The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Short of yodeling, I've been doing my best Switzerland impersonation during the primaries. When it came my turn to vote in the primaries I voted my hopes, knowing I'd support whomever we got in the Democratic nominee. (Let's face it. My values would never let me vote for a John McCain.)
Well, it's pretty clear now what we're going to get in a Democratic nominee, and I agree it's time to move on. This has been a passionate race so far. One that has enlivened the progressive base, and the "maybe-kinda-sorta progressive" base, and the "we-just-want-to-win" base. Now that it's rounding the bend (though only on the last lap of the qualifying round, mind you), there are bound to be people who are as disappointed as they were passionate about their candidate. I understand and respect that, and I'd say the same no matter who was all-but-the-nominee right now.
That said, it's time to remember why so many of us were so passionate about one candidate or the other: We all want to see this country change course from the disastrous path we've been dragged along for the past seven-plus years. We all know that we can't afford even four more years of the same. Not our for country, not for our communities, and not for our families.
Say "Hello" to President John McCain, the oldest and whitest first term president ever. As reported by USA Today, a Gallup poll shows that well over a quarter of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama wins the nominations, while nearly 20% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain rather than Clinton.
McCain apparently seems innocuous enough to be acceptable to many Democrats. I suppose another 100 years in Iraq is a small price to pay to get revenge for sour grapes.
Sweet Jesus, but I am sick and tired of hearing about Jesus.
Let me be clear. When a presidential candidate is asked the following question — or any similar question — about his/her opponent, it shouldn't be answered. If said candidate isn't smart or decent enough to leave it at that, there is only one correct answer. (Nancy Pelosi, please take note.)
STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?
HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that's, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim...
CLINTON: Right, right..
KROFT: …you don't believe that he's a Muslim.
CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There's nothing to base that on. As far as I know.
The correct answer is, "Who gives a fuck?!" The recommended follow-up is, "Do you have any questions about stuff that does matter?"
We know it is happening, the question is where?
Bill has his teams ready to ride, but what message we he send when he rides into town? Has Bill been put in the way back seat? IMHO where he belongs. An Email I just got, 'Feminists want Bill out of sight'
LGBT see Bill and gooooooo-> DOMA +DADT = Nothing. Not a good sign for Bill. Many people Wonder what will happen if Hillary is the President? I do, although I doubt the will hire Dick Morris for help on trianglization, partof what killed LGBT legislation during the 90s.
If we mock Romney as he chases around the country telling people everything they want to hear (no matter how it contradicts what he said yesterday), we should also do the same when the promises from Clinton sound too good to be true.
The woman with the momentum is pulling out all the stops to attract support. Look out Obama!! Clinton was on Tyra last week and she is giving away the store (see below).
According to AMERICAblog, here is a partial transcript of the chat between Hillary and Tyra:
BANKS: (Reading a question ) "I am a lesbian and my partner of 20 years is sick. She can't afford her medical expenses and because we are not legally married, my policy won't cover her. How can you help us?"
HRC: I believe that if you are in a committed relationship, you ought to be able to have your benefits go to that person, or to anyone else. Suppose you are living with your brother and you want him to have your benefits. He wants you to have your benefits. Suppose you are taking care of and living with your mother. If you are in a committed relationship, no matter what that relationship is.
BANKS: Woman, woman, man, man, it doesn't matter.
HRC: That's right. I believe the benefits are yours and you ought to be able to give them and pass them on to whomever you choose. Also, as we begin to see different states making these decisions, civil unions, domestic partners and, marriage, the federal government ought to make all of the benefits through Social Security and other programs available to any legally recognized relationship and I intend to do that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have a really hard time believing this or simply accepting it at face value.
If Tyra knew anything (and there is no reason to think she must know more than what 80% of the US population does) she would have followed up her question to Clinton with other questions I'd love to hear her (and Obama) answer:
Since over 40 states have legislated against same sex marriage - nearly 30 of those states have doubled their discrimination by amending constitutions AND nearly 20 of those states have extreme restrictions against the recognition of ANY same sex relationship - how would she enact federal recognition through insurance coverage and/or Social Security benefits?
Would any federal plan be able to override the fact that there are legal accommodations for same sex families in only 10 states?
