Pam's House Blend - Barack Obama

Transyouth Katie Hill: Cable News's Only Trans Spokesperson This Weekend?

Autumn Sandeen — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:45:00 GMT

What is it to come out as a transgender youth? What is it to come out as a lesbian youth? CNN's Don Lemon interviewed a couple of LGBT young women about the HRC speech by President Obamba:

As far as I can tell, Katie Hill -- speaking from Tulsa, Oklahoma -- is the only trans person that the cable news networks spoke to this past weekend regarding either the President's speech to the HRC or about coverage of the National Equality March.

She did pretty damn well. I know I'm proud of Ms. Hill in her role as a trans community spokesperson.

But seriously, could the cable news networks find no other trans people to interview than a transyouth from Tulsa? Not one from DC?

The T (transgender) of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community was nearly completely erased from the media coverage this past weekend. This is one of two posts I'll have (hopefully) have up regarding cable news coverage this past weekend.

Former President Carter charges racism is behind Wilson's - and teabagger/birther - outbursts

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:00:00 GMT

Carter's observations may seem obvious to those of us in the coffeehouse. We've seen this racist, code-laden garbage surface during the 2008 campaign only to revive with a bigoted bang right after the inauguration. But it's significant that the former President, a man of the South (as is Joe "You Lie!" Wilson) during a time when there was enormous social race-based upheaval calls it out so bluntly. He knows most of this crap is simply dancing around calling the current President of the United States a n*gger -- and you know Wilson knows it too.

Honestly, I'm surprised these fringe birthers, teabaggers and junior-league Klan member wannabes haven't thrown down that card yet. It's on the tips of their forked tongues. (Huff Post):

"I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

More of what Pres. Carter said, via the WaPo:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter told NBC in an interview. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"
Continued Carter: "And that racism inclination still exists... It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

UPDATE: I just want to note that the the talking heads on the left as well as the right are trying to minimize the amount of racism being tossed out there; as if it's only a handful of people doing this. James Carville was on CNN just this AM trying to downplay the bigotry. I think not. Take a look at my long list -- a sampling -- of what has transpired not just in the South but all over the country. It's not just teabaggers, it's DC insiders and pols spewing racist garbage on the air as fact.

The Morality of Health Care Reform: Competing Voices

TerranceDC — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:59:25 GMT

During Take Back America 2008, I spent part of a day running around with a camera and a microphone asking people which issue was most important to them in the upcoming election. Just when I thought I was done, the camera turned to me and I was faced with the same question.

My answer came quickly and easily: health care reform. When I explained why, the argument that came out of my mouth was based more in morality than economics.

"In a country as wealthy as this one," I said, "It's criminal that a single child lacks coverage and does without health care." I was thinking of my own two kids - particularly Dylan, who was less than a year old, and had regular well-baby checkups. But I was also thinking about children like Deamonte Driver, whose death from complications due to lack of access to dental care and a resulting abscessed tooth made headlines a couple of years ago.

It wasn't because the cost of providing coverage and care to children was less than the cost of not doing so. (Though an $80 tooth extraction would have spared Deamonte the need for brain surgery and $250,000 worth of medical care because of the spreading infection.) It was because of a core belief that, as a country, we have moral imperative to make sure everyone has access to quality health care.

I don't remember where I heard it, but it's something a core belief of mine: Freedom and liberty are meaningless concepts without two things-knowledge of them and the ability to act on them. To my mind, the former is basically education, and the latter means health care. I've come to believe that a country that can't provide those two basic things to its citizens can't have more than a tenuous grasp on the two concepts above.

Not long ago, I wrote that on election night Americans weren't just choosing a president, but choosing the kind of country we want to be. Voting for Barack Obama, on the basis of his campaign platform after eight years of George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, signaled that we were approaching a crossroads as a country and were deciding which road to take.

If this past August is an indication, we're still at that crossroads, shouting at each other over which road to take.

With her acuity for distilling and channeling diverse American voices in her work, Anna Deveare Smith in her recent New York Times piece captures voices on both sides of the health care reform debate, revealing perhaps one of the most difficult tasks xthat reforming health care will require of us: not only are we still deciding what kind of country we want to be, but continuing down the path of change we apparently chose in November will mean changing the story we tell ourselves about who we are and who is included in that "we."

That choice is illustrated in two of the voices Deveare Smith. One, a nurse from the Western United States, illustrates part of the problem some Americans have with health care reform, and specifically with universal health care achieved through a government-funded public heal care plan.

When you come to the West, you have a different mentality. There's an independence and an individuality here that you don't get anyplace else, because when you're in the city, you're kind of like part of the hive. You know, people that take the light rail in to work and come back and live in these big apartment buildings and have restaurants and things and they're fine with that.

Here, people are really, really proud, and they cherish their independence. And they cherish the fact that we are all individuals. And that's what we're afraid of, is that we're going to lose our individuality and we're just going to be part of the hive. If you're just part of the hive, then what are you going to do? You're going to cull out the weak links. You're going to cull out the lady that's on crutches and got diabetes, because she may be a good grandmother and she may be a good person, she lives by herself, and her house is paid for, but you know, her medicines cost a lot.

Another voice, that of a doctor from Montana, shows how much will have to change if we're going guarantee quality , affordable health care for all.

American culture simply has never been based on caring about what happened to your neighbor. It's been based on individual freedom and the spirit of, if I work hard I'll get what I need and I don't have to worry about [the] fellow that maybe can't work hard. It's a pretty cynical view of America.

But I honestly think that drives an awful lot of this debate - the notion that I've done my job, I've worked hard, I've gotten what I'm supposed to get. I have what I need and if the other people don't, then that's sort of their problem. And unfortunately the big picture - that our nation can't thrive with such a disparity between the rich and the poor, the access people and the disenfranchised - that hasn't seemed to really strike a chord with Americans.

So your average person actually has fairly good access. They're happy with their physician and they're really frightened that something's going to happen to that, on behalf of people that maybe they don't think it's their job to take care of

Obama addressed much of this in his speech to Congress. Anyone who wasn't busy heckling might have heard him frame whether or not we have the will to reform health care makes as a defining a test of American character.

That large-heartedness-that concern and regard for the plight of others-is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character-our ability to stand in other people's shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

With so much discussion about what health care reform will or won't cost, and the cost of not reforming health care, every suggested compromise in Congress seems designed to cost less up front while covering fewer people. James Kwak turned the discussion of costs and consumer choice around to one very basic question about health care reform.

This just illustrates that a core function of any health insurance scheme is redistribution. People start out in different economic circumstances, and they suffer different fates in their lives. Without redistribution in some form, the ones who are poor and get sick will simply not be able to afford health care. Cashing out their employer health benefits and giving them "choice" won't change that - especially if they don't have employer health benefits to begin with. Yes, insurance can play a redistributive role on its own, but it only works if poor people can afford to buy insurance that will cover them against serious illness. And once they have that insurance, then the price signals so beloved of conservatives won't function anymore. The problem is really very simple: for price signals to work, you have to be willing to let consumers run out of money, since no one can predict his future health care needs. And then they die.

So what really frustrates me about this whole "consumer choice" fraud is the premise it begins with. It starts out by framing health care as a problem of consumer incentives - health care is too cheap. This is a factually accurate framing that leads you to a dead end (unless you think people who underestimate their future sickness should die). I think the right way to frame this issue is with this question: Given a poor person and a rich person who have the same potentially fatal disease, should both of them live, or only one?

Put another way, it becomes a personal question: If you and a rich person (or someone much wealthier than you) have the same potentially fatal disease, should both of you live, or only one? That our current system often determines that whoever has the most "wins," or that the person with the most money lives, makes it a moral question.

How we answer that question will not only determine if or how we will reform health care, but also what kind of country we become - because ultimately whether everyone should have access to quality, affordable health care, and whether the government should provide that access, is a moral question.

In writing about the moral case for health care reform (and the absence of such an argument in our current debate about health care reform), Ezra Klein quoted T.R. Reid's The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care about successful efforts to reform their health care sector into a national system - by making a moral case for reform.

Both countries decided that society has an ethical obligation - as a matter of justice, of fairness, of solidarity - to assure everybody has access to medical care when it's needed. The advocates of reform in both countries clarified and emphasized that moral issue much more than the nuts and bolts of the proposed reform plans. As a result, the national debate was waged around ideals like "equal treatment for everybody," "we're all in this together," and "fundamental rights" rather than on the commercial implications for the health care industry.

Over the next week, I plan to write about health care reform as a moral issue, in hopes of staring a discussion about why health care reform that provides quality, affordable health care to all Americans is simply the right thing to do.

This Would Be Funnier If Healthcare Reform Weren't So Serious An Issue

Autumn Sandeen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:00:00 GMT

I couldn't be more surprised to find out that I'm apparently now the honest to gawd, serious "face" for the second tier religious right organizations regarding Obama Tranny-Care. On Sunday, Bryan Fischer of RenewAmerica comments on my Sunday piece What A Rational Discussion About Healtcare Reform And "Sex Change Operations" Actually Looks Like with his piece Transgenderism and ObamaCare. With Peter LaBarbera's piece mentioning me, this makes the second conservative "Christian" to call me out by name with regards to healthcare reform and genital reconstruction surgery.

Seriously folk, how the heck did I personally become a face of this "sex change operation" distraction regarding healthcare reform?

Mr. Fischer begins his piece by saying...umm...well, you take a take a look at what he says...

Autumn Sandeen (who is biologically a male in every cell of his body despite adopting a female name) writes at Pam's House Blend that it's all hokum that sex reconstructive surgery could wind up being mandated by ObamaCare, all in an effort to contradict Matt Barber's assertion that it almost certainly will.

Hokum? Who the heck says "hokum" anymore? Jiminy Crickets, I'm being derided in the language of homespun colloquialisms!

Later in the piece, Mr. Fischer states:

Sandeen goes on unwittingly to defeat his argument in two ways by calculating the cost per American to have gender reconstructive surgery included in ObamaCare. Okay, if there's no chance it's going to be in there, why is he working so hard to convince us how cheap it will be? Sounds like he's drumming up an argument to me.
He calculates that the cost, spread out over the entire population of the U.S., would only be about $1.73 per person per year. This is a self-defeating line of reasoning. If that's all it costs, why there should be plenty of compassionate, gay-friendly Americans who would happily pony up contributions to a charitable organization created to dispense vouchers to psychologically confused Americans who want to surgically mutilate themselves.

Best for last -- the conclusion:

If any tax dollars are to be spent on transgenderism at all, they should be spent on reparative therapy, helping these tortured individuals reconcile their psychological identity with their biological identity. True compassion, after all, liberates. It does not enable.

I thought reparative therapy is supposed to change sexual orientation, and I've already been celibate since 1992. Exactly what type of therapy is recommended for changing my gender identity, and in light of Matthew 19:12's comment that one can change the shape of one's genitalia for the "sake of the kingdom of heaven"? What would be the reason Christ demand I go to reparative therapy, or for taxpayers to pay for that kind of therapy?

And, by the way, I already went to reparative therapy in the late 1970's, and it didn't cure me of having a female gender identity. My 20-years in the U.S. Navy (1980-2000) didn't cure me of having a female gender identity either. Sending me to reparative therapy at this point would be fraud, waste, and abuse related to taxpayer spending.

On a very personal level, I'm a disabled veteran who's healthcare is provided through the Department of Veteran Affairs due to service connected medical conditions. Seriously, dear blenders, how many of you believe that the healthcare reform bill that passes through Congress and is signed by President Obama is going to result in the Department of Veteran Affairs doctors performing genital reconstruction surgery on me? Does anyone actually believe that is going to happen?

I don't believe it for a minute.

Despite what the Liberty Council, Matt B arber, Peter L aBarbera, Roger Hedgecock and Bryan Fischer might say -- and may even actually believe, although I doubt that -- I personally cannot imagine a scenario where healthcare reform results in genital reconstruction surgery for anyone in the near future.

Apparently, conservative "Christians" believe this red herring -- this exercise in needling -- will derail healthcare reform. I guess combined with the arguments about how ObamaCare is going to fund abortions and kill old people, they think it'll work. I hope these conservative "Christians" -- those who to me appear to be doing grunt work for the Republican Party and the insurance industry -- are wrong about these distractive arguments derailing healthcare reform, but I see their arguments based on fear as gaining traction.

Too bad. The 47-million Americans who don't currently don't have healthcare insurance deserve better than this kind of issue misdirection. Those Americans who are losing their healthcare because of preexisting conditions deserve better than this. Hey, I can't help but believe we all deserve a better level of discourse on healthcare reform than these kinds of spurious arguments at the margins.

