, "I'm a believer in private property and free enterprise."
I'm also sure that your standard liberal who favors immigration controls would stand up in front of a Brookings Institute audience and exclaim proudly, "I'm a believer in privacy and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures."
But with immigration controls, which both conservatives and liberals have long favored, comes enforcement. And warrantless entry onto private property by the Border Patrol has long been part and parcel of that enforcement.
Oh, I should mention that the Border Patrol's power to arbitrarily enter onto people's private property extends not just to farms and ranches that actually adjoin the border but also to private property that is miles away the border. They call it the "functional equivalent of the border."
There are also those infamous border-control checkpoints inside the United States to consider. No, I'm not referring to the passport/drug-war checks at the international bridges that span the Rio Grande or other border crossing points. I'm talking about those official checkpoints that the feds have established entirely inside the United States. For example, at the airport in Laredo and on the highway heading north to San Antonio, the Border Patrol and INS are there, asking travelers for their papers and searching their cars and personal belongings even though most of the people are traveling entirely within the United States.
For Anglo travelers, there is usually no problem, so long as they show the proper deference to federal officials. Light-skinned Hispanics dressed nicely or driving a late-model car are usually waved through. But if an Hispanic is dark-skinned or obviously poor or riding the bus, he had better be carrying his passport because he is going to be closely checked and returned to Laredo if his papers are not in order or, even worse, deported to Mexico.
Or consider the countless drivers along the border who are arbitrarily stopped by roving Border Patrol agents. A person can just be traveling along a highway and be suddenly pulled over by the Border Patrol and ordered to open up his trunk. No warrant. Just arbitrary stops based on such capricious standards as "The car was riding a bit low" or "The driver was going a bit too slow."
How are all these things reconcilable with a free society? They're not. Instead, they are the epitome of a police state. They did these things in the Soviet Union. They do them today in Cuba and North Korea.
Where do conservatives and liberals stand with respect to these police-state policies? Usually they remain silent about them. But they might well favor them or they might decry them. But what's important to keep in mind is that such policies are an integral part of enforcing immigration controls. Saying that one is in favor of immigration controls and against a police state is like saying that one favors lightning and opposes thunder.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-30.asp
 | Obama 2012 Campaign SignEowyn | June 30, 2011 at 11:15 am | Tags: Change You Can Step In, Obama 2012 campaign slogan | Categories: 2012 Election, Humor, Idiot U.S. Presidents | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-7SL |
BREAKING NEWS!
Last night, two intrepid members of Fellowship of the Minds risked life and limbs and snuck into the "Obama 2012" campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C.
They broke into the Super Secret vault and brought back this campaign sign:
[Source]
H/t beloved fellow Dave!
~Eowyn
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/dan-savage-at-white-house_b_887974.html
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. This email and any attached files are privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original message.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"Well, right, I mean the whole Jazz thing was a bit of a cluster fuk,
now wa'n't it? I mean Christ, it did have Freddies, worst song ever,
in Bicycle, but that did lead directly to my, Fat Bottomed Girls, and
I'm actually quite proud o' that one.
now wa'n't it? I mean Christ, it did have Freddies, worst song ever,
in Bicycle, but that did lead directly to my, Fat Bottomed Girls, and
I'm actually quite proud o' that one.
The funniest bit though, was that photo, you know, the one with the
amply bottomed ones on bikes?
No one else thought it so much as clever, but you Yanks found it
offensive. Sold more of our worst album, than we coulda asked for
mate. Who was that gal named, Chipper, whatever - I owe her a beer,
or two! Love that bit of a wench. Frank (as in Zappa) rang me up,
and said she'd mentioned me. Still can't think of her name..., but I
owe her a pint or 2 now don't i
I"
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The communists forget how easy it is for their rhetoric (and policy) to come back and bite them in the ass.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
--Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wonking in the steam room: No leaks allowed, Put away that Dick!
