As I have mentioned previously, we GayPatriot bloggers only rarely consult with each other about our posts.  And this morning as I woke up to check the blog and go through my e-mail, I realized that unbeknownst to me, Bruce and I had posted on the same topics.

Perhaps, I should have inquired further when, in response to my request yesterday that he let my DADT post lead for a few hours, Bruce said he had some items scheduled.  Should have checked the pending posts. It is uncanny that we posted on the same things, offering similar takes, but with slightly different “spins.”  Well, this does show the difference in our styles.  :-)

Oh, those Teabaggers are back at it again… Trying to scare the American public by spreading lies and distortions and “misinformation” about the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010.

Comes today a report from one of these right-wing extremist groups with the dubius claim that:

the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
…
The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

Who’s this organization, praying on the fears of Americans, and distorting the purely beneficial results of Obamacare? The Department of Health and Human Services.

Naturally, likely hoping to avoid getting Olbermanned, the economists who authored the report included the caveat that it “does not represent the official position of the Obama administration.”

Nevertheless, Barack Obama is the CEO of the Federal Government, and a brach thereof just issued a report, based on the facts and their projections, that speaks negatively of his most favored piece of progressive legislation (so far). Should we expect Henry Waxman to summon him to testify in front of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from an undisclosed secret HQ)

Can you imagine how feminist leaders would react if a talk show host agreed that a prominent Democratic female politician should pose nude for Playboy?

Well, responding to the unfunny “comedian” Sarah Silverman’s crack “about whether Sarah Palin should pose for Playboy” on his program last Tuesday, Larry King agreed when she said, “I think she should go for it”.

At least one feminist leader, Lulu Flores, president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, spoke out, telling “POLITICO that King’s comments were, ‘waaaaayyy inappropriate.’”

But, don’t you have the sense that if a conservative comedian made this kind of crack on, say, O’Reilly, Beck or Hannity, we’d be hearing a lot more about it?

(H/t:  Reader Peter Hughes.)

Gallup reports today that the Party Affiliation Gap in U.S. is the Narrowest Since 2005 as “more independents lean to the Republican Party”:

The advantage in public support the Democratic Party built up during the latter part of the Bush administration and the early part of the Obama administration has all but disappeared. During the first quarter of 2010, 46% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 45% identified as or leaned Republican.

The latest results, based on aggregated data from Gallup polls conducted from January to March of this year, show the closest party division since the first quarter of 2005, when the parties were tied at 46%. Democrats enjoyed double-digit advantages in party support in 11 of 12 quarters from the second quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009.

By the end of last year, the Democratic advantage had shrunk to five points (47% to 42%), and it narrowed further in the most recent quarter.

Hmmm. . . what happened since the end of last year?  I think some really big, really unpopular, really expensive bill passed.  Wonder if that had anything to do with the Democratic downturn?

These numbers caused Ed Morrissey to ask:

Republicans managed to preserve a majority in both chambers of Congress and re-elect a President in 2004 while trailing in party identification by three points in the annual Gallup survey.  How will they do while trailing by a single point in 2010?

Jim Geraghty offers a cautionary note for the GOP, “Apparently the movement includes little or no increase in the number of self-identified Republicans and is almost entirely among independents describing themselves as leaning towards the Republicans.”

We’ve belabored the point how, despite the promise of Obama’s apologists that once Congress passed health care, it would start becoming increasingly popular, public opinion has, if anything, moved in the opposite direction.  Now, we learn that another Democratic claim is falling by the wayside, the multi-billion dollar boondoggle is going to increase our health care costs.  Blogging law professor William A. Jacobson explains:

The gloss is off the Obamacare rose, if it ever were there. The Office of the Actuary of Medicare has released a report which finds that Obamacare will increase, not decrease, health care costs, and … (wait for it because you never would have guessed) … the financial assumptions were unrealistic!

(Via Instapundit.)  The good professor cites this AP report:

President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

No wonder, Jacboson writes, “Democrats refused to delay the vote on Obamacare even though the Medicare Actuary was not able to complete his analysis and cost estimates in time for the vote.”