This all really would be funnier to me if healthcare reform weren't so serious an issue.

~~~~~
Further reading:
* Pastiche Foundation: Bryan Fischer disses Autumn Sandeen
* A.E.Brain: The Incidence of Transsexuality
* Women Born Transsexual: The Attack on Autumn Sandeen by Porno Pete LaBarbera

What A Rational Discussion About Healthcare Reform And "Sex Change Operations" Actually Looks Like

Autumn Sandeen — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Recently, I thought I addressed pretty directly how Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality was being used as a tool of the insurance industry when he engaged in wrote about how "sex change operations" were allegedly going to be a big portion of the "Obama Tranny-Care" plan for healthcare reform. Mr. LaBarbera continued his attacks on the "Obama Tranny-Care" plan on Thursday -- still based on the drummed up worry that the healthcare reform will include some form of allowance for "sex change operations." This time, instead of going after me directly, or explaining the Peter LaBarbera plan for insuring 47-million uninsured Americans, he goes after the larger target of Rachel Maddow in his piece Maddow Stumbles on Obama-Care and Transsexual 'Sex-Change' Surgeries: Barber (this time we saved Mr. LaBarbera's red, white, and blue formatting):

Maddow Misinformation: MSNBC's resident lesbian activist Rachel Maddow (left) lied about Matt Barber's press statement regarding the potential of Obama-Care to become "Tranny-Care" by mandating coverage for body-disfiguring transsexual "sex change" operations.
Folks, we hope that Rachel Maddow (left) -- the lesbian MSNBC talker who is as "out" in her homosexuality promotion as in her left-wing activism -- takes up the offer of my good friend Matt Barber and lets him appear as a guest on her show. That seems only fair after Maddow lied about Barber's statement on Obama-care and "sex-change" operations.
We understand that liberals don't want to talk (rationally, anyway) about Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual "sex-change" procedures as "health care." That is why we must discuss these awful possibilities. (By the way, even before Barber's column, below, the conservative Heritage Foundation's blog noted that President Obama's favorite think tank, the liberal-left Center for American Progress, was beating the drums for adding "sex change operations to the list of medical procedures that all health insurance policies in the nation must cover.") -- Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

Mr. LaBarbera continues on to include a piece by his friend Matt Barber, but not before including a call to attend his Americans For Truth About Homosexuality fundraiser that's right in the middle of his piece on sex change operations. It's the "First let's hear a word from your sponsor moment...

BANQUET REMINDER: Culture warrior and former professional boxer Matt Barber (right) is coming to Chicago on Saturday, Oct. 24 to keynote the AFTAH fundraising banquet. The dinner is being held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL, and tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online (just note "AFTAH banquet" in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate it "AFTAH Banquet") to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please spread the word and make plans to come! E-mail aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.

Good gravy boat, so to speak. In all that commentary, no apology from Mr. LaBarbera for his previous use of defamatory language? And hey -- What does this dinner have to do with health care reform or "sex change operations"?

Certainly, I appreciate that Peter LaBarbera references an article here at Pam's House Blend when he states "liberals" are not wanting to "rationally" (see his link related to his article's rationally, anyway phrase) discuss "Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual 'sex-change' procedures as 'health care.'" Really. And when we're discussing 47-million Americans without healthcare, compared to the perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 transsexuals who annually obtain genital reconstruction surgery -- or should I more correctly say 1,170 transsexuals a year -- we're talking serious money, correct?

The Liberty Council, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, and the general public should be interested in regarding the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery (also referred to as sex reassignment surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and "sex change operations"). I've linked here to two research papers by Mary Ann Horton, PhD, that goes to the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) entitled The Incidence and Prevalence of SRS among US Residents, and The Cost of Transgender Health Benefits. A summary of the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery from the website tgender.net:

The research study was undertaken from 2001 through 2008 by Mary Ann Horton, Ph.D. The goal was to measure the frequency and cost of sex reassignment surgeries [SRS], and to use this information to project the total cost of Transgender Health Benefits for the employees of large companies. This data could be used to help employers estimate what it would cost if they chose to include coverage of THBs [Transgender Health Benefits] in their employee health benefit plans...

[More below the fold.]

...Dr. Horton sent surveys to all surgeons who perform SRS and related surgeries on US residents, asking how many surgeries were performed in the year 2001, and how much they cost. Both Male to Female (MTF) and Female to Male (FTM) data were collected. An excellent response rate permitted the creation of high quality data about surgeries.
Approximately 1170 (all figures rounded) US transsexuals had their primary SRS in 2001. (Many went to other countries for their surgery, but the study was restricted to US resident patients, having the SRS in any country.) The average MTF cost was about $10,400, and the average FTM surgery (including top and, for those who had it, bottom surgery) was about $17,900. MTF surgeries outnumbered FTM surgeries 740 to 430, leading to an average combined cost for SRS of $12,900.
The annual cost per resident US resident for SRS was 5.3¢. Combined with the cost for hormones, doctor's office visits, and therapy, the total annual cost per resident for all THBs was 17.3¢. Of this, 8¢ or more is likely to be currently covered, and with full coverage, the employee share averages 2.6¢ therefore, the added cost to an employer to cover all four transgender health benefits is projected at 6.6¢/year/resident or less.

Let's assume that if the US Government mandated that insurance companies covered GRS (or if you prefer, SRS), and that Dr. Horton's cost figures were now off by even a factor of 10. Even if the cost were off by a factor of 10, we would still be talking about $1.73 per United States resident per year . And put into an inflation calculator, that factor-of-10 cost of $1.73 per American per year in 2001 dollars would translate to $2.11 per American per year in 2008 dollars.

This is the kind of rational discussion material that we need to have when we discuss the cost of covering genital reconstruction surgeries. This is the kind of rational discussion that apparently Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, and the rest of the Liberty Council don't apparently want the American public to have. Instead, they want to try to portray the United States Government's alleged "mandating" of "sex change operations" as some sort of massive fraud, waste, and abuse. Instead, they want to stoke the fears of Americans by discussing how "Obama Tranny-Care" is going to fund "sex change operations" in the scariest and most defamatory terms possible.

Let me be blunt: Apparently, having a "rational discussion" with a conservative "Christian" -- such as Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, or the rest of the Liberty Council -- means "discussing" issues in the most fact free way possible. Conservative "Christians" don't need to engage in real analysis of actual available study data; those don't need to be referenced or addressed. And more broadly, we don't need to come up with a solution for what to do with 47-million uninsured Americans.

I guess when Mr. LaBarbera feels uninhibited in using defamatory language against a minority group, he doesn't have to consider the actual people he directs that kind of language at as actually being human. Let me put it this way: if Peter LaBarbera used a term like the n-word to describe African-Americans with regards to healthcare, or used the other f-word to describe gay men with regards to healthcare, how Peter LaBarbera used the term tranny in his recent description of healthcare reform would be in the same vein.

Using defamatory language is apparently what a conservative "Christian" Peter LaBarbera believes a "rational" discussion of healthcare reform, "sex change operations," and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community includes. Call me crazy, but I don't agree.

I said it last Wednesday (August 5, 2009) in my piece ObamaCare Is Apparently "Obama Tranny-Care," And I'm Apparently The Poster Child Of It, and I'll repeat it here again:

Let's keep in mind what those who are bringing up "sex change operations" don't really care that much about whether or not I personally get genital reconstruction surgery paid for by the government; what these folk really want to do is derail all healthcare reform -- and if badmouthing trans people like me is how they believe they can derail it, then they're going to badmouth trans people like me.
Peter is just being a tool, but what's new.

And I'll even add that I believe that Peter, Matt, and the Liberty Council are functionally tools of the Republican Party and insurance industry in trying to gin up social conservatives to work towards killing healthcare reform.

And hey, I'm sure that blindly working for the Republican Party and insurance industry is something that Jesus would do, don't you think?

~~~~~
Further, reading:
* Roger Hedgecock at WingNutDaily: Crossroads for health insurance 'reform'
* Matt Barber at Canada Free Press: Sex-Change-apalooza
* Audio from Concerned Women For America: Taxpayer Funded Sex-Change Operations Likely Under Obamacare:

(Interview of Matt Barber)
* The Right Perspective: Free Sex-Swap Ops Under ObamaCare Plan
* Parents And Friends Of Ex-Gays (PFOX): Will taxpayers pay for sex-change surgeries?
* Morgan County Citizen: Be Careful What You Wish For

From the less scary side of the issue:
* Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Norman: Mandatory sex change and other sides of healthcare reform
* Mercedes Allen at Bilerico: Why "Sex Change" Surgery is Medically Necessary

.

ObamaCare Is Apparently "Obama Tranny-Care," And I'm Apparently The Poster Child Of It

Autumn Sandeen — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:22:42 GMT

I took a whiff of my right arm underarm this morning, and had no idea that I was smelling what ObamaCare smells like. Or should I say, the armpit of my right "chicken wing" smells an awful much like what Taxpayer-Funded Tranny-Care would smell like, and this stinkiness is at the heart of the ObamaCare healthcare reform plan.

And on top of stinking like my armpit this morning, ~~ObamaCare~~ "Obama's Tranny-Care" looks an awful lot like me too...except, umm, circa 2004. Who knew? (Hey -- couldn't President Obama use a more current picture of me? I'm thinner and cuter now, thanks to Bush's "Tranny-Care" healthcare plan!)

And yet apparently, President Obama has been working diligently behind the scenes to fund genital reconstruction surgery -- apparently this was all part of his evil plan from the get-go. From Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth About Homosexuality comes an article entitled Taxpayer-Funded Tranny-Care? ObamaCare Could Mandate Free 'Sex-Change' Surgeries

Transsexual activists like Autumn Sandeen (...that's his "female" name -- adopted after leaving his traditional role as husband and father) are caught up in gender confusion. For some, this culminates in body-disfiguring operations to "change" into the opposite sex. No American should be forced to pay for these nature-rejecting procedures with his or her tax dollars. Homosexual groups like Human Rights Campaign boast of their support for taxpayer-funded "sex-change" operations in cities like San Francisco.
Folks, you don't have to be very politically sophisticated to predict that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) activists and their liberal allies are going to demand "Tranny-Care" under a federal health insurance system, in the name of "fairness" and "inclusion" - even if it's not passed initially as a "benefit." And yes, the idea of subsidizing body-disfiguring "operations" surely would be considered "queer" by the average tax-paying American. Already, trans activists are strategizing on the best ways to get taxpayers to pay for their gender-confused mutilations ~~"sex change" procedures~~ -- and Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual lobby groups boast of their support for same in cities like San Francisco.
-- Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

Mr. LaBarbera then goes off on to highlight the Liberty Counsel's take on HR 3200 where the "sex change operations" are brought up as a red herring, and then he follows up with the Liberty Council piece by his friend Matt Barber (that Pam wrote about yesterday).

Seriously. Personal attacks related to when I divorced my ex-spouse seem a bit much from someone whose Republican and Christian peers include Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator John Ensign, and ex-Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. And indirectly referring to me and my trans peers by the term "tranny" when he no doubt knows the term is often used as a defamatory term? -- including in how Mr. LaBarbera has used this term as a defamatory term in this very article?

And frankly, what does any of that have to do with healthcare reform?

Let's be frank here. This discussion of my ex-spouse, my children, and sex change operations in regards to healthcare reform are red herrings. These discussion points of abortions going to be federally funded by healthcare reform (these won't be), that America's over-65 year old folk are going to have government employees at their homes demanding they make living wills (they won't), and now "sex change operations" are diversionary tactics, which are related to being obstructive with regards to healthcare reform. These opponents to healthcare reform are also being intentionally obtuse on the real issues related to the current unsustainable cost growth tied to American healthcare, insurance reform, and how 47-million Americans currently have no health insurance.

And frankly too, Mr. LaBarbera is trying to engage in the fallacious argument of needling by directing personal attacks at me and using defamatory language regarding all trans people.

What Mr. LaBarbera doesn't seem to be aware of is that I'm already on the President Bush "Tranny-Care" system. In 2002, I was declared to be a service-connected, disabled veteran. I spent years serving America in the United States Navy, and am officially listed as a Persian Gulf War veteran (although I never was involved in combat operations); I retired from the military with 20-years of service to my country in 2000. Currently, my Veterans Administration (VA) disability rating is 100%.

When I had my Gastric Bypass in February of 2008, American taxpayers paid for it. The point I'm trying to make with that is that healthcare for most trans people -- including me -- does include medical treatments related to being trans, but more importantly we have health issues of the types that the broad swath of Americans have. The shape of my peers' and my genitalia shouldn't place treatment for our basic healthcare needs out of many Americans' reach, my trans peers' reach, and my reach.

Let's keep in mind what those who are bringing up "sex change operations" don't really care that much about whether or not I personally get genital reconstruction surgery paid for by the government; what these folk really want to do is derail all healthcare reform -- and if badmouthing trans people like me is how they believe they can derail it, then they're going to badmouth trans people like me.

