The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
I saw reports this AM on CNN about Clinton campaign charges that Barack Obama lifted language from another person's speech today, specifically Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who delivered a speech in 2006 when running for office that is similar in nature to one Obama gave. (WaPo):
"Sen. Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric, and the strength of his promises. So I think it's relevant when someone who's running on his rhetoric lifts words from the speeches of another politician," Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said Monday during a conference call with reporters. When asked why the campaign is highlighting the similarities, Wolfson stated that "Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric. She's not running to be the Orator in Chief. She's running to be the president."
Unfortunately for Clinton, the WaPo notes that she has lifted key phrases from her rival.
"We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa," Clinton said in Iowa in early January
Joe Biden famously withdrew from the presidential campaign in 1987 after it was discovered that he lifted quite a bit of a speech from British politician, Neil Kinnock. I presume the Clinton campaign, in its desperation to find something, anything to attack Hillary's rival for the Dem nomination.
All of this seems really weak and desperate though, particularly since Patrick quickly responded to the charge. It's after the jump, along with a video from a man alleging he gave a BJ to Obama in a limo. Oh, it's too much.
In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama's experience, and that they discussed them again last week.
Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama's rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama's speechwriters.
Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.
"Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is," said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. "It's a transcendent argument."
David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama who also advised Mr. Patrick, said Sunday that Mr. Obama adapted the words from Mr. Patrick. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not write the words for either candidate.
"They often riff off one another. They share a world view," Mr. Axelrod said. "Both of them are effective speakers whose words tend to get requoted and arguments tend to be embraced widely."
OK. Whatever. Is this what it's come down to? Where are the discussions about policy matters, for goodness sake? If the Clinton campaign wants to get some traction, this really isn't going to do much. Drawing policy distinctions is more helpful, but clearly not something energizing or headline grabbing, so I get what the game plan is.
***
On the matter of real issues of concern when evaluating candidates, on Sunday I saw a bizarre exchange about Clinton's and Obama's differences in their health care plans. Senior advisor to the Hillary campaign, Kiki McLean, appeared on the normally ridiculous Tucker Carlson show. The MSNBC talking head, queried her about the fact that Clinton's plan mandates that all citizens buy coverage. Naturally, one would want to know what the punishment would be for some poor schmo who cannot afford to buy any plan for themselves or their family. One of the options under consideration by Clinton is to garnish wages. Getting a basic answer to the question of what penalties would be incurred for not complying with the mandate (such as being too poor), was excruciating. McLean said this:
TUCKER CARLSON: If you're going to mandate health insurance, what if people don't, don't obey? And she has said "we're going to garnish wages." Which wages, and how much? Cause she's the substance candidate.
KIKI MCLEAN: She is the substance candidate, and she's looking at the options. She's also said, Senator Obama's team has tried to put out an attack saying she's going to force people who can't afford it to pay for it themselves and that's just not true.
CARLSON: But she's said herself, she's said herself, that she'd be willing to garnish wages. I think that's pretty much exactly what she said.
MCLEAN: She said in one interview that's something to look at. I think the reality is that she's also focusing on bringing everybody -- here's the thing about universal coverage --
...CARLSON: She's soft-selling the stick. She's selling the carrot; she's not talking about the stick, the punishment for not going along with her vision of the Brave New World.
MCLEAN: The reality is, that we're going to have to bring everybody into the plan, and there's going to have to be --
CARLSON: Punishment.
MCLEAN: Outcomes. There's going to have to be an outcome for people who don't participate because it all affects us. Remember, we are a community that lives here.
CARLSON [bursting into laughter]: I love that: an "outcome"!
MCLEAN: There has to be an outcome.
Uh, what exactly does that mean if garnishing wages is on the table? Seriously, Clinton's team needs to come up with better responses than this to convince voters that she's running a campaign about being ready on day one and that Obama's plan is inferior. If she's about substance, folks need to take it all in, good and bad.
However, there is also this problem - Clinton (likely former) close friend and Bill Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich said this about the plan:
I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help - including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance - and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated - that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so. HRC doesn't indicate how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in HRC's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it.
***
To wrap up this post with something truly preposterous and hurl-worthy, take a look at this WND headline:
Uh. Right. Barack Obama can do a lot better than this:
I mean the hotbodies would be lining up for the presidential candidate. How hard up is this poor man for press? Apparently the comments at Larry Sinclair's YouTube video are hilarious. Just one for the record:
With mental illness you believe your own idea of what is true. Anyone can pass a lie detector test if you are mentally ill and believe your lie. The polygraph is inadmissible in court and you will be sued for slander. Your main goal was to besmirch this mans name. This is all very self-serving since you never came forward 9 years ago. Why? Why now? Lets see fame, money, and as stint on Larry King. Go home you sad pathetic little man!
