Had it not been for the time it would take to organize a Tea Party to protest outside the fund-raiser the President was hosting earlier tonight for one of his least accomplished former Senate colleagues, I might have put something together.  Well, it seems like some gay activists beat me to the punch:

A group of gay rights activists disrupted President Obama’s speech at a fundraiser here for Sen. Barbara Boxer Monday night, decrying what they describe as Mr. Obama’s inaction on overturning the military’s ban on gay service members and calling on him to submit repeal language to Congress. 

Something tells me these protesters have nothing to do with the various gay organizations, but are more likely affiliated with the leftist blogs, holding the Democrat to account for the campaign promises he made to the gay community.

While I respect them for standing up for their beliefs,they should have showed the president more respect, waiting for him to complete his remarks before raising their concerns.

Via JammieWearingFool via Instapundit.

UPDATE:  Just got this release in my in-box.  The group GetEQUAL (whatever that means) claims responsibility for the interruption:

Moments ago, several GetEQUAL activists interrupted President Obama during his speech at a fundraising reception for Senator Barbara Boxer in Los Angeles, expressing anger over the slow progress on repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and demanding that he repeal it.
 
GetEQUAL activists shouted, “what about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” and “it’s time for equality for all Americans.”   The President, at one point bringing his remarks to a halt, said, “Barbara and I are supportive of repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.” (more…)

In his comment to my firsts post on Obama’s memorandum on hospital visitation, David wrote, “I knew you’d be against whatever Obama does so I wasn’t surprised.”  Wonder how he knew that?  Must not have been from checking our archives where I praised Obama here, here, here, here, here, here and here for the way he was going about repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).

(And those aren’t the only posts where I praised the president on DADT.)

David is not the only one of our critics to make assumptions which, with just a few keystrokes, he could have learned were false.  In my post challenging our critics using the “self-hating” slur to defend themselves, Jennifer, one of the few such critics who kept her comments civil, wrote:

You are tolerated in the ranks only because you agree that you deserve the second-class legal status assigned to you by the conservative movement, and you know that if you stepped out of line on that one, you’d no longer be tolerated.

(And that wasn’t her only misrepresentation.)  She could provide no evidence that conservatives would no longer welcome us if we “stepped out of line.”  Well, we still get linked on conservative blogs and invited to conservative confabs even though this blog has opposed Proposition 8 and in spite of my writings in favor of civil unions and against Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).

They have, as we’ve said before, this view of the Republican Party and conservative movement not based on their actual experiences at party meetings on in conservative gatherings, but based on what they read in the mainstream media and on left-wing blogs.

But the most delicious of all false assumptions came from a fellow styling himself Mr. Wonderful:

Bear in mind that Dan doesn’t think he’s self-loathing because he’s not aware of FEELING that way. Like all the fine folks on the right, he probably “doesn’t believe in” analysis, psycho-therapy, or any other kind of therapy.

This happily named narrow-minded man must certainly have missed all my posts referencing Carl Jung or was blind to the fact that I am completing a Ph. D. at a graduate school that, according to its website, offers “masters and doctoral degree programs framed in the traditions of depth psychology.”   (more…)

Blogging law professor William A. Jacobson offers an answer:

The attacks on the Tea Parties have nothing to do with stamping out white supremacy and everything to do with shaping the political dialogue to stamp out legitimate opposition to Obama administration policies.

Via Instapundit.

This treatment of Tea Parties strikes a chord with Gregory of Yardale:

You know, I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!

Via this must-read post from Jennifer Rubin, we learn what Bill Kristol said about this matter:

It’s an attempt to demonize and discredit the movement and not engage it on its ideas. … I think this notion that — the left pretends to think the Tea Parties are a problem for the Republicans. The fact is the left is terrified of the Tea Parties.President Obama knows they have done a huge amount of damage to his attempt to transform America in a left-wing direction. And therefore, they don’t want to debate the issues. They want to demonize them.

While we’re more focused now on domestic issues, our brave men and women in uniform are still fighting the good fight in Iraq and getting the bad guys:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced today the deaths of Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, more commonly known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, al-Qaida’s top leader in Iraq, and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi, or Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq. The two were killed during a nighttime raid on what the U.S. military described as an al-Qaida safe house, U.S. forces in Iraq said in a statement confirming the deaths of the two leaders.

Two terrorists dead.

United States Forces-Iraq Commander Gen. Raymond T. Odierno called their deaths “potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaida in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency”.  While Odierno is leading an operation begun when George W. Bush was president, he’s doing it during Barack Obama’s watch.  The bulk of the credit may belong to our service members on the ground too, but by dint of his role as Commander in Chief, the president also should accolades for this successful operation.

Kudos, Mr. President, for continuing to take the fight to the terrorists.

UPDATE: Max Boot reports that “Even before [these terrorists'] demise, Odierno noted on Fox News Sunday, security trends were positive“:

First quarter fiscal year ‘10 was the lowest number of incidents we’ve had in a quarter, the lowest number of high-profile attacks, the lowest number of indirect fire attacks, the lowest number of civilian casualties, the lowest number of U.S. force casualties, the lowest number of Iraqi security force casualties. So the direction continues to be headed in the right way.

When I set to write my post last night on Constance McMillen in order to distinguish my view of the situation from the perspective Nick offered, I did so with the sense that the young woman had done nothing wrong.  I confirmed that “sense” when I read various articles (and opinion pieces) on the whole hullabaloo.

She didn’t do anything wrong.

The worst that she can be accused of is poor taste — and being a teenager.  But, even the great hero Beowulf acknowledged impetuous behavior when he was a youth.  As to her poor taste, women just don’t look good in tuxes; and she wanted to wear one to her prom.  But, then again, men look terrible in lime green tuxes and how many high school seniors have worn just such an outfit to theirs?