Peter is just being a tool, but what's new.

~~~~~
Further Reading (and a big hat tip!):
* Good As You: The Autumn Of Pete's Discontent

DADT: What The President Says And What Its Admin Does Are Two Different Things

Autumn Sandeen — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:00:00 GMT

As one lesbain, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified, disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran, I find this interview of Rep. Alcee Hastings by Rachel Maddow to be incredibly disturbing.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rep. Alcee Hastings: ...[T]he time is now to eliminate this bigoted law, once and for all.
Rachel Maddow: When you are hearing that the time isn't right, when your hearing from fellow Democrats -- even from fellow opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" --- that the time's not right for your amendment, that this ought to be delayed, that there's a more strategic way to do it -- are you also hearing that there is a White House endorsed strategy for when to get rid of it, or is it being put off indefinitely?
Rep. Alcee Hastings: Very good question. I have not heard anything other than the rhetoric. I wrote to the White House on June 22nd, and had 76 other members of Congress to join me in a letter to the president explaining what the President can do right now. And that's what I was attempting to do with the amendment -- and that's saying to the Secretary of Defense "Stop it. Just don't put anyone else out of the service." ...

So, this is a continuation of the story we've read Tuesday (July 28, 2009) and yesterday (July 29, 2009) about this story here at The Blend. And again, as an LGBT identified, disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran, I find this interview of Rep. Alcee Hastings by Rachel Maddow to be incredibly disturbing. What this says to me about the Obama Administration's to lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers, sailors, and veterans is not something I find reasonable or acceptable.

The President to the NAACP: discrimination against 'our gay brothers and sisters' must not stand

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:17:19 GMT

The President delivered a very good speech this evening at centennial conference of the NAACP.

Considering the NAACP event featured a 96-page program full of essential sessions on the promises and challenges facing the black community in America today failed to include anything regarding the inequality black LGBTs face within and outside the community, the President included a message about this that this audience needed to hear.

His full speech is below the fold, but I wanted to pull out this section of interest; it's the Barack Obama we saw during the campaign who dared to challenge the conservative, portion of the religious black community that has been fostering discrimination in the pews, and clearly whose pressure was felt by NAACP head Ben Jealous, an ally, when he chose in his capacity as the organization's national voice to not take any position on marriage equality.

Below is the portion of President Obama's speech. This excerpt is at 9:30 min/sec into this video.

But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America.

We can only infer that his lack of inclusion of transgender in the "brothers and sisters" remark is not meant as an oversight, but the frequently used inaccurate generalization by the public that "gay" is an inclusive term; seriously, they need to work on that).

But overall, this speech is so powerful because it addresses the breadth of discrimination that has been seen in this country. All of the injustices have one thing in common -- oppression and bigotry are wrong in any context, toward any group of people.

As we know, the President is capable of delivering inspiring speeches of promise; we also know that turning those promises into policy and reality is another thing altogether. It's hard work, and we must continue to lean into the wind, the political wind that tries to wear us down, push us over and change in mid-direction to keep us off stride and take our eyes off of the prize of equality.

We will hold him to those bright, shining promises.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________________

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

NAACP Centennial
New York, New York
July 16, 2009

It is an honor to be here, in the city where the NAACP was formed, to mark its centennial. What we celebrate tonight is not simply the journey the NAACP has traveled, but the journey that we, as Americans, have traveled over the past one hundred years.

It is a journey that takes us back to a time before most of us were born, long before the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. Board of Education; back to an America just a generation past slavery. It was a time when Jim Crow was a way of life; when lynchings were all too common; and when race riots were shaking cities across a segregated land.

It was in this America where an Atlanta scholar named W.E.B. Du Bois, a man of towering intellect and a fierce passion for justice, sparked what became known as the Niagara movement; where reformers united, not by color but cause; and where an association was born that would, as its charter says, promote equality and eradicate prejudice among citizens of the United States.

From the beginning, Du Bois understood how change would come – just as King and all the civil rights giants did later. They understood that unjust laws needed to be overturned; that legislation needed to be passed; and that Presidents needed to be pressured into action. They knew that the stain of slavery and the sin of segregation had to be lifted in the courtroom and in the legislature.

But they also knew that here, in America, change would have to come from the people. It would come from people protesting lynching, rallying against violence, and walking instead of taking the bus. It would come from men and women – of every age and faith, race and region – taking Greyhounds on Freedom Rides; taking seats at Greensboro lunch counters; and registering voters in rural Mississippi, knowing they would be harassed, knowing they would be beaten, knowing that they might never return.

Because of what they did, we are a more perfect union. Because Jim Crow laws were overturned, black CEOs today run Fortune 500 companies. Because civil rights laws were passed, black mayors, governors, and Members of Congress serve in places where they might once have been unable to vote. And because ordinary people made the civil rights movement their own, I made a trip to Springfield a couple years ago – where Lincoln once lived, and race riots once raged – and began the journey that has led me here tonight as the 44th President of the United States of America.

And yet, even as we celebrate the remarkable achievements of the past one hundred years; even as we inherit extraordinary progress that cannot be denied; even as we marvel at the courage and determination of so many plain folks – we know that too many barriers still remain.

We know that even as our economic crisis batters Americans of all races, African Americans are out of work more than just about anyone else – a gap that’s widening here in New York City, as detailed in a report this week by Comptroller Bill Thompson.

We know that even as spiraling health care costs crush families of all races, African Americans are more likely to suffer from a host of diseases but less likely to own health insurance than just about anyone else.

We know that even as we imprison more people of all races than any nation in the world, an African-American child is roughly five times as likely as a white child to see the inside of a jail.

And we know that even as the scourge of HIV/AIDS devastates nations abroad, particularly in Africa, it is devastating the African-American community here at home with disproportionate force.

These are some of the barriers of our time. They’re very different from the barriers faced by earlier generations. They’re very different from the ones faced when fire hoses and dogs were being turned on young marchers; when Charles Hamilton Houston and a group of young Howard lawyers were dismantling segregation.

But what is required to overcome today’s barriers is the same as was needed then. The same commitment. The same sense of urgency. The same sense of sacrifice. The same willingness to do our part for ourselves and one another that has always defined America at its best.

The question, then, is where do we direct our efforts? What steps do we take to overcome these barriers? How do we move forward in the next one hundred years?

The first thing we need to do is make real the words of your charter and eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States. I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there’s probably never been less discrimination in America than there is today.

But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America.

But we also know that prejudice and discrimination are not even the steepest barriers to opportunity today. The most difficult barriers include structural inequalities that our nation’s legacy of discrimination has left behind; inequalities still plaguing too many communities and too often the object of national neglect.

These are barriers we are beginning to tear down by rewarding work with an expanded tax credit; making housing more affordable; and giving ex-offenders a second chance. These are barriers that we are targeting through our White House Office on Urban Affairs, and through Promise Neighborhoods that build on Geoffrey Canada’s success with the Harlem Children’s Zone; and that foster a comprehensive approach to ending poverty by putting all children on a pathway to college, and giving them the schooling and support to get there.

But our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state, and structure, of the broader economy; an economy fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy built not on a rock, but sand. That is why my administration is working so hard not only to create and save jobs in the short-term, not only to extend unemployment insurance and help for people who have lost their health care, not only to stem this immediate economic crisis, but to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity that will put opportunity within reach not just for African Americans, but for all Americans.

One pillar of this new foundation is health insurance reform that cuts costs, makes quality health coverage affordable for all, and closes health care disparities in the process. Another pillar is energy reform that makes clean energy profitable, freeing America from the grip of foreign oil, putting people to work upgrading low-income homes, and creating jobs that cannot be outsourced. And another pillar is financial reform with consumer protections to crack down on mortgage fraud and stop predatory lenders from targeting our poor communities.

All these things will make America stronger and more competitive. They will drive innovation, create jobs, and provide families more security. Still, even if we do it all, the African-American community will fall behind in the United States and the United States will fall behind in the world unless we do a far better job than we have been doing of educating our sons and daughters. In the 21st century – when so many jobs will require a bachelor’s degree or more, when countries that out-educate us today will outcompete us tomorrow – a world-class education is a prerequisite for success.

You know what I’m talking about. There’s a reason the story of the civil rights movement was written in our schools. There’s a reason Thurgood Marshall took up the cause of Linda Brown. There’s a reason the Little Rock Nine defied a governor and a mob. It’s because there is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child’s God-given potential.

Yet, more than a half century after Brown v. Board of Education, the dream of a world-class education is still being deferred all across this country. African-American students are lagging behind white classmates in reading and math – an achievement gap that is growing in states that once led the way on civil rights. Over half of all African-American students are dropping out of school in some places. There are overcrowded classrooms, crumbling schools, and corridors of shame in America filled with poor children – black, brown, and white alike.

The state of our schools is not an African-American problem; it’s an American problem. And if Al Sharpton, Mike Bloomberg, and Newt Gingrich can agree that we need to solve it, then all of us can agree on that. All of us can agree that we need to offer every child in this country the best education the world has to offer from the cradle through a career.

That is our responsibility as the United States of America. And we, all of us in government, are working to do our part by not only offering more resources, but demanding more reform.

When it comes to higher education, we are making college and advanced training more affordable, and strengthening community colleges that are a gateway to so many with an initiative that will prepare students not only to earn a degree but find a job when they graduate; an initiative that will help us meet the goal I have set of leading the world in college degrees by 2020.

We are creating a Race to the Top Fund that will reward states and public school districts that adopt 21st century standards and assessments. And we are creating incentives for states to promote excellent teachers and replace bad ones – because the job of a teacher is too important for us to accept anything but the best.

We should also explore innovative approaches being pursued here in New York City; innovations like Bard High School Early College and Medgar Evers College Preparatory School that are challenging students to complete high school and earn a free associate’s degree or college credit in just four years.

And we should raise the bar when it comes to early learning programs. Today, some early learning programs are excellent. Some are mediocre. And some are wasting what studies show are – by far – a child’s most formative years.

That’s why I have issued a challenge to America’s governors: if you match the success of states like Pennsylvania and develop an effective model for early learning; if you focus reform on standards and results in early learning programs; if you demonstrate how you will prepare the lowest income children to meet the highest standards of success – you can compete for an Early Learning Challenge Grant that will help prepare all our children to enter kindergarten ready to learn.

So, these are some of the laws we are passing. These are some of the policies we are enacting. These are some of the ways we are doing our part in government to overcome the inequities, injustices, and barriers that exist in our country.

But all these innovative programs and expanded opportunities will not, in and of themselves, make a difference if each of us, as parents and as community leaders, fail to do our part by encouraging excellence in our children. Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land. We need a new mindset, a new set of attitudes – because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way that we have internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little of ourselves.

We have to say to our children, Yes, if you’re African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not. But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands – and don’t you forget that.

To parents, we can’t tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel, we must accept our own responsibilities. That means putting away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. It means attending those parent-teacher conferences, reading to our kids, and helping them with their homework.

And it means we need to be there for our neighbor’s son or daughter, and return to the day when we parents let each other know if we saw a child acting up. That’s the meaning of community. That’s how we can reclaim the strength, the determination, the hopefulness that helped us come as far as we already have.

It also means pushing our kids to set their sights higher. They might think they’ve got a pretty good jump shot or a pretty good flow, but our kids can’t all aspire to be the next LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. I want them aspiring to be President of the United States.

So, yes, government must be a force for opportunity. Yes, government must be a force for equality. But ultimately, if we are to be true to our past, then we also have to seize our own destiny, each and every day.

That is what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP was not founded in search of a handout. The NAACP was not founded in search of favors. The NAACP was founded on a firm notion of justice; to cash the promissory note of America that says all our children, all God’s children, deserve a fair chance in the race of life.

It is a simple dream, and yet one that has been denied – one still being denied – to so many Americans. It’s a painful thing, seeing that dream denied. I remember visiting a Chicago school in a rough neighborhood as a community organizer, and thinking how remarkable it was that all of these children seemed so full of hope, despite being born into poverty, despite being delivered into addiction, despite all the obstacles they were already facing.

And I remember the principal of the school telling me that soon all of that would begin to change; that soon, the laughter in their eyes would begin to fade; that soon, something would shut off inside, as it sunk in that their hopes would not come to pass – not because they weren’t smart enough, not because they weren’t talented enough, but because, by accident of birth, they didn’t have a fair chance in life.

So, I know what can happen to a child who doesn’t have that chance. But I also know what can happen to a child who does. I was raised by a single mother. I don’t come from a lot of wealth. I got into my share of trouble as a kid. My life could easily have taken a turn for the worse. But that mother of mine gave me love; she pushed me, and cared about my education; she took no lip and taught me right from wrong. Because of her, I had a chance to make the most of my abilities. I had the chance to make the most of my opportunities. I had the chance to make the most of life.

The same story holds for Michelle. The same story holds for so many of you. And I want all the other Barack Obamas out there, and all the other Michelle Obamas out there, to have that same chance – the chance that my mother gave me; that my education gave me; that the United States of America gave me. That is how our union will be perfected and our economy rebuilt. That is how America will move forward in the next one hundred years.

And we will move forward. This I know – for I know how far we have come. Last week, in Ghana, Michelle and I took Malia and Sasha to Cape Coast Castle, where captives were once imprisoned before being auctioned; where, across an ocean, so much of the African-American experience began. There, reflecting on the dungeon beneath the castle church, I was reminded of all the pain and all the hardships, all the injustices and all the indignities on the voyage from slavery to freedom.

But I was also reminded of something else. I was reminded that no matter how bitter the rod or how stony the road, we have persevered. We have not faltered, nor have we grown weary. As Americans, we have demanded, strived for, and shaped a better destiny.

That is what we are called to do once more. It will not be easy. It will take time. Doubts may rise and hopes recede.

But if John Lewis could brave Billy clubs to cross a bridge, then I know young people today can do their part to lift up our communities.

If Emmet Till’s uncle Mose Wright could summon the courage to testify against the men who killed his nephew, I know we can be better fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters in our own families.

If three civil rights workers in Mississippi – black and white, Christian and Jew, city-born and country-bred – could lay down their lives in freedom’s cause, I know we can come together to face down the challenges of our own time. We can fix our schools, heal our sick, and rescue our youth from violence and despair.

One hundred years from now, on the 200th anniversary of the NAACP, let it be said that this generation did its part; that we too ran the race; that full of the faith that our dark past has taught us, full of the hope that the present has brought us, we faced, in our own lives and all across this nation, the rising sun of a new day begun. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Text: Remarks of President Barack Obama at the NAACP Centennial

Autumn Sandeen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:20:03 GMT

Excerpt:

But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.
On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America.

Full text of speech below the fold.

Remarks of President Barack Obama - NAACP Centennial
It is an honor to be here, in the city where the NAACP was formed, to mark its centennial. What we celebrate tonight is not simply the journey the NAACP has traveled, but the journey that we, as Americans, have traveled over the past one hundred years.
It is a journey that takes us back to a time before most of us were born, long before the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. Board of Education; back to an America just a generation past slavery. It was a time when Jim Crow was a way of life; when lynchings were all too common; and when race riots were shaking cities across a segregated land.
It was in this America where an Atlanta scholar named W.E.B. Du Bois, a man of towering intellect and a fierce passion for justice, sparked what became known as the Niagara movement; where reformers united, not by color but cause; and where an association was born that would, as its charter says, promote equality and eradicate prejudice among citizens of the United States.
From the beginning, Du Bois understood how change would come - just as King and all the civil rights giants did later. They understood that unjust laws needed to be overturned; that legislation needed to be passed; and that Presidents needed to be pressured into action. They knew that the stain of slavery and the sin of segregation had to be lifted in the courtroom and in the legislature.
But they also knew that here, in America, change would have to come from the people. It would come from people protesting lynching, rallying against violence, and walking instead of taking the bus. It would come from men and women - of every age and faith, race and region - taking Greyhounds on Freedom Rides; taking seats at Greensboro lunch counters; and registering voters in rural Mississippi, knowing they would be harassed, knowing they would be beaten, knowing that they might never return.
Because of what they did, we are a more perfect union. Because Jim Crow laws were overturned, black CEOs today run Fortune 500 companies. Because civil rights laws were passed, black mayors, governors, and Members of Congress serve in places where they might once have been unable to vote. And because ordinary people made the civil rights movement their own, I made a trip to Springfield a couple years ago - where Lincoln once lived, and race riots once raged - and began the journey that has led me here tonight as the 44th President of the United States of America.
And yet, even as we celebrate the remarkable achievements of the past one hundred years; even as we inherit extraordinary progress that cannot be denied; even as we marvel at the courage and determination of so many plain folks - we know that too many barriers still remain.
We know that even as our economic crisis batters Americans of all races, African Americans are out of work more than just about anyone else - a gap that's widening here in New York City, as detailed in a report this week by Comptroller Bill Thompson.
We know that even as spiraling health care costs crush families of all races, African Americans are more likely to suffer from a host of diseases but less likely to own health insurance than just about anyone else.
We know that even as we imprison more people of all races than any nation in the world, an African-American child is roughly five times as likely as a white child to see the inside of a jail.
And we know that even as the scourge of HIV/AIDS devastates nations abroad, particularly in Africa, it is devastating the African-American community here at home with disproportionate force.
These are some of the barriers of our time. They're very different from the barriers faced by earlier generations. They're very different from the ones faced when fire hoses and dogs were being turned on young marchers; when Charles Hamilton Houston and a group of young Howard lawyers were dismantling segregation.
But what is required to overcome today's barriers is the same as was needed then. The same commitment. The same sense of urgency. The same sense of sacrifice. The same willingness to do our part for ourselves and one another that has always defined America at its best.
The question, then, is where do we direct our efforts? What steps do we take to overcome these barriers? How do we move forward in the next one hundred years?
The first thing we need to do is make real the words of your charter and eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States. I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there's probably never been less discrimination in America than there is today.
But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.
On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America.
But we also know that prejudice and discrimination are not even the steepest barriers to opportunity today. The most difficult barriers include structural inequalities that our nation's legacy of discrimination has left behind; inequalities still plaguing too many communities and too often the object of national neglect.
These are barriers we are beginning to tear down by rewarding work with an expanded tax credit; making housing more affordable; and giving ex-offenders a second chance. These are barriers that we are targeting through our White House Office on Urban Affairs, and through Promise Neighborhoods that build on Geoffrey Canada's success with the Harlem Children's Zone; and that foster a comprehensive approach to ending poverty by putting all children on a pathway to college, and giving them the schooling and support to get there.
But our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state, and structure, of the broader economy; an economy fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy built not on a rock, but sand. That is why my administration is working so hard not only to create and save jobs in the short-term, not only to extend unemployment insurance and help for people who have lost their health care, not only to stem this immediate economic crisis, but to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity that will put opportunity within reach not just for African Americans, but for all Americans.
One pillar of this new foundation is health insurance reform that cuts costs, makes quality health coverage affordable for all, and closes health care disparities in the process. Another pillar is energy reform that makes clean energy profitable, freeing America from the grip of foreign oil, putting people to work upgrading low-income homes, and creating jobs that cannot be outsourced. And another pillar is financial reform with consumer protections to crack down on mortgage fraud and stop predatory lenders from targeting our poor communities.
All these things will make America stronger and more competitive. They will drive innovation, create jobs, and provide families more security. Still, even if we do it all, the African-American community will fall behind in the United States and the United States will fall behind in the world unless we do a far better job than we have been doing of educating our sons and daughters. In the 21st century - when so many jobs will require a bachelor's degree or more, when countries that out-educate us today will outcompete us tomorrow - a world-class education is a prerequisite for success.
You know what I'm talking about. There's a reason the story of the civil rights movement was written in our schools. There's a reason Thurgood Marshall took up the cause of Linda Brown. There's a reason the Little Rock Nine defied a governor and a mob. It's because there is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child's God-given potential.
Yet, more than a half century after Brown v. Board of Education, the dream of a world-class education is still being deferred all across this country. African-American students are lagging behind white classmates in reading and math - an achievement gap that is growing in states that once led the way on civil rights. Over half of all African-American students are dropping out of school in some places. There are overcrowded classrooms, crumbling schools, and corridors of shame in America filled with poor children - black, brown, and white alike.
The state of our schools is not an African-American problem; it's an American problem. And if Al Sharpton, Mike Bloomberg, and Newt Gingrich can agree that we need to solve it, then all of us can agree on that. All of us can agree that we need to offer every child in this country the best education the world has to offer from the cradle through a career.
That is our responsibility as the United States of America. And we, all of us in government, are working to do our part by not only offering more resources, but demanding more reform.
When it comes to higher education, we are making college and advanced training more affordable, and strengthening community colleges that are a gateway to so many with an initiative that will prepare students not only to earn a degree but find a job when they graduate; an initiative that will help us meet the goal I have set of leading the world in college degrees by 2020.
We are creating a Race to the Top Fund that will reward states and public school districts that adopt 21st century standards and assessments. And we are creating incentives for states to promote excellent teachers and replace bad ones - because the job of a teacher is too important for us to accept anything but the best.
We should also explore innovative approaches being pursued here in New York City; innovations like Bard High School Early College and Medgar Evers College Preparatory School that are challenging students to complete high school and earn a free associate's degree or college credit in just four years.
And we should raise the bar when it comes to early learning programs. Today, some early learning programs are excellent. Some are mediocre. And some are wasting what studies show are - by far - a child's most formative years.
That's why I have issued a challenge to America's governors: if you match the success of states like Pennsylvania and develop an effective model for early learning; if you focus reform on standards and results in early learning programs; if you demonstrate how you will prepare the lowest income children to meet the highest standards of success - you can compete for an Early Learning Challenge Grant that will help prepare all our children to enter kindergarten ready to learn.
So, these are some of the laws we are passing. These are some of the policies we are enacting. These are some of the ways we are doing our part in government to overcome the inequities, injustices, and barriers that exist in our country.
But all these innovative programs and expanded opportunities will not, in and of themselves, make a difference if each of us, as parents and as community leaders, fail to do our part by encouraging excellence in our children. Government programs alone won't get our children to the Promised Land. We need a new mindset, a new set of attitudes - because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way that we have internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little of ourselves.
We have to say to our children, Yes, if you're African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not. But that's not a reason to get bad grades, that's not a reason to cut class, that's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands - and don't you forget that.
To parents, we can't tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel, we must accept our own responsibilities. That means putting away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. It means attending those parent-teacher conferences, reading to our kids, and helping them with their homework.
And it means we need to be there for our neighbor's son or daughter, and return to the day when we parents let each other know if we saw a child acting up. That's the meaning of community. That's how we can reclaim the strength, the determination, the hopefulness that helped us come as far as we already have.
It also means pushing our kids to set their sights higher. They might think they've got a pretty good jump shot or a pretty good flow, but our kids can't all aspire to be the next LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. I want them aspiring to be President of the United States.
So, yes, government must be a force for opportunity. Yes, government must be a force for equality. But ultimately, if we are to be true to our past, then we also have to seize our own destiny, each and every day.
That is what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP was not founded in search of a handout. The NAACP was not founded in search of favors. The NAACP was founded on a firm notion of justice; to cash the promissory note of America that says all our children, all God's children, deserve a fair chance in the race of life.
It is a simple dream, and yet one that has been denied - one still being denied - to so many Americans. It's a painful thing, seeing that dream denied. I remember visiting a Chicago school in a rough neighborhood as a community organizer, and thinking how remarkable it was that all of these children seemed so full of hope, despite being born into poverty, despite being delivered into addiction, despite all the obstacles they were already facing.
And I remember the principal of the school telling me that soon all of that would begin to change; that soon, the laughter in their eyes would begin to fade; that soon, something would shut off inside, as it sunk in that their hopes would not come to pass - not because they weren't smart enough, not because they weren't talented enough, but because, by accident of birth, they didn't have a fair chance in life.
So, I know what can happen to a child who doesn't have that chance. But I also know what can happen to a child who does. I was raised by a single mother. I don't come from a lot of wealth. I got into my share of trouble as a kid. My life could easily have taken a turn for the worse. But that mother of mine gave me love; she pushed me, and cared about my education; she took no lip and taught me right from wrong. Because of her, I had a chance to make the most of my abilities. I had the chance to make the most of my opportunities. I had the chance to make the most of life.
The same story holds for Michelle. The same story holds for so many of you. And I want all the other Barack Obamas out there, and all the other Michelle Obamas out there, to have that same chance - the chance that my mother gave me; that my education gave me; that the United States of America gave me. That is how our union will be perfected and our economy rebuilt. That is how America will move forward in the next one hundred years.
And we will move forward. This I know - for I know how far we have come. Last week, in Ghana, Michelle and I took Malia and Sasha to Cape Coast Castle, where captives were once imprisoned before being auctioned; where, across an ocean, so much of the African-American experience began. There, reflecting on the dungeon beneath the castle church, I was reminded of all the pain and all the hardships, all the injustices and all the indignities on the voyage from slavery to freedom.
But I was also reminded of something else. I was reminded that no matter how bitter the rod or how stony the road, we have persevered. We have not faltered, nor have we grown weary. As Americans, we have demanded, strived for, and shaped a better destiny.
That is what we are called to do once more. It will not be easy. It will take time. Doubts may rise and hopes recede.
But if John Lewis could brave Billy clubs to cross a bridge, then I know young people today can do their part to lift up our communities.
If Emmet Till's uncle Mose Wright could summon the courage to testify against the men who killed his nephew, I know we can be better fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters in our own families.
If three civil rights workers in Mississippi - black and white, Christian and Jew, city-born and country-bred - could lay down their lives in freedom's cause, I know we can come together to face down the challenges of our own time. We can fix our schools, heal our sick, and rescue our youth from violence and despair.
One hundred years from now, on the 200th anniversary of the NAACP, let it be said that this generation did its part; that we too ran the race; that full of the faith that our dark past has taught us, full of the hope that the present has brought us, we faced, in our own lives and all across this nation, the rising sun of a new day begun. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Gates ponders easing 'DADT' enforcement

Daimeon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:00:00 GMT

It appears that there are some efforts from Bush holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ease the enforcement of DADT. But it appears the only thing they can really think of doing since the law was so specific is make a determination based on how the servicemember was outed. From RawStory:

The Pentagon boss said he discussed the issue last week with US President Barack Obama and that there also has been discussion among senior military and legal counsel about possible changes in how they apply the law, which he described as "very restrictive."

"We're talking about how do we move forward on this, achieve this objective which is changing the policy."

Gates added: "What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."

The defense secretary said one possible modification might be consider the circumstances under which a service member is "outed" in determining whether or not he or she must leave the military.

Gates offered as an example "when we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.

"If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he said.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

Here's the deal folks. I'm starting to think that Obama has a strategy that's working. By his silence on our issues (with the exception of yesterday's WH presser) he is building up the ire of our community and making us more visible, more vocal, and putting our issues in the media spotlight, and not in a negative way. Part of his strategy as I can tell is to have us make him and the Congress do their jobs.

Essentially I'm saying this. Don't scramble for the crumbs thrown to us, and instead as the Dallas Principles state, demand unequivocally full equality from our Congressmen and women and our President. This is the only way we will progress.

The Words The President (& Others) Won't Speak: "Transgender" & "Gender Identity And Expression"

Autumn Sandeen — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:45:00 GMT

The Fact Sheet: Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination ended with a paragraph that left me believing that the Obama Administration was addressing the civil rights of the transgender subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (emphasis added), but not doing it directly. The paragraph in question:

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

So, I was on the call this afternoon where the Office of Personal Management's director, John Berry, talked about the memorandum President Obama was going to sign prior to its signing at 5:45 PM EDT. Alex Blaze, from Bilerico, asked a question about whether transgender people -- the term gender identity and expression -- would be included in the proposed regulations. Berry's answer wasn't clear to me in his original answer, but in answering a question from John Aravosis on exactly what was changing with this memorandum, Director Berry stated:

Gender identity is a non-work-related factor, and in the guidelines [to federal agencies] we will be making that clear. [...] I made it very clear [in my answer to Alex Blaze] that gender identity will be added and made very clear in our guidelines.

So why didn't the President say "gender identity" in the fact sheet?

Below the fold is the entire fact sheet on the memorandum. Note that the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are not in the fact sheet. Note also in signing ceremony, the President used the abbreviation LGBT, but didn't use the words "transgender," "gender identity," or "gender identity and expression" therein either. (In fact if you're bisexual, you no doubt notice the President's reticence to you that term as well.)

Since the President has only used the term "transgendered" once previously I can document (here), and the term "gender identity" once previously I can document (here) -- and both of these times were in response to direct questions.

The President and his staff seem to me to be intentionally avoiding use of the terms "transgender" or "gender identity and expression" on camera. If you were transgender and noticed this lack of using community related terminology for your identity, what conclusion would you draw?

And hey, thinking about it, Did you see Joe Solmonese on Keith Oberman....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...or Rep. Tammy Baldwin on Rachel Maddow...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...speak the words in question? What words did you not hear spoken by our LGBT "leaders"? (Added note from Autumn: I missed it in the first couple of listenings, but Joe Solomese mentions "gender identity" at about the 4:28 minute point in the Keith Oberman video. It wasn't mentioned in the HRC press release of the memorandum; however, but in my mind I believe saying the words on television were probably more important then getting it in the press release. I would have preferred to have seen the phrase used in both the TV appearance and the press release though.)

I would say -- and even John Aravosis of Americablog would agree -- that the biggest change for LGBT civil rights the memorandum heralds is federal workplace protections for transgender employees; the addition of federal employment protections based on gender identity and expression.

Which of our LGBT civil rights groups' "leaders," or our lesbian, gay, or ally political representatives said the word "transgender," or the phrase "gender identity and expression"? Which ones spoke of the "gender identity and expression" changes to federal employment regulations that the memorandum heralds?

From the media releases from the organizations below, take a look and see 1.) who says the words "transgender" and/or "gender identity and expression" and 2.) who mentions the transgender employment protections that this memorandum is to add. I'll give you a hint -- the only time the word "transgender" is used is in the phrase "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender," and that is only used by three of the organizations' in the statements listed below. And, no one but the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) -- who's media release is linked to in the graphic near the top of this piece -- and The Task Force mention employment protections for transgender federal employees.

• Council For Global Equality
• Family Equality Council
• Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
• Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
• National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
• Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
• Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)
• The Gay & Lesbian Task Force

Frankly at this point, I don't doubt at all Director Berry's commitment to adding federal regulations regarding transgender people -- I think we're going to see specific language on "gender identity" is going come to pass. That's the good news for federal employees who may are transgender...transsexual. And, as many would guess, not mentioning gender identity and expression by our politicians (links to two politicians statements as examples -- the statements of Representatives Baldwin and Leiberman -- are found by selecting two press release graphics included within this blog article) and LGBT civil rights organizations means conservative "Christian" organizations -- such as Focus On The Family, also don't mention transgender people when discussing the impact of this memorandum. I would say this is small consolation as they will be discussing this when the new federal regulations are submitted within 90-days.

However, on the 30th of June we'll really know how serious the President is about transgender civil rights; the 30th of June is the last day that the Department of Justice can file an appeal to the Diane Schroer case. If the Department Of Justice appeals this case, then we will know that just like the Obama Administration on DOMA, what the Obama Administration says in speeches and signing ceremonies won't be followed through with "fierce advocacy" by our President and his administration.

The message I get from the words "transgender" or "gender identity and expression" not being spoken is that transgender people and issues are very secondary to lesbian and gay issues, and that it's considered dangerous politically to say the words. In my opinion, this failure to use transgender related terminology doesn't bode well for transgender people and civil rights. Who doesn't remember ENDA 2007/2008?

As for our politicians and LGBT civil rights organizations: Speak the word transgender, or the phrase gender identity and expression, when you speak of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people's civil rights. And, speak these transgender subcommunity words on television. Transgender people deserve better than the silence on our subcommunity's terminology -- on our subcommunity's issues -- that we're receiving from the Obama administration, progressive politicians, and LGBT non-profits/civil rights organizations.

Don't message transgender people out of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement -- it's just not acceptable.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, And Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach

Autumn Sandeen — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:30:00 GMT

I spoke briefly with Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach yesterday, and the first thing I did was tell him that as a transgender Persian Gulf War Veteran with service connected disabilities, I thanked him for his service.

To compare mine and his service, my military training over my 20-year US Navy career towards working on the Mark 15 MODs 1-4 Close-In Weapon System and the Mark-92 Mod 2 Gun And Missile Fire Control System probably cost the government less than $150 thousand; Lt. Colonel Fehrenbach's pilot training cost closer to $25 million. My highest award in the Navy was a Navy Achievement Medal; Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has been decorated for valor.

I'm a war veteran; Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is a war hero.

And yet, as we read in the entry from Keori, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is being discharged, 2-years short of retirement, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell rules. His pending discharge is absolutely insane -- it's putting discrimination before the security of America.

On ABC's This Week, General James Jones seems to be speaking for the Obama Administration when saying that he's not sure if DADT will be repealed. Pentagon Spokesperson Geoff Morrell stated in a very recent press briefing:

"I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don't ask-don't tell will be repealed."

Lt. Colonel Fehrenbach, when I asked him what his thoughts were on what National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones and Pentagon Spokesperson Geoff Morrell, he stated:

"I stand with my Commander in Chief who supports a policy of nondiscrimination. In my military experience, you're not supposed to contradict your Commander In Chief."

And yet, the National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones and Pentagon Spokesperson Geoff Morrell did comment in a way that contradicted their Commander In Chief.

Perhaps it's time for the Pentagon to set up a working group -- a working group that's visible to the general public, as well as visible to the President's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community constituents -- on exactly how to implement the President's often repeated promise to the LGBT community for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. When I asked Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is he would want to be part of such a working group, he stated:

"I want to be part of the solution."

He stated that he'd like to work for such a working group though, as an active duty servicemember. And, that's the rub, isn't it?

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that President Obama is in no hurry to end 'don't ask, don't tell' - He made a campaign pledge to lift the ban on gays in the military, but neither he nor Congress appears ready to reopen the debate.

Well, as a military veteran myself, I'm tired of the dancing around this issue by the Obama Administration. It's time to stop with the bullsh*t statements in contrary to the Commander In Chief's stated goal of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- We should be hearing spokespeople stating that they are working to fulfill candidate Barack Obama's pledge to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As President Obama has told us previously, his administration is capable of multitasking.

So, this LGBT veteran is calling on the Obama Administration to immediately, and very publicly direct the Pentagon to form a working group for implementing the Commander In Chief's stated goal of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

And, if The President wants to employ active duty military personnel to be part of this working group, Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, First Lieutenant Dan Choi, and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach would probably all be helpful to the group.

Mr. President, I'm tired of being fed sh*t by your administration, and having your people try to sell us on the idea that sh*t is chocolate. To quote modify a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. from the I Have A Dream speech:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her lesbian, gay, and bisexual citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring the sacred obligation of equality under the law, America has given lesbian, gay, and bisexual citizens -- especially lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers -- a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
We refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.

The now thing on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is kind of a Dallas Principle kind of thing. Mr. President: multitask.