How will her plan benefit the same sex families that live in Virginia and Ohio? Does she have a problem with those states severely limiting the citizenship of same sex couples?
How are you going to top this Obama? Come on...sell me the Brooklyn bridge and I'll vote for you.
When I watched John Kerry endorse Barack Obama, I couldn't help but think: "Here we go, again."
Kerry was the Vietnam war hero turned anti-war hero who threw gays under the bus to get elected in 2004.
And we relented, not wanting to upset Democratic Party big-whigs like Bill Clinton who made it sound like we were the ones who brought on the anti-gay marriage initiatives in eleven states that year. They passed, Kerry lost, and we were blamed. By the way, has either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever confirmed that Bill Clinton advised Kerry to support the anti-gay ballot initiatives as a way of defusing the gay issue?
So here's Barack Obama, so fresh and new - getting his national jump-start at the 2004 Democratic National Convention where he talked about red and blue states and having gay friends. Yes - he actually used the word "gay." But no more. Both in his New Hampshire concession speech and in his thank you to Kerry, Obama reverted to the code word "equality."
(UPDATE, 12/14: Shaheen resigned over his comments. Guess that pink slip wasn't just waved at him.)
Watching the Hillary Clinton campaign meltdown is like watching a train wreck. Barack Obama has either passed her in some polls or is within the margin of error in others. Support among women and blacks is frittering away for her, despite dragging Bill out on the road to inject some personality into the rallies.
Camp Clinton has also suffered from incredibly bad judgment, particularly when trying to go negative under the radar, as two Iowa supporters, Jones County coordinator Judy Rose andLinda Olson, a volunteer coordinator in Iowa County, were caught e-blasting the rumor that Obama, a member of the United Church of Christ, is a Muslim "Manchurian Candidate" intent on taking down the U.S. It included this language:
"Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential Candidacy. Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they Plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at The highest level.
One can only imagine that Clinton's highly paid coterie of professional "political geniuses" is now pointing fingers at one another for the slide. It's particularly amusing given the latest debacle, the not-very-low whispering campaign that Obama's admitted past drug use will be used against him and thus he's unelectable.
Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman of Clinton's front-runner campaign, raised the issue during an interview with The Washington Post, posted on washingtonpost.com. Clinton's campaign did not have an immediate comment. Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said the Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.
''It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?''' said Shaheen, whose wife Jeanne is the state's former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year. ''There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome,'' Shaheen said.
Well, that backfired, and the backpedaling came out of the Clinton camp today. Click for the rest.
Oh boy. The Hillary Clinton juggernaut is running out of steam in Iowa as Barack Obama and Edwards are basically in a statistical tie with her. (ABC):
While Clinton still leads on more personal attributes than any of her competitors, just half of Iowa Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll believe she's willing to say what she really thinks -- far fewer than say so of either Obama or John Edwards. Obama beats her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate. Her advantage on experience, while substantial, has softened since summer. She has notably less support in Iowa than nationally in trust to handle a variety of specific issues -- on Iraq, for example, Obama now runs evenly with her. And she's third in Iowa among men.
...Among those who say they're "absolutely certain" to attend a caucus, Obama has 28 percent support, Clinton 26 percent -- again very close, and a contrast to Clinton's nearly 2-1 lead over Obama nationally.
Obama is within sight of Clinton on another of her main features, an image of strong leadership: Thirty-two percent call her the strongest leader, vs. 27 percent for Obama; it was 36-23 percent last summer. And both Obama and Edwards lead Clinton in honesty and trustworthiness, and in empathy, two relative weaknesses for her nationally as well. Clinton retains her lead in being seen as the most electable candidate, though its much less of an advantage in Iowa than nationally. And few fault her effort: She also leads as the candidate whos campaigned hardest in the state.
...A final change in Iowa, less fortuitous for Clinton, is among political moderates; her support in this group has slipped to 19 percent, again in third place behind Obama and Edwards. She does better with liberals, but there are fewer of them.
The negative-but-cannot-be-tied-directly-to-Hillary's-peeps spigots will open shortly.
Scaife, who relentlessly investigated the private lives of the Clintons, and sought to open up the estate records of the late Sen. John Heinz during the campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Teresa Heinz Kerry being the widow of Sen. Heinz and wife of Sen. Kerry) - has aproblem with his own indiscretions being reported in the media.