Hilariously the Obamanoid's have censored Time editor Mark Halperin this morning from government-funded MSNBC for saying President Zero behaved like a dick in his press conference yesterday. This pussy has already apologized (though he may be less of a pussy than the other sad sacks at NBC.)That's funny because, just yesterday morning I was in the steam room at Mint (a yuppie gym) at 16th and K Streets NW, two blocks north of the White House. Two perfectly nice heterosexual (wedding rings) guys were in the steam room with me, and though there was nothing wrong with them, they didn't supply a visual tableau that would have kept me there. And then they started talking about Obama.It turns out they were Obamanoid pro-regressive think tank wonks. One happened to mention he was on a panel on nuclear weapons at noon at the New American Foundation, so I was able to google him and see a picture on his website and know that he is on the staff of the "liberal" Ploughshares Foundation. I am sure I could also figure out who the other one was if I wanted to do so. But what was interesting was their conversation:"What do you think about all the stuff Obama is doing? I mean, I could put up with it if it was for a greater good...""Me too, but...""But I can't agree to all this just to keep him in office 4 more years.""Especially the criminalizing of leaks. I mean, what are we going to do when it is President Jeb Bush and all leaking has already been criminalized?"Obama administration presses to stop leaks
The Obama Administration is unrelenting in its campaign against leaks of classified information, despite its failure to uphold its case against a former National Security Agency official who allegedly fed secrets to the Baltimore Sun.Now, the New York Times says, the government is pursuing an arms expert who provided information to Fox News.The administration has prosecuted five criminal cases, compared to a total of three under all previous administrations, the Times said.A secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists accuses the government of "leaping to the most extreme response, felony charges" instead of exploring its many other options."ShareThis
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wonking in the steam room: No leaks allowed, Put away that Dick!
Hilariously the Obamanoid's have censored Time editor Mark Halperin this morning from government-funded MSNBC for saying President Zero behaved like a dick in his press conference yesterday. This pussy has already apologized (though he may be less of a pussy than the other sad sacks at NBC.)
That's funny because, just yesterday morning I was in the steam room at Mint (a yuppie gym) at 16th and K Streets NW, two blocks north of the White House. Two perfectly nice heterosexual (wedding rings) guys were in the steam room with me, and though there was nothing wrong with them, they didn't supply a visual tableau that would have kept me there. And then they started talking about Obama.
It turns out they were Obamanoid pro-regressive think tank wonks. One happened to mention he was on a panel on nuclear weapons at noon at the New American Foundation, so I was able to google him and see a picture on his website and know that he is on the staff of the "liberal" Ploughshares Foundation. I am sure I could also figure out who the other one was if I wanted to do so. But what was interesting was their conversation:
"What do you think about all the stuff Obama is doing? I mean, I could put up with it if it was for a greater good..."
"Me too, but..."
"But I can't agree to all this just to keep him in office 4 more years."
"Especially the criminalizing of leaks. I mean, what are we going to do when it is President Jeb Bush and all leaking has already been criminalized?"
Obama administration presses to stop leaks
The Obama Administration is unrelenting in its campaign against leaks of classified information, despite its failure to uphold its case against a former National Security Agency official who allegedly fed secrets to the Baltimore Sun.
Now, the New York Times says, the government is pursuing an arms expert who provided information to Fox News.
The administration has prosecuted five criminal cases, compared to a total of three under all previous administrations, the Times said.
A secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists accuses the government of "leaping to the most extreme response, felony charges" instead of exploring its many other options."
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Obama did not extend benefits to partners of government employees.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Well duh! He can't!
DOMA?
Is this a joke?
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Jun 30, 10:40 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Politico.com lies about Obama's gay rights
> record<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>
>
> As Richard Grennel pointed out to me, Politico.com reporter Julie Mason's
> list of "Obama's accomplishments" on gay rights is false, just partisan
> puffery. Obama did not extend benefits to partners of government employees.
> But then, *Politico* is a publication whose editors go on TV and assert that
> futures market prices have no affect on current commodity prices (like
> petroleum), because no one there knows any economics.