~~~~~
Further Reading:
* EdgeBoston: White House Sends Mixed Signals About Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell

~~~~~
H/t: SLDN's Kevin Nix

What's My Sex? What's My Gender? - And Other US Census Related LGBT Thoughts

Autumn Sandeen — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:00:00 GMT

I was reading today in a private Google Group about how the US Census next year will count same-sex couples, but what it the US Census won't recognize are same-sex marriages, no will the or US Census count the children of same gender couples as being the children of a same gender couples' family units.

Which of course, got me thinking: When I fill out my US Census form next year, will the census ask me what my sex is, or will they ask me what my gender is?

I have male genitalia, but I'm not a man; I have female gender identity and breasts that are sizable enough without enhancement to need annual mammograms, but even though my California Driver License says "F, "my Medicare Card says "MALE," and my VA healthcare record indicates I'm "MALE."

In other words, I'm clear as to my gender, and I'm aware that when I go into sex segregated places, if nudity is involved I need to contemplate if my genitalia will be visible to other women as to whether I enter a space. I don't think twice about which restroom to use, but I do think twice about locker rooms.

But nudity isn't involved in filling out forms, and most forms don't allow me to identify as "transgender" or "other" when I fill these forms out -- and frankly, I'm not sure I'd actually want to select "transgender" or "other" if these were options because I see myself as female.

And, this will be true for pre-operative and non-operative transsexuals, as well as post-operative transsexuals who are born in states where transsexuals aren't allowed to change the gender marker on their drivers licenses, or modify their birth certificates to reflect their changed, physical sex: we'll have to decide, each for ourselves, which sex/gender box to select.

So, the US Census not only won't count marriages between same sex partners -- won't count the children of same sex couples as belonging to a family unit -- the census also won't gather any information about transgender or transsexual data because the form doesn't collect that kind of data.

Before being elected as President, candidate Barack Obama was quoted in Political Aff airs Magazine:

Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Act (federal anti-hate crimes law) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. When asked if he supports transgender inclusion, Obama said, "Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."

So will I be technically breaking the law if I identify myself as female on my census form? Will the federal government see my community and me as needing to have our gender identity protected in how we answer the form, or will the federal government be intolerant of my peers are I marking a gender that doesn't stereotypically align with our genitalia?

I don't know. I haven't asked any of my trans or trans ally activist or attorney friends what the answer is to my questions, and I guess I'm thinking about this a little early for marking the form as is -- or perhaps a little late for changing the form to reflect a choice for my trans status.

However, since someone else mentioned another issue regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) US Census information today that I read, and since my genitalia won't likely be changed before next year's census, I ended up today thinking about which gender marker box I'm going to be checking next year.

And, of course this all matters more than we might think, as everything from amount of state representation one has in congress to federal funding of programs for 10 years after this census will be tied to the US Census results.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a President who stopped publicly ignoring LGBT issues? Wouldn't it be nice if DOMA was repealed this year so the data collected for the US Census next year will reflect the realities of LGBT families in the data collected? Wouldn't it be nice to collect any federal data on transgender people?

Yeah, the way the Obama Administration has become less clear about what it's going to do about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, let alone when the administration is going to do whatever it's going to do about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, thinking that the administration is going to do anything about DOMA, T issues not tied directly tied to LGB issues, and what data is collected about LGBT people in the 2010 US Census is likely pipe dream thinking on my part.