"Mr. Scaife's attempt to make court documents inaccessible is unusual for the head of a news organization. Historically, newspapers and television stations have fought for greater rather than more restricted access. In fact, Mr. Scaife's Tribune-Review joined other organizations in seeking to unseal the estate records of the late Sen. John Heinz during the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry, who is married to Sen. Heinz's widow, Teresa."
"Mr. Scaife's filing "appears to strike at the heart of the First Amendment by attempting to impose a prior restraint on the Post-Gazette's ability to use documents that came into the public domain," said Post-Gazette attorney W. Thomas McGough Jr."
Which would seem to support his wifes contention that:
"Mrs. Scaife, 60, contends that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, one of a half-dozen local Tribune-Review Publishing newspapers owned by Mr. Scaife, 75, should be considered a hobby or personal cause rather than a business investment because the paper has lost $20 million to $30 million annually since it began publishing in 1992.
The IRS defines a hobby or not-for-profit activity as an activity not pursued for profit. "An activity is usually considered a business if it makes a profit during at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year," according to the IRS."
So much for respecting the judgement of the free market. One has to wonder if the IRS treats the Tribune-Review as a hobby and not as a business; does this have any campaign finance law implications when they endorse?
Until late last week, the State of Iowa had a law on its books that was inspired by the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) passed by the Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. In the past ten years, a total of 42 states have passed similar legislation as extra insurance just in case the Federal version of the bigotry somehow wasn’t explicit enough.
On top of those two layers of the American cake of bigotry, 27 states have added a frosting of constitutional amendments that reinforce (some with extreme restrictions) the opinion that same sex couples are exempt from due process and equal protection guarantees that exist in the US Constitution.
The people have spoken! There is nothing more democratic and truly American than leaving issues like this for each individual state to decide. This is what Hillary Clinton seems to think according to her remarks made last week following the news that a court in Iowa declared that the states' definition of marriage to be unconstitutional. Appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres show, Clinton said that the question of same sex marriage should be left up to the states.
According to the AP (“Iowa gay marriage ruling stirs 2008 race” by Amy Lorentzen 8/31/07) Clinton said, "The states have always determined age of marriage, other conditions and over time we've gotten rid a lot of discrimination that used to exist in marriage laws," she said. "That's now happening. People are making decisions. Civil unions, marriage. They're deciding in the states and I think that's the appropriate place for that to be."
Does Clinton advocate for states to create laws that conflict with the US Constitution? It sounds like she does. According to Polk County Judge Robert Hanson, Iowa’s definition of marriage, “…violates Plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights for the aforementioned reasons including, but not limited to, the absence of a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest, the Court concludes it is unconstitutional and invalid.”
I would love to hear her response to this interpretation of her ideology of leaving the matter of marriage equality for the states to determine. She is encouraging the states to continue the discrimination against LGBT families that her husband started. Doesn’t she find it problematic as a candidate for President of the United States that a judge has reasonably and readily determined that DoMA laws are unconstitutional and harmful?
It states in the decision issued by Judge Hanson last week that there are 5800 same sex couples in the state of Iowa and that 37% of those households are raising children under the age of 18. There are approximately 3158 children living in Iowa with parents who are denied constitutional guarantees because the voters of the state decided they don’t like LGBT people. Bill Clintons’ legislation allowed them to legalize bigotry. Hillary Clinton is perpetuating this attack on the citizenship of LGBT people as she continues to promote the idea that the states are the “appropriate” place to handle these decisions.
She needs to read Judge Hanson’s decision and she needs to be questioned about her position in the light of his interpretation of the law. No Presidential candidate, particularly this candidate - especially during an appearance on a television show hosted by an award winning lesbian - should be allowed to make general, thoughtless, and ignorant statements about the citizenship of a minority group without being asked to clarify herself.
In the decision, Judge Hanson says that the law in question “…operates only to harm same-sex couples and their children” and “…the total exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is completely arbitrary.”
Is it Senator Clinton’s position to encourage states to pass arbitrary and unconstitutional laws that harm LGBT citizens?
(A little street activism last night... - promoted by pam)
My husband and I stood outside of a restaurant tonight that was full of people raising money for Clintons Presidential campaign. The event was sponsored by a local LGBT business organization.