>
> It's a conundrum for the pro-regressive Obama felchers. On the one hand
> cheerleaders like Michael Beschloss say Obama is a genius with an
> off-the-chats IQ (his college and law school transcripts hidden simply out
> of modesty) and a Constitutional Law Scholar (throw a dart and hit any
> Demwit pig to hear one squeal that). On the other hand he was too stupid to
> realize that when he signed an Executive Order giving spouses of gay federal
> workers benies, DOMA would prevent it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/gay-spouses-and-governme...).
> More empty promises while he reaches for the gay wallet.
>
> from RichardGrenell.com:
>
> dan savage at white house pride reception: obama won't support marriage
> before '12 election, im not
> furious<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> [image: Print]<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Print<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Jun.29, 2011 in civil rights<http://richardgrenell.com/category/civil-rights/>
> , consistent Conservative<http://richardgrenell.com/category/consistent-conservative/>
> , President Obama <http://richardgrenell.com/category/president-obama/> 0
> Comments and 1 Reaction<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Below is the official White House Press Pool Report from President Obama's
> Pride reception at the White House.
> In it you will see that Dan Savage thinks supporting gay marriage is being
> "out on the furthest limb" for Obama so he isn't furious with him for his
> position. Savage also predicts that Obama won't "evolve" on gay marriage
> until February, 2013 – after the next presidential election. You will also
> see that union spokesman Gregory King thinks gays aren't prioritizing
> marriage so Obama doesn't need to either. With supporters like these it's no
> wonder Obama doesn't feel pressure from the gay community.
> *From*: Julie Mason
> *To*: Finkenbinder, Benjamin N.
> *Cc*: Hughes, Caroline E.
> *Sent*: Wed Jun 29 18:43:29 2011
> *Subject*: Pool Report #1 pride reception
> No, he didn't endorse gay marriage.
> The East Room contained: a few hundred attendees, a full bar, a couple of
> small, round tables covered in shimmery purple cloth piled high with canapes
> and desserts: puff pastries, baby lamb chops, mini cupcakes, slices of cake
> and more. The centerpieces were oversized bouquets of roses in pink, orange,
> red and purple. A band played light jazz and R&B.
> The crowd was mostly white and the men significantly outnumbered the women.
> Dan Savage was there — quotes from him after Obama.
> Obama entered the room at 6 p.m. to huge cheers. Facing north, he assured
> the crowd that "Nothing ruins a party like a long speech from a politician"
> and promised to go short. He talked about his accomplishments so far —
> hospital visits, DADT, DOMA, etc.
> He said he understands the frustration many in the gay community feel about
> the pace of accomplishments — "I know I can count on you to let me know," he
> said. "This is not a shy group."
> The crowd interrupted him a few times with spontaneous cheers and applause —
> when he mentioned "spouses" (without endorsing the concept) and more. Check
> the transcript. He spoke for about nine minutes.
> Dan Savage, a columnist, author and gay activist was there with his husband
> (they married in Canada), Terry Miller. Dan was wearing a black and white
> plaid shirt with a small button that said, "evolve already." Terry wore a
> white shirt with a hot pink bow tie.
> "I believe the president should evolve," Savage said. "He says he's
> evolving, I believe him." He added, "I want to hurry him along."
> Savage, a strong proponent for gay marriage, said his presence at the White
> House should not be construed as a surrender on the issue. "We can scream
> and yell and be dicks and wear buttons" and still eat Obama's cupcakes and
> drink his champagne, Savage said.
> He predicted Obama's evolution on gay marriage would be complete in
> February, 2013. Savage called Obama's politics "the art of the possible."
> "We need to keep the pressure on and take 'yes' for an answer," Savage said.
> "I'm not one of the gay activists furious at the president because he's not
> out on the furthest limb" on gay marriage, Savage said.
> Also in the room and willing to make eye contact with the pool: Gregory
> King, a spokesman for AFSCME and a former spokesman for the Human Rights
> Campaign Fund.
> King said, "I think Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any
> president in history."
> "He's been effective at bringing change and ending discrimination," King
> said.
> Regarding gay marriage, "I know many couples who wouldn't place that at the
> top of the agenda," King said.