~~~~~
Further reading:
* Task Force: Stand Up And Be Counted

Words Mean Everything

Daimeon — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 GMT

There has been a lot of talk on Barack Obama's first "100 days of silence" regarding the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (and associated law). First we go back to a recent article about the changes on the White House website which first featured the wording "changing" in regards to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The White House quickly did an about face that evening and adjusted the site to say "repealing."

With two high profile discharges this month of two Asian Americans, including Army Lt. Dan Choi and Army 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, Barack Obama can't afford to remain silent on this issue. A break in the silence came May 7th in the form of a hand written letter from the President to 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao in which the President promised "changing" the policy as a response to a letter she wrote him back in January on the day she came out to her command.

I think it's great that President Obama has said something promising to keep his promise. However, I'm still concerned with the wording. "I'm committed to changing the policy" doesn't mean the same as repeal. And while we can all give him the benefit of the doubt on his true intentions it doesn't escape the fact that the White House website initially said "changing," the officials in the Administration are saying "I don't know," and Nancy Pelosi is saying "What we're focused on is jobs, jobs, jobs." One gets the feeling their not even on the priority radar of our elected officials other than as a pariah to generate campaign donations to all sides of the argument.

One option the President may have as explained by Pam below is an executive order suspending enforcement of the policy, which could easily be re-instated by the next President. Or the President could use his "bully pulpit" and really get out in front of his issue.

In a recent exclusive interview with me for the Blend, Aubrey Sarvis, he said his "concern is, if the president remains silent, Don't Ask Don't Tell is going to become his law... silence [will] and in fact, will okay, the continuation of Don't Ask Don't Tell enforcement and funding."

And the question becomes "Will the President allow this to become his law? Will he allow Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be defined by his almost deafening silence?" The right wing has started to take notice as well. This, today's missive, from The Peter.

It is interesting that the White House through its official website retained Obama’s promise to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” (thus allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces) even as it removed his pledge to repeal DOMA–one of the top goals of his homosexual activist allies.

Obama has a lot to gain and nothing to lose for standing his ground on his ORIGINAL campaign promises. This game of "change" needs to turn into something real.

Where's Barack Obama, the 'Fierce Advocate' for LGBT rights?

Pam Spaulding — Sat, 02 May 2009 21:22:37 GMT

To answer the question -- the president is hiding in the closet. It's a familiar diseased closet inhabited by many self-proclaimed allies, particularly non-LGBT progressives, who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. It's always "wait, we need more time" and "we have this or that priority" or "we need to get re-elected" as an excuse for inaction.

Richard Socarides calls the president out in his WaPo op-ed today, Where's our "Fierce Advocate?"

In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.
What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.
As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price.

When Socarides wrote me this morning linking to the piece, I replied:

We all know the man [Obama] can multitask, and the cultural and legal wind is at his back. There's no excuse to be so tentative, given the Republican opposition is in shambles, it couldn't be weaker. The anti-gay forces are so shrill that they are doing a better job for our cause than we could ever imagine. Based on his weak support, you'd think he's catering to the fear tactics of the professional Christian set (e.g. Tony Perkins and Lou Sheldon). It's time to take out the trash, and use the bully pulpit to seize the moment.

He continues:

It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly.
This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew."

I think a good question to ask about the situation is where are the gays in the Obama White House? Is their presence merely tokenism -- that their existence is supposed to represent a salve to the wounds inflicted by the Bush administration? Another question -- do any of the gay White House aides and appointees have any influence on Obama? Clearly not much, based on the silence about LGBT issues.

The Obama White House could barely squeak out a tepid reaction to the Iowa ruling (and they blew it on first pass and the statement never made it to the MSM press release machine) and on marriage equality in Vermont, all it could do was issue a "no comment" to an LGBT reporter. Iowa, Vermont, and all of the recent marriage equality gains represent a time to strike while the iron is hot, and aside from a perfunctory statement supporting passage of the already-popular-with-voters hate crimes legislation, crickets are chirping.

Socarides offers some suggestions for this White House to capitalize on the current wave of successes. Read them below the fold, along with journalist Karen Ocamb's take over at Huff Post.

First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.
...Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.
Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.
Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states.

All of these are great ways to add to the equality momentum. As I said, the opposition party is in disarray -- what gives with the timidity?