Tickets were $250, $500 and $2300.
Rob held a sign that read "Civil Unions are not equal" while I handed out fliers with information I gathered after watching the forum the other night.
I handed out maybe 20 of them. People were receptive mostly, but a few people said they agree with me and know all they need to know.
I wanted to ask questions that were not asked the other night or were raised as a result of the forum. Maybe someone will ask Clinton...or think about it the next time they write a check.
The formatting sucks here...sorry...the flier looked better:
The results of leaving marriage equality for the states to decide:
Constitutional amendments passed (some have law and amendment) States that have banned all same sex couple recognition 17 States that have banned same-sex marriage only 8
State legislatures that have made same sex marriage illegal 12 States that have taken no action whatsoever 3 Total 40
States that recognize same sex couples: Domestic Partnerships with some spousal rights 3 (inc HI) DPs that are fully separate and equal institutions 2 Civil Unions that are fully separate and equal 4 Legal Marriage 1 Total 10
Bi-national same sex couples face separation or exile. The states can’t do anything about that. Why won’t Senator Clinton sponsor the Uniting American Families Act?
What should same-sex couples and families in states like Ohio, Kansas, Utah and Georgia do? Should they move to states on the east or west coast in order to be treated fairly?
Are there any other minority groups in the US that should be given separate institutions to provide equal treatment – or is it just the LGBT community?
During the forum the other night, Senator Clinton said, “…this has not been a long term struggle yet” in reference to the marriage equality movement. What is the appropriate amount of time to wait for acknowledgement of full citizenship?
Will Senator Clinton appear in California to campaign against the ballot initiatives that will try to amend the state constitution against same sex couples next year?
Senator Clinton is an attorney as well as an experienced government official that should have expert knowledge of the US Constitution. Does she see any contradictions with limitations on LGBT citizenship (or the creation of a separate but equal institution) and the full faith and credit or equal protection clauses in the US Constitution?
Is it safe to say after the forum the other night that LGBT Americans should be eligible to fight and die for their country, but should not be eligible for marriage?
I want the opportunity to have a marriage that is as traditional, sacred and legal as the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Is my same sex relationship as valid and respectable as their relationship? Are any of Rudy Giuliani’s three marriages any more or less valid or respectable than my same sex relationship?
Edwards said in a Human Rights Campaign questionnaire that surfaced this week that committed gay couples should have "the same rights, benefits and responsibilities" as straight couples.
"I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples," Edwards said in the questionnaire.
Clinton and Obama have now put out statements -- though a document dump on over a holiday weekend to the Blade sure looks like they want to fly under the radar, lol. You'll see why -- their positions fall short. [The original PDF docs, while linked to on the Blade's site, unfortunately don't work right now.]
Clinton and Obama also expressed support for civil unions in documents their campaigns provided the Blade.
"Hillary will work to ensure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits ? from health insurance and life insurance, property rights and more," says a document from her campaign titled "Fighting for the LGBT Community."
"Barack Obama supports civil unions that give gay couples full rights, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples and the same property rights as anyone else," says a campaign document titled "Barack Obama?s Support for the Gay and Lesbian Community."
Edwards was the only candidate among the three to address marriage equality in his document.
"Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it," he said in his questionnaire. "However, I believe the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships."
Edwards also noted he supports "the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships.
In their documents, neither Clinton nor Obama addressed the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Oooh...that's a public backslide for Obama, who had unequivocally stated his opposition to DOMA when running for the Senate in 2004 - "I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor." He had the chance to reiterate it here and blew it.
Hillary, on the other hand, I'm not surprised that she said zero on it -- after all, she would be advocating the repeal of her husband's handiwork. Practically speaking, she should oppose it if she's truly for civil equality on paper if not in name.
***
Note: This week Edwards has been dealing with blowback from another issue, namely, a statement the candidate allegedly made to political hack Bob Shrum in 1998 ("I'm not comfortable around those people," referring to gays), which has earned this scathing commentary from Kevin Naff of The Blade. It's ironic that Edwards' more gay-affirming policy answers are juxtaposed against that other story.
Personally, I don't care if someone is "uncomfortable" privately if they can muster up the courage to institute equality as a public servant. I experience discomfort watching het couples paw all over each other in public (get a room); that doesn't mean I want to legislate their rights away).