> Julie Mason
> POLITICO
>
> BigHomo: Dan Savage swallows the Obamam -- "You say
> Santoru...<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>:
> "Obamam (n.) - a trick who doesn't put out, and who isn't even good dinner
> conversation, but who keeps asking to borrow money. 'It was li..."
> Posted by Bruce Majors at 7:36
> AM<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID=...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
>
> Email This<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
> BlogThis!<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Twitter<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Facebook<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Google Buzz<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
>
> 0 comments:
> Politico.com lies about Obama's gay rights
> record<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>
>
> As Richard Grennel pointed out to me, Politico.com reporter Julie Mason's
> list of "Obama's accomplishments" on gay rights is false, just partisan
> puffery. Obama did not extend benefits to partners of government employees.
> But then, *Politico* is a publication whose editors go on TV and assert that
> futures market prices have no affect on current commodity prices (like
> petroleum), because no one there knows any economics.
>
> It's a conundrum for the pro-regressive Obama felchers. On the one hand
> cheerleaders like Michael Beschloss say Obama is a genius with an
> off-the-chats IQ (his college and law school transcripts hidden simply out
> of modesty) and a Constitutional Law Scholar (throw a dart and hit any
> Demwit pig to hear one squeal that). On the other hand he was too stupid to
> realize that when he signed an Executive Order giving spouses of gay federal
> workers benies, DOMA would prevent it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/gay-spouses-and-governme...).
> More empty promises while he reaches for the gay wallet.
>
> from RichardGrenell.com:
>
> dan savage at white house pride reception: obama won't support marriage
> before '12 election, im not
> furious<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> [image: Print]<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Print<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Jun.29, 2011 in civil rights<http://richardgrenell.com/category/civil-rights/>
> , consistent Conservative<http://richardgrenell.com/category/consistent-conservative/>
> , President Obama <http://richardgrenell.com/category/president-obama/> 0
> Comments and 1 Reaction<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Below is the official White House Press Pool Report from President Obama's
> Pride reception at the White House.
> In it you will see that Dan Savage thinks supporting gay marriage is being
> "out on the furthest limb" for Obama so he isn't furious with him for his
> position. Savage also predicts that Obama won't "evolve" on gay marriage
> until February, 2013 – after the next presidential election. You will also
> see that union spokesman Gregory King thinks gays aren't prioritizing
> marriage so Obama doesn't need to either. With supporters like these it's no
> wonder Obama doesn't feel pressure from the gay community.
> *From*: Julie Mason
> *To*: Finkenbinder, Benjamin N.
> *Cc*: Hughes, Caroline E.
> *Sent*: Wed Jun 29 18:43:29 2011
> *Subject*: Pool Report #1 pride reception
> No, he didn't endorse gay marriage.
> The East Room contained: a few hundred attendees, a full bar, a couple of
> small, round tables covered in shimmery purple cloth piled high with canapes
> and desserts: puff pastries, baby lamb chops, mini cupcakes, slices of cake
> and more. The centerpieces were oversized bouquets of roses in pink, orange,
> red and purple. A band played light jazz and R&B.
> The crowd was mostly white and the men significantly outnumbered the women.
> Dan Savage was there — quotes from him after Obama.
> Obama entered the room at 6 p.m. to huge cheers. Facing north, he assured
> the crowd that "Nothing ruins a party like a long speech from a politician"
> and promised to go short. He talked about his accomplishments so far —
> hospital visits, DADT, DOMA, etc.
> He said he understands the frustration many in the gay community feel about
> the pace of accomplishments — "I know I can count on you to let me know," he
> said. "This is not a shy group."
> The crowd interrupted him a few times with spontaneous cheers and applause —
> when he mentioned "spouses" (without endorsing the concept) and more. Check
> the transcript. He spoke for about nine minutes.
> Dan Savage, a columnist, author and gay activist was there with his husband
> (they married in Canada), Terry Miller. Dan was wearing a black and white
> plaid shirt with a small button that said, "evolve already." Terry wore a
> white shirt with a hot pink bow tie.
> "I believe the president should evolve," Savage said. "He says he's
> evolving, I believe him." He added, "I want to hurry him along."