And get this, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the House Appropriations Committee she had no idea how much the “high risk” pools were going to cost (via Gateway Pundit.)  Shouldn’t she have given this testimony before Congress voted on the Democrats’ health care overhaul?

*NB:   Shortened title to fit it on two lines.

Wow.  Seems like The Gays are becoming the most hated-on group by Leftists next to The Joos these days.

I mean our own President Obama can’t stand being around gays and even disagrees with gay rights progressive Dick Cheney on most issues.  Come to think of it, our left-wing Congress has been in power for three years and hasn’t done a thing to roll back America’s most oppressive gay legislation that was signed by President Bill Clinton (D) in the 1990s.

And now another Socialist leader, Bolivian President Evo Morales, has gone all nutty and picked on the eeeeeevil homosexuals.

Bolivian President Evo Morales was under fire on Wednesday for suggesting that eating hormone-injected chicken could provoke male deviance at a global climate change summit.

Bolivia’s opposition and homosexual groups criticized comments made by Morales at the first “people’s conference” on climate change the previous day, in which he said that chicken producers inject birds with female hormones and “when men eat those chickens, they experience deviances in being men.”

The Bolivian president also suggested that the European diet made men go bald.

Spain’s National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals sent a protest letter to the Bolivian embassy of Madrid, calling Morales remarks “homophobic.”

The president of Argentina’s homosexual community, Cesar Cigliutti, said: “It’s an absurdity to think that eating hormone-containing chicken can change the sexual orientation of a person.”

“By following that reasoning, if we put male hormones in a chicken and we make a homosexual eat it, he will transform into a heterosexual,” he added, in online comments.

Thank goodness there is a sane voice of reason in Bolivia — a conservative.

Right-wing Bolivian deputy Andres Ortega criticized Morales for recounting “urban legends” at the conference which sought to draft new proposals for the next UN climate talks in Mexico at the end of the year.

“I thought it was a place to talk about science and real and positive things about preserving the environment,” Ortega said.

A side note:  funny how the AFP news item doesn’t identify Morales as a Socialist, but can’t wait to identify Ortega as “right-wing”.  Nah, no media bias there.

So, I’ve come to the conclusion that Leftist/Socialists either secretly loathe gays, or they are just completely insane.

Do I have a vote for “all of the above”?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Huh?  (h/t – Blogger phenom Gabriel Malor)

It’s happened so often that it’s now a cultural cliche: the gay politician pretending to be straight. In most parts of the nation, homosexuality or bisexuality is a clear electoral liability.

Not in Center City’s 182d state House district. There, it’s a badge of honor.

Veteran Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) last Thursday accused her primary opponent, Gregg Kravitz, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters, a powerful bloc in the district.

“I outed him as a straight person,” Josephs said during a fund-raiser at the Black Sheep Pub & Restaurant, as some in the audience gasped or laughed, “and now he goes around telling people, quote, ‘I swing both ways.’ That’s quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy’s a gem.”

Kravitz, 29, said that he is sexually attracted to both men and women and called Josephs’ comments offensive.

“That kind of taunting is going to make it more difficult for closeted members of the LGBT community to be comfortable with themselves,” Kravitz said. “It’s damaging.”

I’m not even sure what to say.  I’m truly text-less (the blogging version of being speechless).   I used the category “Leftist Nutjobs” because one or both of them just HAVE to be.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I realize this title sounds likes the punch line from a bad joke.  I mean, you know, I thought it was the lesbians who played softball while the gay men went to the Oscars.  On Tuesday:

National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) clients and the law firm of K&L Gates LLP filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the discriminatory practices of the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAAA). The lawsuit alleges that NAGAAA violated Washington’s laws governing discrimination in public accommodations, and state consumer protections by implementing and enforcing a “two heterosexuals per team” cap during the 2008 Gay Softball World Series in Seattle, and also violated the plaintiff softball players’ rights by subjecting them to a series of invasive questions about their sexual orientation and private lives in front of more than 25 people, most of them strangers.

