Three targeted populations targeted by Obama for abuse are the first to begin to wake up now that we are almost six months since the inaugural.
These targeted population groups, betrayed by their leadership due to cronyism or incompetence or cowardice (often all three), are Gays, Women, and Jews. Our message to Gays, Women, and Jews is: WAKE UP! – Demand the leadership in your communities confront Obama forcefully.
* * * * *
Gay-Americans are the targets of a particular hatred from Obama. That hatred is sometimes passive-aggressive. That hatred is sometimes disguised with sweet words. That hatred is sometimes overt. Because the hatred at times has been so overt Gay-Americans are the among the first to wake up from their Hopium addled state.
Gay-Americans can be proud that they were the most resistant Democratic base group in the general elections against Obama this past November. Still, Gay-Americans voted strongly for Obama. Now, a man who fought alone in his court case against “don’t ask, don’t tell” echos our mantra of,
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
James Pietrangelo II, now understands why we know Obama cannot be trusted:
When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.
James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.
We like James Pietrangelo, II – he speaks in the language the Gay “leadership” should speak in, but does not. The Gay leadership continues to betray Gay-Americans. The Gay “leadership” will not confront Obama on his anti-Gay bigotry.
Pietrangelo smells the B.O. coming from the White House and it is a disgusting smell:
Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.”
For once Time magazine sets the record “straight” on Bill Clinton and “Don’t ask, don’t tell”:
Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.
For the malicious or ignorant Obama supporters who call Bill Clinton “homophobic” (we kid you not, as we will explain shortly), Bill Clinton tried to help Gay-Americans when it was not a popular thing to attempt to do. Time magazine explains the difference in the times:
But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”
Pietrangelo is right when he calls Obama a “coward, a bigot and a pathological liar.”
Pietrangelo is different from the lowlife Gays on Big Blogs who defended Obama and ignored Hillary Clinton’s and Bill Clinton’s long record of accomplishment and work on behalf of the Gay community. Few PINO websites with a Gay readership were as loathsome as Americablog. Now Americablog is discovering that Obama cannot be trusted:
President Obama called the Defense of Marriage Act “abhorrent” on the campaign trail and won praise from gay rights advocates for promising to reverse the whole act, not just one section.
But for now, Americablog finds, his Justice Department is defending it as the law of the land — and defending it forcefully, with analogies to incest and child marriage.
Gay-Americans should not trust Americablog – a website which betrayed them during the primaries and general elections when the website was full of praise for the gay-bashing Obama even as they knew what Obama had done in South Carolina and his history of funding anti-Gay bigots.
Only now is that Obama praising PINO website is concerned about Obama’s anti-Gay bigotry:
We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable. And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.” Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.
Only now does that PINO blog understand that Obama will destroy anyone’s civil rights “for his own benefit”. We have been wrighting [sic] that since April 2007. Michelle Obama knew Barack Obama was a selfish careerist years ago. Only now does Americablog wake up to the fact they are “Jews in Hitler’s army”.
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.[snip]
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:[snip]
DOMA is good because it saves the feds money [snip]
DOMA is constitutional (thus screwing us on any future lawsuits):[snip]
“DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles.” This is important because it means that Obama wasn’t content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out. He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court. This will screw us on every lawsuit we file on every gay issue, in every public policy debate we have in the states on any gay issue.
DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles Plaintiffs further allege that DOMA violates their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including its equal protection component. [snip]
Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:[snip]
Praises DOMA as “cautiously limited” [snip]
DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.[snip]
Gays don’t deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities get[snip]
Argues Republican position on how judges should review cases [snip]
DOMA is a good thing:[snip]
DOMA is rational and constitutional:[snip]
Provides legal argument against gays’ right to privacy:[snip]
It’s reasonable and rational for Congress to defend “traditional” marriage – in fact, DOMA was actual a very “neutral” law, rather than anti-gay:[snip]
DOMA is entirely rational [snip]
DOMA wasn’t motivated by a dislike of gays, silly. [snip]
Please don’t confuse the gays with the blacks, and other “real” marriages: [snip]
DOMA infringes on nobody’s rights[snip]
DOMA doesn’t discriminate against gays – all they have to do to get the benefits is get married… to someone of the opposite sex! (This is an argument Obama stole verbatim from the religious right.)
Please don’t compare gay marriages to inter-racial marriages [snip]
DOMA is downright reasonable [snip]
DOMA is reasonable and rational [snip]
We wouldn’t want the gays taking all of our money [snip]
Obama was doing us a favor [snip]
As soon as that legal analysis of Obama’s homophobia and anti-Gay bigotry was posted the Hopium addicts came out: “It was the homophobic Clintons who created DOMA and DADT in order to attack glbt people. We need to give Obama a chance. He is smart enough to know that right now if he were to defend our lifestyle, the Republicans would regain power. If we support Obama as he defends DOMA and discharged gay soldiers, he will eventually help us out in a few years. I think the people criticizing Obama are such bitter Hillary supporters who still can’t handle that they lost.”