> Savage, a strong proponent for gay marriage, said his presence at the White
> House should not be construed as a surrender on the issue. "We can scream
> and yell and be dicks and wear buttons" and still eat Obama's cupcakes and
> drink his champagne, Savage said.
> He predicted Obama's evolution on gay marriage would be complete in
> February, 2013. Savage called Obama's politics "the art of the possible."
> "We need to keep the pressure on and take 'yes' for an answer," Savage said.
> "I'm not one of the gay activists furious at the president because he's not
> out on the furthest limb" on gay marriage, Savage said.
> Also in the room and willing to make eye contact with the pool: Gregory
> King, a spokesman for AFSCME and a former spokesman for the Human Rights
> Campaign Fund.
> King said, "I think Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any
> president in history."
> "He's been effective at bringing change and ending discrimination," King
> said.
> Regarding gay marriage, "I know many couples who wouldn't place that at the
> top of the agenda," King said.
> Julie Mason
> POLITICO
>
> BigHomo: Dan Savage swallows the Obamam -- "You say
> Santoru...<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>:
> "Obamam (n.) - a trick who doesn't put out, and who isn't even good dinner
> conversation, but who keeps asking to borrow money. 'It was li..."
> Posted by Bruce Majors at 7:36
> AM<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID=...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
>
> Email This<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
> BlogThis!<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Twitter<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Facebook<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Google Buzz<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
>
> 0 comments:
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Jun 30, 10:40 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Politico.com lies about Obama's gay rights
> record<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>
>
> As Richard Grennel pointed out to me, Politico.com reporter Julie Mason's
> list of "Obama's accomplishments" on gay rights is false, just partisan
> puffery. Obama did not extend benefits to partners of government employees.
> But then, *Politico* is a publication whose editors go on TV and assert that
> futures market prices have no affect on current commodity prices (like
> petroleum), because no one there knows any economics.
>
> It's a conundrum for the pro-regressive Obama felchers. On the one hand
> cheerleaders like Michael Beschloss say Obama is a genius with an
> off-the-chats IQ (his college and law school transcripts hidden simply out
> of modesty) and a Constitutional Law Scholar (throw a dart and hit any
> Demwit pig to hear one squeal that). On the other hand he was too stupid to
> realize that when he signed an Executive Order giving spouses of gay federal
> workers benies, DOMA would prevent it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/gay-spouses-and-governme...).
> More empty promises while he reaches for the gay wallet.
>
> from RichardGrenell.com:
>
> dan savage at white house pride reception: obama won't support marriage
> before '12 election, im not
> furious<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> [image: Print]<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Print<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Jun.29, 2011 in civil rights<http://richardgrenell.com/category/civil-rights/>
> , consistent Conservative<http://richardgrenell.com/category/consistent-conservative/>
> , President Obama <http://richardgrenell.com/category/president-obama/> 0
> Comments and 1 Reaction<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Below is the official White House Press Pool Report from President Obama's
> Pride reception at the White House.
> In it you will see that Dan Savage thinks supporting gay marriage is being
> "out on the furthest limb" for Obama so he isn't furious with him for his
> position. Savage also predicts that Obama won't "evolve" on gay marriage
> until February, 2013 – after the next presidential election. You will also
> see that union spokesman Gregory King thinks gays aren't prioritizing
> marriage so Obama doesn't need to either. With supporters like these it's no
> wonder Obama doesn't feel pressure from the gay community.
> *From*: Julie Mason
> *To*: Finkenbinder, Benjamin N.
> *Cc*: Hughes, Caroline E.
> *Sent*: Wed Jun 29 18:43:29 2011
> *Subject*: Pool Report #1 pride reception
> No, he didn't endorse gay marriage.
> The East Room contained: a few hundred attendees, a full bar, a couple of
> small, round tables covered in shimmery purple cloth piled high with canapes
> and desserts: puff pastries, baby lamb chops, mini cupcakes, slices of cake
> and more. The centerpieces were oversized bouquets of roses in pink, orange,
> red and purple. A band played light jazz and R&B.