***

Aside from Obama's weak support, we need to shame every single Blue Dog who voted against hate crimes legislation -- the party needs to call out anti-equality bigots like Heath Shuler (R-NC), whose district includes Asheville; he spit in the faces of LGBTs he represents with his no vote. Where is the Democratic Party, which put out a stellar, LGBT-positive platform in 2008, in making it clear that there's no excuse to side with the likes of Virginia Foxx an closet cases Patrick McHenry (R-NC), David Dreier (R-CA), for crying out loud, on a vote on basic equality under the law.

***

Here's a snippet from Karen Ocamb's "President Obama - Give Us an LGBT Advocate"; she quotes from Michael Lux's tome The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In American Came To Be:

"[The Democrats] have been so beaten down by the conservative attack machine that they have allowed themselves to get into the habit of being cautious....Since the tumultuous change decade of the 1960s, and the ugly backlash that followed it, Democrats have often been too scared to think big about progressive change, and it has hurt them."
Caution has become a habit of mind, let alone a habit of politics - something Lux argues should be smashed in favor of "bold" action and change.
And yet "equal rights," while always counted in the litany of core liberal and progressive principles and "values," always is set aside or thrown under the bus in favor of some real or imagined political expediency.
As Lux told me during an interview - "either we believe in equal rights for all - or we don't." And "we should be able to multi-task."

Civil Rights Redux; Change we can believe in?

Daimeon — Fri, 01 May 2009 11:04:57 GMT

UPDATE : Due to bloggers and SLDN questioning the WH on why they removed the LGBT rights stuff in the first place, and now the wording surrounding DADT, they have changed the word from "changing" to "repealing." Good news? Maybe. It is yet to be seen or understood why the wording was changed originally or why the White House has yet to clarify what exactly is going on, other than a standard email they've been sending to everyone about "revamping" the site. According to the SLDN Blog, there should be more on this next week.

Aubrey Sarvis communicated with the White House last night, like others did, to understand what was going on. He also received the standard e-mailed response about the site being revamped, etc. We should have a more complete understanding of what is going on early next week. Stay tuned.

Within moments of the official transfer of power from George Bush to Barack Obama on January 20, 2009 the White House website featured a very promising list of LGBT civil rights.

Well 102 days in it appears things have changed. While the over-all list is still in tact and just summarized into one short paragraph, there's interesting wording on Don't Ask Don't Tell which indicates there's no longer full support for repeal from the President which sort of has my blood boiling, just a little.

Strengthen Anti-Discrimination Laws On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to ensure that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. The President is committed to expanding funding for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to ensure that voting rights are protected and Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress. President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

What exactly is he saying by changing Don't Ask Don't Tell? And why on earth would he remove the strong language about developing a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy? Very troubling indeed. The Original text of the website below the fold.

Support for the LGBT Community "While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect." -- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law. * Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. * Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. * Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. * Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals. * Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not. * Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. * Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Swine flu outbreak: White House and NY Gov response