Now, first of all, I think this is a stupid rule.  But, the NAGAAA is a private organization.  And a private organization has should have the right to set its own criteria for membership.  If it had wanted to allow only gay men to play on its teams, then the state should not prevent it from doing so.

But, I also agree with NCLR Staff Attorney Melanie Rowen who called the “inquisition” into players’ private lives, “outrageous.”  It is particularly disgusting that a gay organization would not just countenance, but also conduct a public interrogation into individuals’ private lives.

(To be sure, given that this was a private organization questioning the players, any individual player could have walked out at any time.  I wonder if any did.)

That said, as a matter of Washington State law, it appears NCLR is on the money.  And I commend them for taking the case as a matter or principle.  It shows they truly support non-discrimination laws, even when they limit the freedom of gay organizations.  They have more integrity than many in our society. (more…)

This is rich.  A candidate is trying to gain some traction in a center city Philadelphia contest for state House by claiming to be bisexual, yet his opponent, a 26-year veteran of the Pennsylvania legislature is calling him on the alleged ruse:

Veteran Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) last Thursday accused her primary opponent, Gregg Kravitz, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters, a powerful bloc in the district.

“I outed him as a straight person,” Josephs said during a fund-raiser at the Black Sheep Pub & Restaurant, as some in the audience gasped or laughed, “and now he goes around telling people, quote, ‘I swing both ways.’ That’s quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy’s a gem.”

Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, ”We’ve hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat”.

Far be it for me to inquire into Mr. Kravitz’s sexuality.  If he says he’s bi, I’ll take his word on it.  Heck, I was bisexual once too.

UPDATE:  Commenting on this kerfuffle, Joe Gandelman writes:

It’s yet another sign of how mean-spirited American politics has become, where people can’t stick to issues but feel they MUST — on the radio, on cable talk shows, among bloggers, in blog comments, in political campaigns — go after someone personally if they dare to a)see things differently or b)somehow stand in the way of their ambition or the ambitions of a person or political party that they support. It all seems to tie in with road rage on the highways, shopping cart rage at supermarkets and more. It’s as if America has become converted to a nation of sullen teenagers.

Via Instapundit.

So, is Mr. Gandelman saying it’s a personal insult to call someone “straight”?

Bolivian President Evo Morales should thank his lucky stars that he’s a socialist and not a conservative, otherwise he might become the laughing stock of the chattering classes. The Hugo Chavez crony is

. . . under fire on Wednesday for suggesting that eating hormone-injected chicken could provoke male deviance at a global climate change summit.

Bolivia’s opposition and homosexual groups criticized comments made by Morales at the first “people’s conference” on climate change the previous day, in which he said that chicken producers inject birds withfemale hormones and “when men eat those chickens, they experience deviances in being men.” . . . .

Spain’s National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals sent a protest letter to the Bolivian embassy of Madrid, calling Morales remarks “homophobic.”

The president of Argentina’s homosexual community, Cesar Cigliutti, said: “It’s an absurdity to think that eating hormone-containing chicken can change the sexual orientation of a person.”

I’m sure Joe Solmonese is struggling with the proper means to react.  On the one hand, Morales expressed a crackpot theory that makes some social conservative notions about the causes of homosexuality seem sensible by contrast.  On the other hand, he is a socialist who generally says all the “right things” about the causes of global oppression.

It’s just social conservatives who say silly things about people like us.  Left-wingers also have some pretty hare-brained notions about homosexuality.  Let’s hope the national gay organizations do a better job of acknowledging it.

(H/t: Gateway Pundit)

For the first eighteen months of my dissertation research, I focused on the broad topic of my paper, the Olympian Athene and her role in men’s lives.  Yet, I barely wrote a word of the project’s text.  Not until I realized that I was “missing” a chapter in my initial outline did I find my focus.

As soon as I did the research for that chapter, I found myself writing it.  It dawned on me that I needed to treat the endeavor not as one long paper, but as a series of shorter ones.  In the subsequent six months, I have written four such papers, about 60% of the project’s text and in the next ten days expect to add another 15-20% to that tally.