> The crowd was mostly white and the men significantly outnumbered the women.
> Dan Savage was there — quotes from him after Obama.
> Obama entered the room at 6 p.m. to huge cheers. Facing north, he assured
> the crowd that "Nothing ruins a party like a long speech from a politician"
> and promised to go short. He talked about his accomplishments so far —
> hospital visits, DADT, DOMA, etc.
> He said he understands the frustration many in the gay community feel about
> the pace of accomplishments — "I know I can count on you to let me know," he
> said. "This is not a shy group."
> The crowd interrupted him a few times with spontaneous cheers and applause —
> when he mentioned "spouses" (without endorsing the concept) and more. Check
> the transcript. He spoke for about nine minutes.
> Dan Savage, a columnist, author and gay activist was there with his husband
> (they married in Canada), Terry Miller. Dan was wearing a black and white
> plaid shirt with a small button that said, "evolve already." Terry wore a
> white shirt with a hot pink bow tie.
> "I believe the president should evolve," Savage said. "He says he's
> evolving, I believe him." He added, "I want to hurry him along."
> Savage, a strong proponent for gay marriage, said his presence at the White
> House should not be construed as a surrender on the issue. "We can scream
> and yell and be dicks and wear buttons" and still eat Obama's cupcakes and
> drink his champagne, Savage said.
> He predicted Obama's evolution on gay marriage would be complete in
> February, 2013. Savage called Obama's politics "the art of the possible."
> "We need to keep the pressure on and take 'yes' for an answer," Savage said.
> "I'm not one of the gay activists furious at the president because he's not
> out on the furthest limb" on gay marriage, Savage said.
> Also in the room and willing to make eye contact with the pool: Gregory
> King, a spokesman for AFSCME and a former spokesman for the Human Rights
> Campaign Fund.
> King said, "I think Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any
> president in history."
> "He's been effective at bringing change and ending discrimination," King
> said.
> Regarding gay marriage, "I know many couples who wouldn't place that at the
> top of the agenda," King said.
> Julie Mason
> POLITICO
>
> BigHomo: Dan Savage swallows the Obamam -- "You say
> Santoru...<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>:
> "Obamam (n.) - a trick who doesn't put out, and who isn't even good dinner
> conversation, but who keeps asking to borrow money. 'It was li..."
> Posted by Bruce Majors at 7:36
> AM<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID=...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
>
> Email This<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
> BlogThis!<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Twitter<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Facebook<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Google Buzz<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
>
> 0 comments:
> Politico.com lies about Obama's gay rights
> record<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>
>
> As Richard Grennel pointed out to me, Politico.com reporter Julie Mason's
> list of "Obama's accomplishments" on gay rights is false, just partisan
> puffery. Obama did not extend benefits to partners of government employees.
> But then, *Politico* is a publication whose editors go on TV and assert that
> futures market prices have no affect on current commodity prices (like
> petroleum), because no one there knows any economics.
>
> It's a conundrum for the pro-regressive Obama felchers. On the one hand
> cheerleaders like Michael Beschloss say Obama is a genius with an
> off-the-chats IQ (his college and law school transcripts hidden simply out
> of modesty) and a Constitutional Law Scholar (throw a dart and hit any
> Demwit pig to hear one squeal that). On the other hand he was too stupid to
> realize that when he signed an Executive Order giving spouses of gay federal
> workers benies, DOMA would prevent it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/gay-spouses-and-governme...).
> More empty promises while he reaches for the gay wallet.
>
> from RichardGrenell.com:
>
> dan savage at white house pride reception: obama won't support marriage
> before '12 election, im not
> furious<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> [image: Print]<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Print<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Jun.29, 2011 in civil rights<http://richardgrenell.com/category/civil-rights/>
> , consistent Conservative<http://richardgrenell.com/category/consistent-conservative/>
> , President Obama <http://richardgrenell.com/category/president-obama/> 0
> Comments and 1 Reaction<http://richardgrenell.com/2011/06/dan-savage-at-white-house-pride-rec...>
> Below is the official White House Press Pool Report from President Obama's
> Pride reception at the White House.