Pam Spaulding — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:15:00 GMT

I've been offline a lot so I've missed all the big news about the swine flu outbreak in Mexico and in NY. I've received the transcript of the White House press conference held today, as well as a press release from the office of Governor David Paterson. Both are below the fold.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 26, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING ON SWINE INFLUENZA BY SECRETARY NAPOLITANO, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, JOHN BRENNAN, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM, DR. RICHARD BESSER, ACTING DIRECTOR, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, AND ROBERT GIBBS, PRESS SECRETARY
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:34 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon, guys. Thank you for taking some time out of your Sunday afternoon. We wanted to bring together many of the people that have the primary governmental responsibility in dealing with the situation and to discuss the government's capacity and capability to discuss the steps the government is taking to address this.
Three people we'll hear from today and then we'll take some questions: First, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Dr. Richard Besser, the Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
So with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you, Robert. And thank you, everyone, for coming here today.
Obviously, President Obama is very concerned about the recent cases of swine flu that have been identified in the United States, as well as the outbreak in Mexico. The President's thoughts are with those who have been affected by this illness. He is monitoring the situation very closely and has supported a very active, progressive and coordinated response by his administration.
The President wants Americans to be fully informed of the situation, which is why we have convened this press briefing today. The vast majority of these cases have occurred in Mexico. Building on the close bilateral cooperation that President Obama advanced during his recent visit to Mexico, he has asked me to publicly convey his full support to President Calderón, the Mexican government and the Mexican people in their efforts to contain the outbreak.
Both the U.S. and Mexican governments are taking steps to reduce the potential for further transmission. Our goal is simple: to communicate information quickly and clearly for our citizens, to rapidly address any new cases that emerge, and to have the capacity to effectively limit the spread.
At this point a top priority is to ensure that communication is robust and that medical surveillance efforts are fully activated. This will enable both the rapid identification and broad notification of any new cases that may occur in the U.S., as well as in Mexico.
We believe that our increased surveillance efforts have resulted in the identification of new cases over the last 24 hours. Early identification is vitally important to the overall effort. In the event that additional cases or sites of infection occur within the United States we want to recognize them quickly and then respond rapidly with appropriate guidance for the public health community and the general public in the infected area. We also want to ensure medical surveillance and testing and the provision of medications and medical supplies are distributed where necessary.
I would like to share with you some of the steps the administration has taken to ensure that information about this evolving event is flowing swiftly among federal, state and local partners, between U.S., Mexican, Canadian and other governments and with the World Health Organization.
First, the President is receiving regular updates and briefings on the situation. I updated the President earlier today. The President has reviewed our national capabilities to mitigate the effects of a broader outbreak in the United States and the steps we are taking to support state and local governments and their public health experts.
I am consulting closely with Secretary Napolitano, who is the principal federal official for domestic incident management with responsibility for spearheading our efforts. The Homeland Security Council has convened an interagency body of senior federal experts to facilitate coordination among the federal departments and agencies that have a role in recognizing, responding to, and communicating with domestic and international partners regarding health incidents that have the potential for significant impact to our nation's well-being.
This group has been conferencing daily to share updates and to identify actions we can take now to respond to developments in an accelerated and effective manner. The information and decisions of the group are reported daily to senior leaders in the federal government and throughout the White House. Additional reports are provided as new information of significance becomes available.
While the President and his administration are actively coordinating the overall government response, individual departments and agencies with specific responsibilities as well as unique expertise and experience in dealing with public health risks are leading key elements of the effort.
For example, the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for the overall effort to coordinate disease surveillance, medical preparedness, and guidance to public health professionals in the event that further cases are detected. The Departments -- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has responsibility for identifying and tracking the spread of the disease and for communicating health-related information to the government, media, and public. To this end, the CDC has held regular public briefings since Friday.
In a moment, Dr. Richard Besser, the Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, will provide an update on the situation in the United States and Mexico, as well as where health professionals and the public can go for reliable information and guidance on swine influenza.
As I mentioned, Secretary Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security have the overall lead for coordinating the federal response to an influence epidemic in the United States. The department is closely coordinating with Health and Human Services and CDC to monitor the situation.
After Dr. Besser speaks, you will hear from Secretary Napolitano, who will update you on the department's efforts to coordinate response preparations and actions to date. The Secretary also will describe actions that are underway to ensure communication of timely and accurate information at land borders and at ports of entry as well as to travelers who seek additional information.
Clearly we all have individual responsibility for dealing with this situation. We should all be practicing good hygienic practices, such as hand-washing on a regular basis; if you feel sick, it makes sense to stay home; and then also following the other practices that are common sense when we deal with an outbreak of flu every year.
I would ask that you hold your questions until after Dr. Besser and Secretary Napolitano have finished their remarks.
DR. BESSER: Thank you, Mr. Brennan. First, I want to say that our hearts go out to the people in Mexico and the people in the United States who've been impacted by this outbreak. People around the country and around the globe are concerned with this situation we're seeing, and we're concerned as well. As we look for cases of swine flu, we are seeing more cases of swine flu. We expect to see more cases of swine flu. We're responding and we're responding aggressively to try and learn about this outbreak and to implement measures to control this outbreak.
Let me provide for you an update in terms of where we are today and what kinds of public health actions are being taken here as well as abroad. Today we can confirm that there are 20 cases of swine flu in the United States. We have five affected states: There are eight cases confirmed in New York City, there's one case confirmed in Ohio, two in Kansas, two in Texas, and seven in California.
And again, as we continue to look for cases, I expect that we're going to find them. We've ramped up our surveillance around the country to try and understand better what is the scope, what is the magnitude of this outbreak.
The good news -- all of the individuals in this country who have been identified as cases have recovered. Only one individual had to be hospitalized. But I expect as we continue to look for cases, we are going to see a broader spectrum of disease. What we know about this virus is it looks to be the same virus as is causing the situation in Mexico. And given the reports out of Mexico, I would expect that over time we're going to see more severe disease in this country.
There are some things that it's important people understand: Flu viruses are extremely unpredictable and variable; outbreaks of infectious disease are extremely unpredictable and variable. And so over time what we say about this and what we learn will change. Expect changes in terms of the number of cases. We're going to try and give you consistent information and have it on our web site once a day, so that we don't get into the situation where you're hearing different numbers of cases throughout the day -- we're going to report that daily.
We expect that we're going to be changing our recommendations over time based on what we learn. And that's an important thing. You'll start to see different activities taking place in different parts of the country, depending on the local outbreak picture -- and that's good. You want people to respond based on what the situation is in their community, based on what situations are in particular countries.
Because of this speed in which things are progressing, you will at find -- at times find inconsistent information, and we're going to work really hard to make sure that that doesn't stay up for long. But as we're updating recommendations and they're going out through various sources, you may find some inconsistency and we will work to minimize that.
This is moving fast, but I want you to understand that we view this more as a marathon. We do think that this will continue to spread, but we are taking aggressive actions to minimize the impact on people's health.
It's important that people understand that there's a role for everyone to play when there's an outbreak going on. There are things that individuals do, there's things that families do, communities do to try and reduce the impact. At the individual level, it's important people understand how they can prevent respiratory infections. Very frequent hand-washing is something that we talk about time and time again and that is an effective way to reduce transmission of disease. If you're sick, it's very important that people stay at home. If your children are sick, have a fever and flu-like illness, they shouldn't go to school. And if you're ill, you shouldn't get on an airplane or another public transport to travel. Those things are part of personal responsibility in trying to reduce the impact.
It's important that people think about what they would do if this outbreak ramps up in their community. We understand that in New York City there's a cluster of disease in a school and New York City has announced that they're not having those children come back to school on Monday, so that they can understand better about transmission in that school. There's a similar situation in Texas. Those are very smart public health decisions. If there are other communities where we saw cases in a school, we would be recommending that they take those actions as well.
So it's time for people to be thinking -- forward-thinking about, well, if it were my child's school, what would I do, how would I be prepared for that kind of an event. We view the public as partners in the efforts to try and control what's going on.
There are a number of sources of information. I want people to know that the CDC web site -- www.cdc.gov -- has our latest information on swine flu. There's a link from there to very current information and there's a link there to a Spanish language site as well.
So let me talk about some of the public health actions that are going on. We are working very closely with state and local public health on the investigations going on around the country. We're providing both technical support on the epidemiology as well as support on the laboratory in terms of confirming cases.
We're also doing a lot of work with the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization, and the governments of Mexico and Canada on this outbreak. There's a tri-national team that is working in Mexico to try and understand better the spread -- why are they seeing more severe disease in Mexico than we are here? That's a critical question. We're working to assist Mexico in establishing more laboratory capacity in-country. That, again, is very important because when you can define someone as a truly confirmed case, what you understand about how they acquire disease takes on much more meaning.
We issued two days ago an outbreak notice on our web site regarding travel to Mexico. It indicated that if you are traveling to Mexico, that you look at that to see what precautions could you take as an individual to reduce the likelihood that you became ill. We're going to continue to evaluate the situation in Mexico, and if need be we will increase the warnings based on what the situation warrants.
Later today we're going to be putting out some additional community guidance so that public health officials will know what our general recommendations are should they see cases in schools or additional cases in their community.
And I think that the last thing I want to mention is that whenever we see a novel strain of influenza, we begin our work in the event that a vaccine needs to be manufactured. So we've created that seed stock, we've identified that virus, and discussions are underway so that should we decide to work on manufacturing a vaccine, we can work towards that goal very quickly.
Our support to the states and locals will continue. We provide epidemiologic support, laboratory support, and we provide them support in terms of their medications and other material that they need to work on this outbreak.
So thank you very much, and I'll turn it over to the Secretary.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Thanks, Dr. Besser. A number of things going on and the purpose of today, this briefing, is to give you the most current information about what is happening. And as has been mentioned before, this is a changing picture. And so we intend to conduct these types of briefings daily for a while so that, you know, it can help up communicate to the public what is happening and so that with knowledge people know what kind of issue we're dealing with.
The first thing I want to announce today is that the Department of Health and Human Services will declare today a public health emergency in the United States. That sounds more severe than really it is. This is standard operating procedure and allows us to free up federal, state, and local agencies and their resources for prevention and mitigation; it allows us to use medication and diagnostic tests that we might not otherwise be able to use, particularly on very young children; and it releases funds for the acquisition of additional antivirals.
So you'll see those declarations coming out today. And when I say "standard operating procedure," that's exactly what I mean. We issued similar declarations for the recent floods in Minnesota and North Dakota and for the inauguration.
Second, I want to give you some information about where we are with respect to antiviral drugs. These are the kinds of things you would take should you get sick with this strain of flu. We have 50 million treatment courses of antiviral drugs -- Tamiflu and Relenza -- in the strategic national stockpile. We are releasing 25 percent of those courses, making them available to all of the states, but particularly prioritizing the states where we already have confirmed incidents of the flu. In addition, the Department of Defense has procured and strategically prepositioned 7 million treatment courses of Tamiflu.
The United States Department of Agriculture is heavily involved in monitoring and testing to ensure that there is no issue with our food supply, and everything looks fine. I want to underscore that you cannot get the swine flu from eating pork. So that's very important. And we're screening and testing livestock to monitor any developments there.
Next, in the Department of Homeland Security, we have a number of components with direct responsibility here. The CBP is inventorying for every duty station and every employee our resources, personal protective equipment, and so forth, to make sure that we have adequate supplies on hand at the borders themselves.
Secondly, we have implemented passive surveillance protocols to screen individuals who may arrive at our borders. All persons entering the United States from a location of human infection of swine flu will be processed through all appropriate CBP protocols. Right now those are passive. That means that they're looking for people who -- and asking about, are you sick, have you been sick, and the like; and if so, then they can be referred over for further examination.
Travelers who do present with symptoms, if and when encountered, will be isolated per established rules. They will be provided both with personal protective equipment and we will continue to emphasize universal health measures like hand-washing and gloves. And if and when the situation develops all CBP sites can implement and we can deploy additional personnel to the borders.
In addition, at the TSA, many of the similar measures are being implemented there with respect to the protection of our TSA workers and also their experience with travelers. To date, the State Department has not issued official travel advisories for particularly Mexico, but again, as I said earlier, these situations are very fluid and so you need to keep up to date on that. In addition to the CDC website, the Department of State has a website that will keep travelers posted on what the situation is not only with our neighboring countries, but with countries around the world.
As I said earlier, our intent is to update you daily on this situation so that you can know what is happening within the federal government. State and local governments obviously now are in the loop. State and local public health authorities obviously are working very hard and will be working hard, because as the doctor said, this will be a marathon, not a sprint, and even if this outbreak is a small one, we can anticipate that we may have a subsequent or follow-on outbreak several months later, which we will be prepared for.
And again, the government can't solve this alone. We need everybody in the United States to take some responsibility here. If you are sick, stay home. Wash your hands, take all of those reasonable measures; that will help us mitigate, contain how many people actually get sick in our country.
Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: With that, let's take a few questions.
Q Thanks, Robert. Are there any U.S. clusters that suggest this is easily spread? Have we seen any pockets of suspected cases in the U.S. that suggest this could be on the scale of Mexico? And you say it's a marathon. How long is this marathon going to be?
DR. BESSER: Thanks for those questions. In terms of duration, my comment earlier about every outbreak is unique is really important to remember. And so it's very hard to say. There's one thing in our favor; we're nearing the end of the flu season, we're nearing the end of the season in which flu viruses tend to transmit very easily. And so we would expect to see a decline in cases, just like we're seeing a decline in cases of seasonal flu, at some point.
The issue of clusters is an important one, and New York City earlier talked about their school cluster, and that's important. Some of our early epidemiologic investigations are showing that contacts of people who have been diagnosed have a significant rate of respiratory infection -- not confirmed to be this; we only have one documented by viral isolate case in this country of person-to-person spread -- and that was an individual who had gone to Mexico and came back, and then there was a spouse who was diagnosed as well, and both are doing well.
Q Robert, how concerned are you about the potential for this outbreak to set back the hopeful economic recovery both here in the United States and globally? And secondly, what if anything are we meant to read into the fact the President Obama decided to go golfing today? Is this part of your effort to reassure Americans that there's no need to panic?
MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure I would draw a direct conclusion between the news today and the President's golf. (Laughter.)
I think as Mr. Brennan said, the President has been updated regularly on this and we'll continue to do so as we will continue to regularly update you.
In terms of anything that is affected economically both here and worldwide, I think it's probably far too early to determine whether that will be a case or whether that will have some factor. We just want to ensure that people understand the steps that are being taken both here and throughout government to address the situation, as well as, as each of these speakers have said, understand the individual responsibilities that people have. If you have questions, go to the CDC website at cdc.gov. And as the doctor mentioned, there's also a Spanish version of that site.
Q First to you, Robert. Why was it necessary to have the President checked this morning?
MR. GIBBS: The President hasn't been checked this morning.
Q Ms. Jarrett indicated today on a Sunday morning program that he had been.
MR. GIBBS: I will double-check. I don't know of any reason why he would have been.
Q And Dr. Besser --
MR. GIBBS: Let me expand that a little bit. I think these guys obviously have more medical degrees than I do, but the incubation period for this is a 24-48 hour incubation period. The doctors advised us that the President's health was never in any danger. We've been gone from Mexico for now more than nine days.
Q Dr. Besser, you mentioned seed stock for vaccines. What is the threshold that you have to meet before you consider developing that vaccine and deploying that vaccine?
DR. BESSER: There are a number of things that we look at going into the decision as to whether to make a vaccine. One is the severity of the strain, its sustainability in the community; do we anticipate that it's a virus that will be here next flu season -- so you want to prepare for that. Then there are issues in terms of production. Currently manufacturers are working on seasonal flu vaccine for next season, which has three types of influenza virus -- or influenza antigen in it. We have to have discussions to determine could they add a fourth; would it require substituting or changing production in another way?
All of those discussions are underway, so that if there's a decision to move in that direction we'd be ready.
Q I notice that you're not recommending that people, even if they're ill, become vaccinated. Has the President been vaccinated by Tamiflu or Relenza? And at what level does this have to get before we go from a public health emergency to a federal pandemic plan?
DR. BESSER: I wanted to clarify a couple things you said. Oseltamivir and zanamavir are not vaccines. Those are antiviral drugs that can be used to treat somebody who is ill.
One of the points I didn't make before is that if someone is ill with flu-like symptoms, in particular if they've traveled to an area that's been involved, they need to contact their doctor and determine what type testing and treatment is indicated.
At this point there is not a vaccine for this swine flu strain. It's a new strain of influenza. And so what we're talking about is whether it's warranted at this point to move toward manufacturing a vaccine.
Q Two questions. First, I want to know if the public health emergency declaration allows the federal government to invoke any kind of quarantine powers. And if so, how would that be used? And second, we've been hearing for years that we could have another 1918-like pandemic. So based on what you know right now, how likely is it that this could be a very, very severe outbreak?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: The public health declaration does not, in and of itself, convey quarantine authority. And most quarantine authority is held at the local and state level, and we're nowhere near that sort of a decision. The decisions that have been made to date are the common-sense ones, the few places where we've had a U.S. outbreak, to close a school here, close a school there. But most quarantine authority is held at the state and local level. And this declaration does not, in and of itself, provide that.
DR. BESSER: The other part of your question had to do with 1918 and what we're seeing here. One of the very important issues that we're looking at is how severe is this outbreak that's taking place. What we're seeing in this country so far is not anywhere near the severity of what we're hearing about in Mexico, and we need to understand that.
It's also important to recognize that there have been enormous efforts going on around the country and around the world for pandemic preparedness and that our detection of this strain in the United States really came out as part of that. There was work going on in San Diego in terms of developing a point of care test kit, something that could be used in doctors' offices, that detected a strain they couldn't identify, and that was identified in our laboratories as the swine flu strain. And so that -- really some of the preparedness activities, the laboratory capability that we have now is not what it was five years ago, let alone in 1918. We understand a lot about how flu should be managed and treated.
Q And if I could just follow with one other question. Relenza and Tamiflu, how effective are they in treating this particular strain, if at all?
DR. BESSER: At this point, it's premature to talk about how effective they are. Those are some of the studies that we would want to undertake and assist Mexico in undertaking. We do know from seasonal flu that early treatment with antivirals can shorten the course of illness. But in terms of this situation, we know that the strain is susceptible, it's not resistant to those drugs. It is resistant to other drugs, amantadine and rimantadine. But it's not resistant to oseltamivir and zanamavir, which are the drugs that we've been stockpiling.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I just wanted to clarify -- on the declaration of emergency, I wish we could call it declaration of emergency preparedness, because that's really what it is in this context. It's similar to what we do, for example, when we know -- when a hurricane may be approaching a site, we will go ahead and issue an emergency declaration that allows us to preposition -- frees up money, resources to get pre-positioned, to get ready. A hurricane may not actually hit a particular landfall, but it allows you to undertake a number of preparatory steps. And really that's what we're doing right now, the government. We're leaning forward, we're preparing in an environment where we really don't know ultimately what the size or seriousness of this outbreak is going to be.
Q Dr. Besser, you said we were likely to see more cases and the CDC's Dr. Ann Schuchat said yesterday, "We do not think we can contain the spread of this virus." What exactly does that mean?
DR. BESSER: In strategies for outbreak control there's a concept of containment where if you can detect it very quickly in one community, that you could swoop in and try and quench it and knock it out so it doesn't go further. We don't think that that's a possibility, but we do think that it's very possible to mitigate or reduce the impact of this infection around the country.
In terms of detection, what we're seeing in this country is mild disease -- things that would never have been detected if we weren't ramping up our surveillance. And so my comment there is that by our efforts of asking doctors to culture -- we are asking doctors when they see someone who has flu-like illness who has traveled to an affected region to do a culture -- take a swab in their nose and send it to the lab so we can see, is it influenza, is it this type. And I expect that as we do that we're going to find cases all -- in many different parts.
When I mentioned the states we're seeing cases in right now, they're not all contiguous. The travel patterns of people now are such that we would expect that we're going to see cases in more states.
Q If I could follow up on that, is it true that it took a week until after Mexico had invoked its own protective measures before the U.S. was notified of this? And is it a significant concern that HHS is in charge of this at a time when it doesn't have a Secretary?
DR. BESSER: In terms of detection and reporting, you know, the confirmation of swine flu from Mexico was shared with us immediately. There was great collaboration between Canada and Mexico on doing that testing. I'm in daily communication with their public health leadership and the collaborations have been absolutely superb. We share information about what we're seeing here and they're sharing information about what they're seeing in Canada and in Mexico.
Q They sent those tests to Canada rather than the U.S., apparently because of paperwork.
DR. BESSER: Well, we have -- there are quite a number of isolates that we've tested here from Mexico as well.
MR. GIBBS: In terms of a Secretary, I think these guys have given you a pretty good indication of the response mechanisms that are in place and that have been activated relating to this. So I think it's all hands on deck and we're doing fine. I would say we're hopeful that we have a new Secretary very shortly.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Secretary Napolitano, I believe Japan and South Korea have both now announced that they're going to begin testing on passengers coming in from the U.S. Why is the U.S. not doing that with passengers coming in from Mexico? And then also, do you have any indications -- I know it's still very early yet -- but any indications that perhaps this might have been caused by bioterrorism, this new strain of flu?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I'll let John answer the second part. With respect to that, we're doing, as I said, passive surveillance now. Right now we don't think the facts warrant a more active testing or screening of passengers coming in from Mexico, although obviously we are letting air carriers and our employees at the gates on those flights make sure that they are asking people if they're sick; and if they're sick, that they shouldn't board the plane -- you know, that sort of thing, passively.
But again, this is a changing dynamic that we may increase or decrease that as the facts change over the next 24, 48, 72 hours.
DR. BESSER: Yes, the question about the strain that we're seeing here, we analyzed that strain and are continuing to do further analysis of that strain and we expect to see the emergence of new flu strains. That's something that we are continually watching for to ensure that we're ready should a strain emerge that there's not immunity and protection in the community for it. This strain is not unlike other new strains that have emerged. It's an assortment -- it's got genetic components from a number of sources, including human, swine, and avian sources. And that's something that you see with new strains.
And so there's nothing that we have seen in our work that would suggest anything but a naturally occurring event.
Q But from a security perspective, nothing to rule it out either -- the possibility of bioterrorism?
MR. BRENNAN: We are looking at all different aspects here, but as the doctor said, there is no evidence whatsoever that we have seen. But clearly, in order to make sure that we're doing everything possible, we're looking at all potential explanations here -- but no evidence whatsoever on the bioterrorism --
Q How do the -- Madam Secretary, how do the stocks of effective antivirals today compare to previous outbreaks -- SARS, for example? And will DOD stocks be available for the public, or are those just for DOD?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Right now the DOD stocks I believe are for the DOD personnel, but I'll have to confirm that for you later. I believe that to be the case. We have 50 million courses that are in the national stockpile. As I said, we're freeing up a quarter of those for use by the states, in addition to whatever state stockpiles they have, should they need it. Priority will go to the states that have confirmed outbreaks of disease. And I don't have the history on how that compares to what we had on hand for SARS.
DR. BESSER: The strategic national stockpile has considerable assets for treating flu. In addition to the antivirals, there's the supplies should we see hospitalizations that would warrant support. SARS is a different picture in that there were -- there was not a medication that people could take to treat it, and so this is a very different situation.
And as part of our planning for a large outbreak this pre-deployment of availability is a leaning-forward step. We know that many states aren't seeing any cases, but it was our belief that having things there ahead of time was the way to go, rather than waiting until it got to a point where people were asking.
Q Secretary Napolitano, you mentioned the quarantine power and, you know, that's really a state and local issue. What additional authority does the President have, what other powers does he have to contain this, to mitigate it, whatever. What else can he do?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I don't want to give you a legal brief on that right now, but that's --
Q Perhaps later? (Laughter.)
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Yes, exactly. (Laughter.)
We want to make sure that it's very precisely explained to you and to the public. So perhaps we could brief that to you later on this week.
Q But there are additional things? You guys are confident that -- measures that you can take, beyond a declaration of emergency -- things that you can do at the federal level?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Yes.
Q Okay. And Robert, actually, can you follow up on that eco question, on the eco trade. I just want to be clear, you're not at all studying this, measuring what sort of effect this could have economically -- you're just not at that level yet?
MR. GIBBS: I'll check with NEC. I don't know of anything related to that at this point, but we can certainly check.
Yes, ma'am.
Q What haven't you banned U.S. travel to Mexico and why haven't you changed the U.S. alert level in the face of this -- unless the declaration of public health emergency is doing that?
DR. BESSER: I can comment. We have at CDC posted an outbreak notification regarding Mexico, and we're continuing to watch the situation there and evaluate. And should it be warranted, we would make a change in that regard.
In terms of the stages and phases of pre-pandemic situations, the real important take-away is that we have an outbreak of a new infectious disease that we're approaching aggressively. And it matters much less what you call it. Those things are designed to trigger actions, but we trigger our actions based on what we're seeing here in-country as well as what we see around the globe. And given that this new strain is something we're experiencing here on the ground, we're being very aggressive and addressing that based on what we're seeing in each community.
Q What has been discovered so far about why people in Mexico have died, but not elsewhere?
DR. BESSER: That's an unanswered question. We have folks on the ground and we haven't been able to find an answer for that. There are a number of different hypotheses and I'm hoping that we'll be able to shed some light on that as these teams get more established and continue their studies.
Q For Dr. Besser, is there evidence of ongoing transmission in Mexico, or are the cases being picked up there ones that happened in the last couple of weeks and are over? Or are there new chains of transmission being generated?
DR. BESSER: Again, I don't want to comment on the situation on the ground in Mexico. I've not heard that it is stopping. Their overall flu surveillance is only showing a small increase from what they would see annually, which, again, makes it difficult to use some of the surveillance tools to measure the impact of a new strain when you're in the midst of another flu season.
Q Just to follow up on what the President -- for you, Robert -- what the President -- did you say that he has not been treated with any kind of --
MR. GIBBS: I said yesterday that he had not been. I will recheck with the doctor. Again, based on the incubation period, neither he, nor anybody that he traveled with, nor anybody in the press corps that I'm aware of would have exhibited any symptoms that would have caused any heightened awareness.
Q But the doctor didn't check him out --
MR. GIBBS: No. Again, in the absence of symptoms -- I think this probably goes without saying, too -- in the absence of symptoms, you shouldn't go get tested. That's going to crowd any sort of either public health or private health infrastructure. If you are sick or you do have symptoms, then you should take precautions. But there's not reason to believe that his -- or anybody that traveled with him -- health was in any sort of jeopardy.
Q Just to follow up on the HHS question. Apparently, HHS --- CDC, Surgeon General assured there are no --
MR. GIBBS: I thought he was doing a pretty good job. (Laughter.)
Q But it raises a political question about how movement there has been stalled because of HHS. I mean, do you have -- has the President expressed concern about the fact that you don't have a team in place there, or at the --
MR. GIBBS: No, because -- I want to be very clear here. There is a team in place. The team is -- part of it is standing behind me, and part of it is working as we speak to identify exactly what the doctor and others have talked about. I think this notion somehow that if there's not currently a Secretary, that there's not the function that needs to take place in order to prepare for this either this or any other situation is just simply not the case.
Thanks, guys.
END 1:16 P.M. EDT