* * * * *
Women have also been betrayed by mainline allegedly “women groups”. The misogyny and sexism are rampant but mainline women groups are useless. One liberal speaks up and denounces the “frat house media”:
If there was any question that a stubborn strain of old-school sexism persists in Obama’s America, one has only to look at certain leaders of what the right wing loves to call the “liberal media” but which is sounding and acting, recently, more like the frat-house media. There, like a virus hiding in the body before, perhaps, staging a comeback, misogyny has found a place to lurk almost undetected, at least by the usually sharp eyes of progressive feminists.
“Slutty flight attendant” is not just a sexual put-down; it’s a socioeconomic one.
Examine the symptoms of this infection, beginning with David Letterman’s comments (widely noted but insufficiently analyzed) about Sarah Palin “buying makeup at Bloomingdale’s to update her slutty flight attendant look,” as well as his joke about Palin’s teenage daughter: “Sarah Palin went to a Yankees Game yesterday … during the seventh inning stretch, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” (Letterman insists he was talking about her 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, who actually had been, well, knocked up, not her 14-year-old, Willow, the daughter who attended the game.) A week before these remarks aired, there was an uglier outbreak of the contagion in the pages of Playboy — never a bastion of egalitarian forward thinking, but still — where writer Guy Cimbalo published a list of 10 conservative women he’d like to “hate fuck,” a term that various observers interpreted as rough sex, sex tinged by rage, or rape. (Gabe Winant wrote for Broadsheet about the “Hate Fuck” story, which has since been yanked by Playboy.) Worse than the violence of the general sentiment was the graphic specificity of the “Hate Fuck Rating” appended to each woman — a list that included Michelle Malkin, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Dana Perino and Laura Ingraham. On Hasslebeck: “You’d be better served sucking off Regis Philbin.” On Malkin: “Worse than fucking Eva Braun.”
Both cases were met with a tepid response from the left. Though Letterman apologized on Wednesday’s show (see video below), his tone was mock-serious, and his audience chuckled along.
The writer, Amanda Fortini, deserves credit for being a liberal who is waking up to the rampant misogyny and sexism [HERE, HERE, HERE] that writers like Hendrick Hertzberg refuse to recognize in themselves and their liberal brethren. Fortini continues:
Imagine if, say, Michelle Obama, or Rachel Maddow, or Nancy Pelosi became the target of similar invective. The outcry from the left would be deafening. Shouldn’t liberals exhibit the same sort of decorous treatment we demand for ourselves? Sexist comments like Letterman’s and Cimbalo’s also conjure a troublingly insular, clubhouse atmosphere in lieu of an inclusive political party. What’s more, the gender-based stereotypes they conjure are as stale and ignorant as any voiced by the old Neanderthal right: Pretty women are de facto stupid, sexually promiscuous and low-class. Indeed, it’s the latter slight that has been least remarked upon and is, perhaps, the most disturbing. “Slutty flight attendant” is not just a sexual put-down; it’s a socioeconomic one. Likewise, when Cimbalo says, of right-wing blogger Pamela Geller, “Even a Silkwood shower won’t get rid of the stench of Fascist divorcee and Elizabeth Arden’s Red Door,” the classist sentiment is unmistakable. It’s a combination of gutter misogyny and snobbery, a return to a 1950s kind of insult. This is like saying a woman has a “reputation,” that she’s “that kind of girl,” one from “the wrong side of the tracks.” Cimbalo seems to be holding his nose not at the smell of some supposedly déclassé perfume but at the stench of working for a living, of being middle-class or having middle-class tastes.
And what’s the problem with sexy women, anyway? The facile answer is to say that female sexuality is threatening in some visceral, primitive way. But maybe the deeper fact is that pretty women remind us that the world is essentially unfair — and if the world is unfair, then the progressive quest for fairness may be quixotic and unnatural. There is no more free market economy than your average singles bar. In any case, stern conservative strength in a woman has undone the left for ages: See Margaret Thatcher. Liberals would probably contend that these women present much to argue with, propounding odious views with real-world implications — they do, they do — but why not attack their ideas rather than insult them? Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh incite their share of leftist rage, but I have yet to hear Gingrich maligned as a bimbo, or Limbaugh as a slut (just a “big fat idiot,” to borrow a phrase from Al Franken, an impersonal and genderless slight). Partly, of course, this is because no such terms exist for men — another digression entirely.
Asking why it is that liberal women do not often take liberal men to task for these attitudes is well worthwhile. Maybe we don’t want to appear shrill and humorless, unable to take a joke. Or maybe it’s thought that conservative women are too ideologically reprehensible to merit a defense. But to challenge this kind of sexist talk is not the same thing as agreeing with a woman’s politics. If the left is allowed to remain a refuge for this sort of misogyny, if this virus in the body politic is allowed to flourish, then it is likely only a matter of time before it is once again directed at liberal women who are threatening in some way, as happened to Hillary Clinton. Call Pamela Geller racist for her anti-Islamic views, but leave her “top-heavy frame” aside.