> In it you will see that Dan Savage thinks supporting gay marriage is being
> "out on the furthest limb" for Obama so he isn't furious with him for his
> position. Savage also predicts that Obama won't "evolve" on gay marriage
> until February, 2013 – after the next presidential election. You will also
> see that union spokesman Gregory King thinks gays aren't prioritizing
> marriage so Obama doesn't need to either. With supporters like these it's no
> wonder Obama doesn't feel pressure from the gay community.
> *From*: Julie Mason
> *To*: Finkenbinder, Benjamin N.
> *Cc*: Hughes, Caroline E.
> *Sent*: Wed Jun 29 18:43:29 2011
> *Subject*: Pool Report #1 pride reception
> No, he didn't endorse gay marriage.
> The East Room contained: a few hundred attendees, a full bar, a couple of
> small, round tables covered in shimmery purple cloth piled high with canapes
> and desserts: puff pastries, baby lamb chops, mini cupcakes, slices of cake
> and more. The centerpieces were oversized bouquets of roses in pink, orange,
> red and purple. A band played light jazz and R&B.
> The crowd was mostly white and the men significantly outnumbered the women.
> Dan Savage was there — quotes from him after Obama.
> Obama entered the room at 6 p.m. to huge cheers. Facing north, he assured
> the crowd that "Nothing ruins a party like a long speech from a politician"
> and promised to go short. He talked about his accomplishments so far —
> hospital visits, DADT, DOMA, etc.
> He said he understands the frustration many in the gay community feel about
> the pace of accomplishments — "I know I can count on you to let me know," he
> said. "This is not a shy group."
> The crowd interrupted him a few times with spontaneous cheers and applause —
> when he mentioned "spouses" (without endorsing the concept) and more. Check
> the transcript. He spoke for about nine minutes.
> Dan Savage, a columnist, author and gay activist was there with his husband
> (they married in Canada), Terry Miller. Dan was wearing a black and white
> plaid shirt with a small button that said, "evolve already." Terry wore a
> white shirt with a hot pink bow tie.
> "I believe the president should evolve," Savage said. "He says he's
> evolving, I believe him." He added, "I want to hurry him along."
> Savage, a strong proponent for gay marriage, said his presence at the White
> House should not be construed as a surrender on the issue. "We can scream
> and yell and be dicks and wear buttons" and still eat Obama's cupcakes and
> drink his champagne, Savage said.
> He predicted Obama's evolution on gay marriage would be complete in
> February, 2013. Savage called Obama's politics "the art of the possible."
> "We need to keep the pressure on and take 'yes' for an answer," Savage said.
> "I'm not one of the gay activists furious at the president because he's not
> out on the furthest limb" on gay marriage, Savage said.
> Also in the room and willing to make eye contact with the pool: Gregory
> King, a spokesman for AFSCME and a former spokesman for the Human Rights
> Campaign Fund.
> King said, "I think Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any
> president in history."
> "He's been effective at bringing change and ending discrimination," King
> said.
> Regarding gay marriage, "I know many couples who wouldn't place that at the
> top of the agenda," King said.
> Julie Mason
> POLITICO
>
> BigHomo: Dan Savage swallows the Obamam -- "You say
> Santoru...<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/you-say-santorum-and-i-say-oba...>:
> "Obamam (n.) - a trick who doesn't put out, and who isn't even good dinner
> conversation, but who keeps asking to borrow money. 'It was li..."
> Posted by Bruce Majors at 7:36
> AM<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID=...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
> ShareThis<http://mediamattersforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/politicocom-lies-a...>
>
> Email This<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
> BlogThis!<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Twitter<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Facebook<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>Share
> to Google Buzz<http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=1791484820108865981&postID...>
>
> 0 comments:
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
New al-Qaeda Chief Zawahiri Has Strong Nuclear Intent
Jun. 29 2011 - 1:16 pm | 221 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
By RAHIM KANANI
Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife
Rigid, arrogant, unpopular and lacking the necessary charisma to reenergize a battered global terrorist organization, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri has been continually regarded by U.S. officials and veteran terrorism analysts as incapable of following in the footsteps of Osama bin Laden. Perhaps, but underestimating his ability to orchestrate widespread terror is a dangerous consequence of marginalizing his learned skillset, for we must not discount his former position as al-Qaeda's deputy chief and operational commander for years.