Of course, Edwards certainly has something to prove in this area, and if Hillary can "evolve," then so can Edwards or any of the other Dems on equality issues. That said, we all know there are plenty of folks in the GOP who privately have no discomfort with LGBT folks at all -- but work every day as public servants to put discriminatory policies in place and deny us rights.
***
BTW, what we all knew was coming -- Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers', a new book by Carl Bernstein, A Woman in Charge, names Marilyn Jo Jenkins as the woman in question. If any Dems in charge didn't think the Clinton marriage was going to be on the table -- books, oppo research -- they were smoking something strong. The GOP field is so weak, and the Clinton well-traveled road of its "scandals" is so well-documented (but they do look pitiful next to Dear Leader's, don't they?), that every tidbit is going to be placed out there. Of course the big question is whether the Clinton camp is going to do a John Kerry and leave every charge unaddressed ("take the high road") until it's too late -- the sheeple will take it all in and decide accordingly.
On the other hand, many of these folks may simply want change, not Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton baggage.
Ahhhh...isn't it fun when documents tumble into the public domain, revealing the hand-wringing that goes on behind the scenes? Hillary Clinton trails in Iowa behind John Edwards and Barack Obama, and one aide wrote a memo suggesting the NY Senator and 2008 presidential contender back out of the Iowa caucuses.
The memo from Mike Henry emerged days after a Des Moines Sunday Register poll of likely caucus-goers showed Clinton trailing rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama in Iowa, which is to hold its caucuses Jan. 14, 2008.
"I believe we need a new approach to winning the Democratic nomination," Henry wrote. "This approach involves shifting the focus away from Iowa and running a campaign that is more focused on other early primary states and winning this new national primary."
All the major presidential campaigns have been struggling to adapt to next year's vastly accelerated calendar, with such states as California and New York holding primaries within weeks of Iowa and the other traditional small state powerhouse, New Hampshire. Clinton is under extra pressure now that Obama and Edwards threaten her strategy to project herself as the inevitable nominee.
Sorry Hil, you're not getting anointed, you have to earn it. So after this memo leaked, she had to trot out and publicly re-commit herself to running in Iowa.
Her advisers fearing backlash from Iowa Democrats who cast the first votes of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton denounced the memo hours after it leaked from her headquarters and played down an internal debate over campaign strategy. "I am unalterably committed to competing in Iowa," she told The Associated Press.
...After the AP reported Henry's memo Wednesday, Clinton's advisers - including those who had agreed with him - quickly closed ranks behind the Iowa-first strategy and sought to play down divisions within the campaign.
"This memo offered the views of one person," Clinton told the AP. "I didn't see the memo and didn't know about the memo until it apparently fell into the hands of someone outside the campaign."
***
And just to show that while I'm not a Hillary supporter, I have no patience for right-wing gay-baiting like this from Cliff Kincaid, the head of Accuracy in Media is completely bottom-feeder BS. Read after the jump.
In this morning's e-mail came this message from none other than Peter Daou of the Daou Report.
I wanted to personally invite you to visit hillaryclinton.com and view Sen. Clinton's announcement that she will form an exploratory committee to run for President. And I'd like to invite you to join the senator for a live conversation with America - an unprecedented series of video webcasts beginning Monday, January 22nd at 7pm EST for three nights. We are also asking people to submit posts in preparation for the upcoming launch of the official campaign blog - one entry will be selected as our first guest post.
As you may know, I've been communicating with bloggers and online activists on behalf of Sen. Clinton since last summer and I'd like to extend an invitation to you to contact me directly with any feedback, questions, comments, criticisms, compliments, or anything else you'd like to tell the campaign as we move forward.
I'd also like to say that I'm excited to be working with several colleagues who you may be familiar with: Judd Legum (who will be the campaign's research director), Crystal Patterson, and Jesse Berney.
I look forward to hearing from you?
Best,
Peter
P.S. Please feel free to pass this along to fellow bloggers.
Rather than reply to Mr. Daou in an e-mail message that would surely be lost in the enormous daily volume of electronic correspondence he undoubtedly receives, I herewith publish my reply to him as a public document for all to review and consider.