The lesson was simple:  divide up the project, focus on one piece at a time.

And that is how I would go about the various items on the agenda of the gay organizations, take an issue-by-issue approach, starting with the proverbial “low-hanging fruit,” those bills most easily enacted.  The next item, as I’ve been arguing for at least six months, would thus be legislation repealing Don’t Act/Don’t Tell (DADT).  We should pressing for repeal no matter what the Administrations says.

Unlike the Democrats’ health care overhaul, the more time the American people have to consider repeal of DADT, the more they move in the direction of the Administration’s position, or, perhaps, given Mr. Gibbs’ comments yesterday, I should say, the Administration’s ostensible position.  With even a majority of conservatives favoring repeal, pushing repeal would seem to be a no-brainer.

As we consider Gibbs’ comments, let us ask if, in the wake of Obama’s election, the national gay organizations ever met as a group and/or with representatives of the then-incoming Administration to plot strategy, setting down issue priorities and time lines.  From where I stand, it seems that given “Gay Inc’s” enthusiasm for the Democratic Party, the heads of those organizations just assumed that now the Republicans were out of power, the new powers that be would move swiftly on gay priorities. (more…)

Contrasting the way “Comedy Central cower[ed] in the face of a murder threat/warning against ‘South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker“, Glenn Reynolds opines:

Don’t want things you treasure satirized? Just issue a “prediction” and — voila! Meanwhile, note how entirely real radical Muslim threats and violence are treated as just part of the weather — something you have to adapt to — while nonexistent Tea Party violence is an existential threat to the Republic.

But, it’s all part of the narrative.  Those in our media élites have been taught to see “the other” as the victim of Western cultural hegemony, hence they excuse the violent posturing (and actions) of those deemed spokesmen for (or representatives of) the Third World and/or the “oppressed.”  By contrast, any attempt to stand up for the ideas which made this nation great are seen as retrograde, reversion to their perverted image of what our nation’s past was.  (Perverted because they define our past by its worst aspects, oblivious to the fact that at least since Reagan, conservatives don’t want to turn back the clock.)

They seem to only have one lens with which to view conservative activism:  as a vestige of white supremacist movements which darkened our nation’s history.

It’s fine and dandy to attack those folks, but beyond the pale to satirize those who supposedly speak for the “other”, particularly when they threaten violence.  And yet, all too few condemn those leveling the threats in order to drown out debate and suppress satire.

I have a slightly different take on Michael Steele’s recent comments than does Nick.  To be sure, I share the spirit of the words that that our Colorado colleague believes the RNC chair should have spoken.  And I do think Steele could better serve the party by running against Barbara Mikulski for the United States Senate.

That said, Steele does have a point, a point which, if you read his remarks in context, is nearly identical to one that Clarence Thomas made to the Heritage Foundation back in 1987, thought far less artfully expressed.

Allahpundit, who has looked at Steele’s remarks in context, offers:

All Steele’s saying, when you translate this from Steele-ese to effective PR-speak, is that the GOP needs to repair relations with minority voters before it can expect them to give conservatism a chance. It’s not that the party has nothing to offer, it’s that the strategic choices it’s made — and do note, he’s not the first RNC chair to disown the southern strategy — have poisoned perceptions of its policies. Acknowledge that forthrightly and you win points for honesty, which you can use as a foundation to build trust. All of which is well and good, but the “you don’t have a reason” line is naturally being beamed out by big media and used as an opportunity to revisit some of Steele’s less charming bon mots over the past year. Which raises the question: Why is he still even speaking in public? If he can’t contain the gaffes, fine; just turn off the mic and fundraise.