We should be especially worried about the threat of nuclear terrorism under Zawahiri's leadership. In a recent report titled "Islam and the Bomb: Religious Justification For and Against Nuclear Weapons", which I researched for and contributed to, lead author Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former director of intelligence and counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy, argues that al-Qaeda's WMD ambitions are stronger than ever. And that "this intent no longer feels theoretical, but operational."
"I believe al-Qaeda is laying the groundwork for a large scale attack on the United States, possibly in the next year or two," continues Mowatt-Larssen in the opening of the report issued earlier this year by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School. "The attack may or may not involve the use of WMD, but there are signs that al-Qaeda is working on an event on a larger scale than the 9/11 attack."
Most will readily dismiss such claims as implausible and unlikely, and we hope they are right, but after spending months with Mowatt-Larssen, who also served as the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's WMD and terrorism efforts, scrutinizing and cross-referencing Zawahiri's 268-page treatise published in 2008 titled "Exoneration", the analytics steered us towards something far more remarkable than expected.
"As I read the text closely, in the broader context of al-Qaeda's past, my concerns grew that Zawahiri has written this treatise to play a part in the ritualistic process of preparing for an impending attack," states Mowatt-Larssen. "As Osama bin Laden's fatwa in 1998 foreshadowed the 9/11 attack, Ayman Zawahiri's fatwa in 2008 may have started the clock ticking for al-Qaeda's next large scale strike on America. If the pattern of al-Qaeda's modus operandi holds true, we are in the middle of an attack cycle."
Among several important findings, Zawahiri sophisticatedly weaves identical passages, sources and religious justifications for a nuclear terrorist attack against the United States previously penned by radical Saudi cleric Nasir al Fahd. Indeed, the language used, research cited, and arguments put forth are nothing short of detailed and deliberate. Reading as both a religious duty to kill millions of Americans and a lengthy suicide note together, this piece of literature is something we must take seriously with Zawahiri now at the helm of al-Qaeda. The time may have come for al-Qaeda's new CEO to leave a legacy of his own.
Concluding the author's note, Mowatt-Larssen states, "Even if this theory proves to be wrong, it is better to overestimate the enemy than to underestimate him. Conventional wisdom holds that al-Qaeda is spent—that they are incapable of carrying out another 9/11. Leaving aside whether this view is correct, for which I harbor grave doubts, we will surely miss the signs of the next attack if we continue to overestimate our own successes, and dismiss what terrorists remain capable of accomplishing when they put their minds to it."
We must remember that Zawahiri's arrogance and rigidness are not substitutes for determination and will.
Rahim Kanani is founder and editor-in-chief of World Affairs Commentary, where he authors articles on international affairs and social change, and interviews global leaders on topics such as human rights, development, security, philanthropy, innovation, education, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 | WOMEN WHO KNOW THEIR PLACE.Steve | June 30, 2011 at 4:04 am | Tags: Afghan afghani, Afghani, Afghanistan, Barbara Walters, Gender role, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Kabul, Land mine | Categories: Culture War, Humor, Islam, Terrorism | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-7S3 |
And all this time I thought...
Barbara Walters, of 20/20, did a story on gender roles in Kabul , Afghanistan , several years before the Afghan conflict. She noted that women customarily walked five paces behind their husbands. She recently returned to Kabul and observed that women still walk
behind their husbands. Despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime, the women now seem happy to maintain the old custom. Ms Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked, 'Why do you now seem happy with an old custom that you once tried so desperately to change?' The woman looked Ms Walters straight in the eyes, and without hesitation said, "Land mines."
Moral of the story is (no matter what language you speak or where you go)
BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE'S A SMART WOMAN!......and, they're always thinking!!
~Steve~ H/T To A Very Smart Woman..May
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