And in NY...

For Immediate Release: April 26, 2009
Contact: Errol Cockfield | Errol.Cockfield@chamber.state.ny.us | 212.681.4640 | 518.474.8418
DOH Contact: Diane Mathis | dmm10@health.state.ny.us | 518.817.6198

GOVERNOR PATERSON ACTIVATES HEALTH EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN; PUTS STATE ON ‘HIGH ALERT’ FOR SWINE FLU

Eight Confirmed Cases in New York City

Suffolk County Specimens Test Negative

Governor David A. Paterson today announced that he has activated New York State’s health emergency preparedness plan, and put the State on high alert to quickly identify and respond to any cases of swine flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed eight cases of a new strain of influenza (swine flu H1N1) in New York City, and has declared a public health emergency. As a course of normal operating procedure during events such as this, it is common, and welcomed, for the CDC to make a declaration of public health emergency. This enables the State and localities to receive quicker access to vital resources, and other necessary assistance.

“Many New Yorkers are understandably concerned about the identification of swine flu in New York State, and I want to assure everyone that New York State has the strongest statewide disease monitoring, laboratory and health care response system in the nation,” said Governor Paterson. “We are coordinating a strong response with the CDC and city and county health departments. We also activated a 24 hour toll-free hotline that New Yorkers across the State can use to get answers to their questions.”

Governor Paterson also reported that the hotline received over 300 calls in the first four hours of operation Sunday. The hotline is 1-800-808-1987.

New York State Department of Health (DOH) Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D. said: “We have been preparing for an event such as this for years. We have the finest public health and health care systems and adequate supplies to address swine flu. We are implementing comprehensive plans that have been developed and practiced for many years and will mobilize our stockpiles of medical supplies as needed.”

Governor Paterson said that results confirming eight swine flu cases in New York City were expected. “We have been operating on the assumption that the CDC test results would be positive for swine flu and had already activated a strong statewide system to rapidly identify and respond to any additional cases. To date, this system has not identified an increased level of influenza activity, although the outbreak is still in the early stages,” continued Governor Paterson.

“Today I am also pleased to announce that the DOH’s Wadsworth Center laboratory is reporting that testing for swine flu on eight samples from Suffolk County, including one sample from a student in the Amityville school district and seven samples from Good Samaritan Hospital in West Islip, were negative for any type of influenza,” said Governor Paterson.

Governor Paterson said the State coordinates its response in part through New York’s web-based Health Alert Network (HAN) to communicate and coordinate disease monitoring activity, laboratory testing, and health care response with county health departments, hospitals and other health care providers. An advisory issued through the HAN Saturday evening was sent to 25,000 recipients. In addition, the State is taking other actions, including:

DOH's Wadsworth laboratory has developed a sophisticated prioritization protocol for testing samples to assure rapid identification of severe illness.
DOH is monitoring the utilization of resources to assure the most efficient use of medicines, masks, and other supplies.
DOH has implemented its rapid internet reporting of suspect illness, providing complete, real time understanding as the situation unfolds.
DOH is in continuous, ongoing communication with counties, hospitals, other health care providers and schools across the state to assure the most up-to-date information is available.
DOH, in coordination with local health departments and health care providers, is monitoring hospital emergency department visits for respiratory illness and monitoring volume of Medicaid prescriptions for influenza antiviral medications to quickly identify any increased influenza activity. Currently, no increased level of activity has been identified.

Deputy Commissioner Dr. Guthrie Birkhead, M.D., M.P.H., who heads DOH’s Office of Public Health, said: “Although the New York cases to date have been mild, we are in close communication with clinicians and hospitals to identify more serious cases, should they occur, and to make sure all necessary resources are available for treatment. I want to remind New Yorkers to take the same common sense precautions to prevent illness that you would take with any seasonal flu, such as staying home when you are ill. Parents do not need to keep otherwise healthy children home from school unless directed to do so by local school and health officials.”

It is important to note that ordinary seasonal flu, which has symptoms similar to swine flu, is still active in New York State. Precautionary measures for both seasonal flu and swine flu include:

Washing your hands often with soap and warm water. Alcohol-based hand cleansers are also effective.
Avoiding people who are ill.
Staying home from work or school if you are sick.
Using tissue when you cough, sneeze or spit, and dispose of the tissue in a covered trash bin.
Keeping hands away from your face. Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth.
Cleaning shared space more often such as phone receivers, keyboards, steering wheels and office equipment.
Refraining from sharing personal items such as forks, spoons, toothbrushes and towels.
The public can obtain more information about swine flu and precautionary measures at DOH’s web site atwww.nyhealth.gov.

True believers are angry at Rick Warren's 'betrayal' on Larry King Live

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:00:00 GMT

The other day I posted about Rick Warren's elephant-sized lie on Larry King that he never endorsed Prop 8. Well on the fundie side of the fence, his appearance, where he said that the Iowa ruling wasn't on his agenda, has sent Bryan Fischer of the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association over the edge and this is his take:

WARREN APOLOGIZES ON LARRY KING FOR HIS SUPPORT OF ONE-MAN, ONE-WOMAN MARRIAGE
So if you want to understand why we are losing the culture war, you probably don't need to look any further than Rick Warren, he of the famously seeker-friendly model of tepid Christianity. On "Larry King Live" last night, Warren apologized for his support of Proposition 8, saying his supportive comments were only made at the very last minute and only in response to a question from a parishioner.
Proposition 8, as you recall, established the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage in the California constitution. If there was ever a constitutional amendment that should have the unhesitating support of any spiritual leader who believes in the Bible and the sanctity of marriage, this was it.
But Warren did everything in his power last night to distance himself from Prop 8. Said he, "During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never - never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going."
He thus takes pride in being completely AWOL while this huge battle over the spiritual and moral fabric of our nation was taking place in his own state.
...Where are the voices of truth in the pulpits of America to stand against this rapid descent into the darkness? Where?
God help us, and God help the United States of America. We're in deeper trouble than we know.

BTW, Brian, thanks for the link up.

And then Lurleen sends me this link from Faith & Freedom Network, where the Blend got a link up from Washington Hate Coalition whiner Gary Randall about Warren:

Rick Warren seemed to be apologizing to Larry King Monday evening for supporting Proposition 8 in California. He said his supportive comments were only made at the last moment and in response to a question from someone who attends his church.
There is no social issue that is more defining for biblical Christians than that of marriage and life.
..It seemed that Pastor Warren was trying to distance himself from the marriage issue.
I have had a great deal of respect for Rick Warren and his ministry, however his statements to Larry King are very troubling.
His statements were equally troubling to the other side because they are now accusing him of lying and trying to mislead people.
I have linked to Pam's House Blend. You can read his comments, their comments and see the video of his interview with King.

Pastor Rick's in a bit of hot water now...

Rush: Obama praise will give Gordon Brown 'anal poisoning'

Pam Spaulding — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:00:00 GMT

How'd I miss this disgusting screed by true leader of the GOP the other day? I think the guy must be back on the Hillbilly Heroin.

CNN's Rick Sanchez couldn't hold back his contempt as Rush Limbaugh mewls that England's Prime Minister Gordon Brown's positive comments about President Obama will lead to Brown's "anal poisoning."

Sanchez: "Then you have Rush Limbaugh who doesn't like the fact that Gordon Brown was impressed with the U.S. President. Didn't like the compliment...in fact, Limbaugh was so upset about it, he made what may be one of the most disgusting comments anybody could possibly make. I mean, this is the type that would make me wash out my kid's mouth, the type that even for Rush Limbaugh seems beyond the pale. Some of you no doubt will find Limbaugh's comments offensive."
Rush: "So here is a full-fledged, committed global socialist praising the president of the United States for all of his achievements in the first 70 days -- a global socialist happy with the changes Obama has made, and 'you have changed America's relationship with the world,' which is why all of the losers that make up the protesters are breaking bank windows, but the slobbering, the slobbering - this guy, folks I'm telling you - if he keeps this up throughout the G20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it."

John Amato at C&L says it all.

We all got the crude sex joke, Rushie. He is a disgusting homophobe. Why else would he make such frequent references to people having to "bend over and grab their ankles"?

The fixation of conservatives like Rush on sex acts is really troubling, I mean worthy of the couch. There is something seriously wrong with them. I mean considering how many closet cases and deviants are in the GOP's ranks, it's a motherlode for shrinks. It makes you wonder what is in the cache of El Rushbo's browser.

Alan Keyes: President Obama is 'the living incarnation of the glamour of evil'

Pam Spaulding — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:20:12 GMT

Gee, I think tossing your daughter out of the family home because she came out of the closet is the epitome of evil. Alan Keyes, on his blog "Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY," has a frothing-at-the-mouth post about Notre Dame's invitation to the president to speak and receive an honorary degree. The failed U.S. Senate and presidential candidate cannot believe his former rival, the "child sacrifice" advocate in the White House, will darken the door of the Catholic university.

Apparently the Catholic folks at Notre Dame University have no more respect for the Baptismal vows they renew every Easter than their invited Commencement Speaker this year has for the Presidential Oath of Office. At this moment in time, Barack Obama is the living incarnation of the glamour of evil. His smiley tones and non-threatening manner mask a studied commitment to the promotion of the most deadly form of evil in the world today- the cult of abortion centered on the ritual of child sacrifice. Obama has moved with impetuous determination to prove his claim to the mantle of High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion cult. With Executive orders he has shifted the resources of the U.S. government behind the global implementation of abortion. He has declared open season on embryonic human life. He has appointed enthusiastic political and judicial acolytes of this cult of death to high positions in the Executive and Judicial branches.
Even before these actions there was no rational basis for pretending to doubt his absolute commitment to the evil of abortion for its own sake. There can be no other explanation for his opposition, while an Illinois state Senator, to the bipartisan effort in the legislature to end the heinous practice of infanticide against innocent babies- delivered in the course of an abortion attempt; wrapped in soiled linens; and left on a cart to languish without medical care or any human comfort until they died. His only real explanation for refusing to support an end to this abominable practice was the cold-blooded logic that any interference with the mother's intention to kill the child would damage so-called abortion rights.
...Barack Obama is the incarnation of what the Catholic Church identifies as the epitome of evil in the world today. What Notre Dame has done puts the stamp of Catholicity upon him, as if there is no absolute contradiction between what he advocates and represents and what can honorably be presented from platforms that benefit from the auspices of the Church. A Commencement speech represents a word spoken at the beginning of a new stage of life. In the literal sense it represents a principle for thought and action. Are we seriously to believe that some morally truthful argument can be made that justifies presenting Barack Obama in a Catholic context, as one who speaks for decent moral principle? It is sophomoric to suggest that any good thing he promises, promotes or even implements can compensate for his declared war upon the very principle of goodness, which is nowhere more clearly at stake than in the law of love that shrouds, protects and sanctifies our reverence for innocent human life. What Catholic theology makes good the rationalization that good works somehow supply the deficiency of a spirit and will that in the innocent person of the child, defile and abuse the very image of God Himself?

You can surf over to read the rest of the womb-controlling rant; the hypocrisy of his touting of pious familiy values is astounding, given what he's said and done in his own family.