Dan Riehl offers a similar sentiment:

By focusing on only one line from remarks RNC Chair Michael Steele made to a group, one has to wonder if some folks don’t have issues with blacks they actually do need to resolve. Slamming Steele for these remarks is not helpful to the GOP because Steele is correct. He isn’t calling for the GOP to change it’s positions, as many white so called RINOs regularly do. He’s speaking to the GOP’s inability to pierce barriers built up by the Left in his own effort to do that very thing. (more…)

The outgoing House Majority Leader attempted to walk back from a mean-spirited insult he leveled against Tea Party protesters:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said today that he regretted calling tea party protests “un-American” but compared the angry rhetoric of some Republican leaders who goad them on to the fiery rantings of a controversial Depression-era priest sympathetic to the Nazis.

“That was not a good phrase, not a good use of language. It was not correct,” the Maryland Democrat said of an op-ed column he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in USA Today last summer. The article was a response to protesters who disrupted town hall meetings on their party’s health care reform proposals, hanging members of Congress in effigy and railing against “death panels.”

Hoyer told reporters that while “there are some activities that are not consistent with civil engagement,” he said he regretted having read the column too quickly before approving it.

Wonder if the Democrat ever said that there were some anti-Bush activities in the early 2000s that were not consistent with civil engagement”.  Note anything missing from Hoyer’s remarks?

Well, here’s the caption to the picture going with the article quoted above, “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is apologizing for a column he co-wrote is which he said, ‘Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.’”  See anything wrong with that caption?

The editors at AOL inserted a word that Mr. Hoyer did not use.  The Maryland Democrat did not apologize.

And even as he “regretted” his remark, he went on to compare Republican rhetoric to Father Coughlin which showed how clueless he is about American history, Republican ideas or both.  That mean-spirited Catholic preacher who rose to prominence in the 1930s was, as Jonah Goldberg has repeatedly pointed out, was a “man of the left“:  he inveighed against laissez-faire economics, “’international bankers’ and similar ilk.”  (So, who of late has been inveighing against Wall Street?) (more…)

As embarrassing as it is to have an American president who can’t get enough of travelling the world apologizing for what he (and our enemies) perceives as our Nation’s wrongs to whomever will pause long enough for him to bow, comes today RNC Chairman Michael Steele to do the domestic equivalent:

Why should an African-American vote Republican?

“You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True,” Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.

Can someone please explain why we need an opposition party if its leader is trying so hard to validate the most insidious and obscene false characterization of it himself? Did he turn over the Queen of Diamonds? (Read the rest of the article to see Steele play the race card, victim, and pander to the NAACP…I hope he spoke before dinner had been served.)

Chairman Steele’s response wasn’t, but should have been:

“Why, it would seem to me that the ideas of smaller government, a strong national defense, greater individual liberty, lower taxes would appeal to all Americans. Frankly, we’ve done a good job communicating these values, but a poor job living up to them. Indeed, when we put forth policies and execute programs based on these core principles, the Republican party thrives. At times, however—and I have to honestly say that, to a degree my own time at the helm has occasioned some of this—we get so caught up in the game of government—that Inside-The-Beltway mentality—that we lose track of these important concepts and let power go to our heads.”

Then he should have hit them with this:

“As I said, these are universal American concepts, and frankly, I find the concept of “reaching out” to specific racial segments of the American family anathema to what it means to be American, and quite offensive in its supposition. What black American wouldn’t embrace the concepts of smaller governemnt? Of individual liberty and responsibility? Of lower taxes and a strong defense? To suggest that the Republican party—or any party—needs to do something to appeal specifically to a racial group is insulting to that group. It’s saying that black Americans categorically are opposed (or at least not attracted) to these very values upon which our Nation was founded. Really? Who thinks that? Obviously the Democratic Party does, as they are constantly bringing up race as if we as Americans have a different set of values or goals simply because we don’t share the same skin tone. That, my friends, is offensive. That is racist. That is why I prefer to be a Republican. For even with all our failings that come with the trappings of power, we have always been the party of equal opportunity and equal treatment based in individual liberty and freedom from government overrreach.”

Perhaps he’ll be availed the opportunity to revise and extend his remarks?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from an undisclosed secret HQ)

So, we’ve all seen this picture by now:

It’s of the six servicemembers who were protesting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell the other day in front of the White House.