Amanda Fortini makes many strong points which should be addressed by Hillary supporters in as many fora as possible. Fortini should know that the Dimocratic Party of Obama does indeed look down at white (and black too) working class Americans as “bitter” and not “creative class” enough for their new coalition.
Fortini rightly takes women (especially liberal women) to task for allowing the sexism and misogyny.
Fortini rightly reminds here readers of the misogyny directed against Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Left.
The mainline women groups have been useless in all of these matters. NOW released a statement about the Letterman attack on Governor Palin that is so tepid and weak it is not worth quoting (where are the women Pietrangelos with honest talk?)
It has been up to the website HillBuzz to lead the way and demand action be taken against Letterman (the new “nappy headed ho” Imus) HERE HERE and HERE for the sexism and misogyny in open display by Big Media (a.k.a. the Frat House Media).
We stand with Hillbuzz in this matter and remain shocked that it is now a conservative woman we have to look to for forceful denunciations of sexism and misogyny. Thank you Hillbuzz and thank you Governor Sarah Palin.
* * * * *
Jews are at phase I in the waking up process.
We’ve made a strong case as to why Obama can’t be trusted by Jews and certainly not by Israel. Our support of Israel is not based on religion nor “Zionism”, nor “friendship”, nor anything but the simple fact that Israel and the United States have shared interests. We constantly quote Lord Palmerston and his admonition that nations do not have permanent friends or allies but rather interests.
Israel has been a good friend to the United States and Israel and the United States have shared interests in a region where allies shift like desert sands. Our main concern regarding the treachery displayed by Obama in quoting Arab propaganda against Israel, with a nod and a wink, is that Israel needs a partner who bargains in good faith if there is to be peace.
The Palestinians have not shown they are bargaining in good faith. To the contrary we have noted why Israel needs to be wary. The United States can help to bring peace but it takes two to tango and it takes two to negotiate – in good faith. Obama is not acting as a mediator but rather as a Palestinian ally trying to thug Israel into acting against its interests.
Through their obsessive focus on Israeli building activities in Judea and Samaria, Obama and his advisers have sent regional leaders the message that they define their role here not as mediators, but as agents for the Palestinians against Israel. Consequently, far from giving the sense that they seek a peace deal that will be acceptable to Israelis and Palestinians alike, they have convinced the Israelis and the Palestinians – as well as much of the Arab world – that the US intends to coerce Israel into accepting a settlement that sacrifices Israeli security and national needs on the altar of maximalist Palestinian ambitions.
This is the view that Fatah leader and putative Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas expressed in his interview with The Washington Post last month ahead of his visit with Obama. As Abbas put it, the Americans “can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, ‘You have to comply with the conditions.'”
Abbas added that he will “wait for Israel to freeze settlements,” and that until he receives this and other Israeli concessions, “we can’t talk to anyone.”
In other words, in light of the administration’s apparent hostility and uncompromising stance toward Israel, Abbas sees no reason to negotiate anything with the Israelis.
So, too, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal made clear on Tuesday that he sees the Obama administration as a potential ally for his Iranian-controlled genocidal jihadist movement. Mashaal has four good reasons for viewing things this way. First, in his speech in Cairo, Obama accepted the Arab view that Israel is an alien entity to the Middle East which owes its legitimacy to the genocide of European Jewry by Europeans in Europe, and which has the moral standing of white slaveholders in the antebellum American South.
Second, Obama has pledged $900 million in US taxpayer funds to Hamas-controlled Gaza and is pressuring Israel to support Gaza economically in spite of the fact that Hamas continues to attack southern Israel with rockets and to expand and diversify its arsenals.
Third, the Obama administration is abandoning its predecessor’s bid to isolate Hamas by pressuring Fatah and Egypt to offer Hamas full partnership in a Fatah-Hamas unity government which would work to cement Hamas’s international legitimacy.
We all would love peace and quiet in the Middle East and a good outcome for all the parties in all the disputes (in all the world for that matter) and for everyone around the world to be happy and grievance free – but now in the Middle East that is a hope that can only be achieved by good faith negotiations between the main parties involved and living in the region. The United States cannot guarantee “good faith” on the part of anyone. “Good faith” bargaining comes from the parties themselves.
On Sunday we suspect Netanyahu will avoid a fight with the White House and its viceroys while not abandoning any of the pillars of Israeli security.
Many Jews are waking up slowly, ever so slowly to the fact that Obama is not a friend and that in either case neither friends nor foes can trust Obama.
Israel will likely need American assistance in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Whatever happens in the elections in Iran today, not much will change.
The outcome will have little direct impact on Iran’s key policies – such as its nuclear program or possible acceptance of Washington’s offer for dialogue – which are directly dictated by the ruling Islamic clerics. But Ahmadinejad has become a highly polarizing figure on the international stage with comments that include questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel’s demise.
Iran might get a friendlier face with a better publicity photo but it will continue to oppose American and Israeli interests. [Already both sides in the Iranian election are claiming victory.]
American Jews must wake up to what Obama is up to and speak up loudly.
Women, Gays, and Jews all need to wake up and oppose Obama.