As to her accepting invitations to appear at various gay functions, well, we may not like the groups sponsoring those functions, but, well, she is a teenager.  And what teenager, in this culture, wouldn’t jump at the chance to become a sudden celebrity?

The real issue here is that some wish to use this situation to show a society where gay teens have it pretty rough.  And, to be sure, while things have greatly improved for gay people over the years, it’s always going to be difficult to be different, particularly in a high school environment where there’s so much pressure to conform.  But, we shouldn’t let the poor treatment this young woman suffered blind us to the improved situation for gay teens at high schools across the country, many of which allow students to bring same-sex dates to their high school’s spring formal.

Things are getting awfully awkward in Pennsylvania.

In the race to fill the seat of the late Marine-slanderer, John Murtha, the Republicans have put up Tim Burns against the Democrats’ Mark Critz in the special election slated for May 18th. CQ reports that Speaker Pelosi and DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen will be hosting a fundraiser tomorrow for Critz.

That’ll have to be kind of like kissing your cousin, based on this ad Critz’s campaign just put up, declaring: “I opposed the health care bill, and I’m pro-life, and pro-gun.”

Hmm…wonder if that’ll come up tomorrow. You know, who Critz is actually making a point of telling people in advertizing that Pelosi will help raise money to continue how he’s opposed to her signature “achievement”.

Just a reminder to the fine folks of the 12th CD: Critz may be against the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010, pro-life, and pro-gun. But, were this not a special election to fill a vacant seat, his first vote as a Congressman would be for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Oh, and by the way, Critz also is also lying about Burns supporting tax breaks “to ship jobs overseas”. But that’s a whole ‘nother post.

(h/t, Jim at NRO.)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Perhaps, the greatest irony about blogging is that it’s very often the posts to which we bloggers devote the least amount of attention that elicit the greatest amount of controversy.  I had posted on the president’s hospital visitation order, in large measure, because my take nearly perfectly paralleled that of a the left-leaning lesbian friend who alerted me to the story.  We both liked the result, but were concerned about the means.

I put together that post in a matter of minutes, eager to get it done so I could get on with my weekend.  And it generated a relatively long thread in a very short amount of time, with solid arguments and intense acrimony.

Later, when I read some of the comments, it was amazing to see how many people, deliberately or not, misrepresented my view on the issue or used the space we offer to make juvenile and/or inaccurate accusations.

That said, amidst the bile, there was some very solid criticism of my free market approach.  Darkeyedresolve addressed an issue I should have considered in my initial post:

I’m not sure how of a customer you are when you got into a hospital, most people get rushed to the nearest hospital in the event of emergency. You may not get the same treatment at that hospital as a opposed to the one you frequent, especially in an out of the state situation.

While normally a libertarian, opposed to government mandates, I’ve never had a problem with a government mandate that private hospitals treat people rushed there for emergency treatment.   So, in that situation, I would certainly favor requiring hospitals to accede to the patient’s request to have the visitor of his choosing. (more…)

On the whole, I have been supportive of the president’s plan for Afghanistan. My main quibble is that he wants a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, signaling to our enemies that they just need to wait us out. In an interview with the AP’s Kathy Gannon, a Taliban commander admitted as much:

The Taliban commander, who uses the pseudonym Mubeen, told The Associated Press that if military pressure on the insurgents becomes too great “we will just leave and come back after” the foreign forces leave.

Later, in the article, Ms. Gannon wrote:

It is difficult to measure the depth of support for the Taliban among Kandahar’s people, many of whom say they are disgusted by the presence of both the foreign troops and the insurgents. Many of them say they are afraid NATO’s summer offensive will accomplish little other than trigger more violence.

Wonder what was her source for Kandahar public opinion.  The Taliban commander perhaps?  She references no other source in the article.

Usually, on this blog, each blogger posts a piece without consulting the others.  On occasion, Nick, Bruce or I may run an idea by the others before publishing it.  On at least one occasion, I have chosen not to run with a piece (I had written) after showing it to Bruce.  On other occasions, I have run posts by friends or readers before posting them.  On some occasions, I have edited them as per their suggestions.  On others, I have not published the pieces at all.

Had Nick run his piece, The Gay Left’s Newest Member, by me, I would have suggested he not post it. In a way, I see what he’s getting at, how Constance McMillen becomes the latest “victim” of American society feted by the gay groups to promote their agenda.

That said, I do see where she’s coming from.  (I appreciate Nick’s clarification; she’s not the one to blame here.)

And I don’t think it’s right for a public school to prevent her from taking the date of her choice to its prom.  After the “American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi . . . got involved, claiming the school’s policy regarding dates was discriminatory and violated McMillen’s constitutional rights . . ., the local school board decided to call the whole thing off.

Some parents then organized an alternative prom.  According to the Advocate, to “prevent Constance McMillen from bringing a female date to [that] prom, the teen was sent to a ‘fake prom’ while the rest of her class partied at a secret location“.  That was a cheap and mean stunt, but it was privately done.  By challenging the parents’ actions in court, activists would make the case for forcing Keith Olbermann off the air.  His show is little more than a series of cheap and mean stunts.

All that said, I just couldn’t muster the energy to blog about this until I felt it necessary to distinguish my viewpoint from that Nick’s.  My reaction to the kerfuffle was that the hyperventilating on some gay blogs and from some gay organizations was a bit overblown.  It was as if a new Dark Age had dawned in America.

But, if this were a new Dark Age, then why all this hullabaloo over McMillen’s exclusion?  To a large extent, we see this hullabaloo because of the changes taking place across the country.  Back in 1980, it made national news that a student in a Rhode Island high school student was taking a same-sex date to the prom.  Now, it makes national news when a Mississippi girl can’t take a same-sex date to the prom. (more…)