This isn’t a post about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It’s not even (really) a post about politics. I have a question, though: What’s the deal with protesters handcuffing themselves to stuff? Call me an old fuddy-duddy*, but usually these civil-disobedience stunts make no sense to me.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is protesting against the Post Office:

Kramer, handing out anti-mail pamphlets, with a dummy dressed as a mailman with a bucket on its head: “Here you go. Mail is evil. Pass it on. Hey, mail blows. Fax it to a friend.”
Woman: “Why does this dummy have a bucket on its head?”
Kramer: “Because we’re blind to their tyranny.”
Woman: “Then shouldn’t you be wearing the bucket?”
Kramer: “Yeah. Move along, Betty.”

Also reminds me of the “NOH8″ campaign in California, marked by these sorts of pictures:

Now, I get the “NOH8″ thing, and admire it from a marketing standpoint (even though I think it’s callously simplistic, unnecessarily antagonistic, and likely part of the reason that side lost, but nevertheless). What I don’t get is the tape over the mouth. Were gays in California being silenced? Their voices not being heard? I could imagine this would make sense if that were the case, but it wasn’t about gays being denied the right to vote or something like that. After all, it was a political campaign in the first place, and gay people were definitely being heard (I could hear them from overseas where I was deployed at the time!). And besides, as I recall, it was those in support of Prop 8 who was shouted down, belittled, called a “hater”, and otherwise shunned from polite conversation. Shouldn’t (as with Kramer) the tape have been on the other side’s mouth? Dunno how you’d put that into an ad campaign, though.

Anyway, nothing monumentous, just a random thought that came into my head today. See what happens on one of those rare Colorado days when it’s not sunny outside?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

*We all know what happened last time!

Charles Djou, the Republican candidate in the May 22 special election for Hawai’i's 1st congressional district has launched a MoneyWave, which I guess is the Pacific equivalent of a money bomb.  Join me in backing this Honolulu City Councilman who opposes higher taxes and seeks to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.

Donate today!

Maybe those GetEQUAL activists were right to handcuff themselves to the White House fence.  Maybe that kind of drastic action is needed.

Up until last week, I was pretty confident we would see Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) repealed this year.  But, just now via Instapundit, some fears that started taking shape in my mind were realized: “Robert Gibbs finally admits the Obama Admin has no intention of pushing DADT repeal in 2010.”

Those gay activists have every right to be upset.  Obama the candidate made a promise which Obama the president is pushing to the back burner — and turning off the heat.

UPDATE:  (From the link above):  I don’t frequently agree with Pam Spaulding, but she nails it when she writes:

Well it will be interesting tomorrow at the LGBT Town Hall when we get to ask Mr. Solmonese about that bold promise he made at the HRC Carolinas dinner to a bunch of donors with their check books…guess the administration felt it was time to go ahead and toss Joe and Co. under the bus with the rest of us.

Joe, when you make it a practice to fix your lips to the back side of any Democratic politician just because of that fancy (D) after their name, they’re going to take your support for granted, knowing that it’s given for their partisan affiliation and not their record of accomplishment.

Once again, the gay left bloggers deserve a lot of credit for holding the national gay organizations to account on this.

What’s worse?

The fact that Donny Deutsch (please, pronounce it any way you like) is so uncreative and unoriginal that he too is jumping on the bandwagon with his fellow MSNBC shills and dedicating his show this week to “America the Angry”?

The fact that he had the temerity to compare Rush, Glenn, etc., with his own pal, Keith Olbermann?

Clearly to his bosses, it’s that he dared to point out that Olbermann looks and sounds like Howard Beale without the aplomb. He’s been booted off the air.

Good to see MSNBC can be introspective when it needs to be. Hey, Donny: Tough for you to learn the lesson this way, but now you see what we’re all dealing with!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

President Obama threw out a bone to the pro-infanticide crowd today, when, in comments regarding his upcoming nomination to replace that stalwart of property rights John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, he said:

You know, I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies … I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights … And that’s going to be something that’s very important to me, because I think part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.”

So you heard it here first, folks! President Obama will nominate someone who will knock down the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)