TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | human rights

Trusting Peggy Noonan

By on 07 February 2012

“The Peggy Noonan piece left some things out. … But I have to say, the article appears to be very misleading.” – Mika Brzezinski, “Morning Joe” (7 Feburary)

This started yesterday on “Morning Joe,” with Brzezinski reading part of an over the top declarative Peggy Noonan op-ed and getting very exercised about it before she had the facts.

Something very obvious and important is getting lost in the current contraceptive controversy.

If religious conservatives like Noonan really wanted to stop abortions and unplanned pregnancies they’d hail the opportunity for more women to have access to birth control without charge. That they aren’t says all you need to know.

David Axelrod on “Morning Joe” teased a compromise today, which is not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure. But does the Obama team actually believe religious conservatives are going to compromise? I mean, seriously, because that theory has worked so well with congressional Republicans? It’s the epitome of Obama logic and a catastrophic suggestion, especially when a majority of Catholics (and other religious Americans, including myself) agree with the Administration.

This whole argument has certainly revealed the priorities of religious conservatives, putting them at odds with women. Birth control is an economic issue for modern women, regardless of faith, as is planning pregnancy itself. However, the religious institution and whipping up a crisis around religious freedom that doesn’t exist is paramount in the minds of Republicans, because they want it for a political issue, which was proven quickly because that’s the first place they went. Democrats are more concerned with getting important reproductive health care to low and middle income women, while bending over backward to keep from setting off a religious war with the right who won’t be deterred.

Rarely has an issue set up the political sides so starkly.

Again, if stopping unplanned pregnancies was the goal it’s clear who’d come out on top morally and it’s not religious conservatives or Republicans.

From a new poll by PublicReligion.org:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

  • A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
  • There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
    • Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
    • Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
    • Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.
  • Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

As an aside, Massachusetts Mitt Romney issued a similar ruling as Pres. Obama did on contraceptives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney is railing against it today. Chalk it up as just another point of hypocrisy from Mr. Romney.

To Ms. Brzezinski’s credit, she changed her tune today after getting the facts from the White House, which Joe Scarborough labeled as talking to a “mouthpiece.” It’s unfortunate Brzezinski wasn’t armed with the facts before she read Noonan’s piece on the air, because this is important policy for women that needs everyone’s attention, no matter your politics or religion. But this type of thing happens far too often on cable, taking a traditional journalist’s op-ed as gospel when peers revere the writer.

There is no injury to freedom of religion by what the Obama administration has done. It’s patently false to say otherwise, which is what Noonan’s column implied, Joe Scarborough has insinuated, and Mark Halperin posits will alter the 2012 election, with Scarborough agreeing, of which there is absolutely no proof. What applies is if any institution provides health care to its employees they must provide women with the same contraceptive coverage as any other woman in the country. No discrimination because she’s working for a Catholic school or hospital. That in no way precludes what Catholics can choose for themselves.

The hypocrisy of religious conservatives is fully unmasked through this discussion. They evidently think immaculate intervention will stop pregnancy. If the Catholic Church and other religious political operatives really cared about stopping abortion they’d understand that’s what’s at stake here. Preventing unplanned pregnancy and putting the control of women’s lives in their own hands, which cannot happen without access to reproductive health care, starting with birth control.

Contraceptive coverage must be offered, whether you’re in a Catholic hospital or at Fordham.

Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.

Bridgette Dunlap organized an off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors to provide prescriptions for birth control because Fordham University’s student health service does not do so.

As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions . Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Al Sharpton Schools Morning Joe

By on 07 February 2012

The Catholic League, according to CBS, is “poised to go to war with Obama over mandatory birth control payments.” A better stenographer the Catholic League could not have than CBS, with the threat meant to put a political scare into Obama. But this isn’t 1980 and the Catholic League is facing a new generation in a new century where the vast majority of women rely on birth control, regardless of faith, with the economy of birth control very real. If you can’t afford $600/month, you play Russian roulette with your life and your future.

From Marjorie Clifton of GoVote over at Huffington Post:

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 79.5% of people aged 18 to 24 have had sexual intercourse, and, of those, 2.2% become pregnant. While Catholic authorities would say that unmarried young adults should not be sexually active to begin with, this position ignores reality and serves only to isolate young people — dismissing the issue as someone else’s problem.

But Catholic students are no different from the broader population. In 2009, the Boston College Undergraduate Government held a vote on whether the university should offer more sexual health services, including STI testing, condoms, and prescription birth control. The vote saw a record turnout, and an overwhelming 89% of students supported making these services available. The truth is in these numbers.

Al Sharpton won the round yesterday morning in a walk, which also revealed the tired arguments of the elite media, though they represent, as CBS did parroting exactly what the Catholic League wanted, conventional wisdom of a certain set. But the culture war today is about how modern women, who aren’t marrying like generations before, control their lives, their fate and plan their future. It cannot be done without birth control.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Al Sharpton’s smackdown of the out of touch hosts begins at around 2:30 in the video above, but what’s particularly revealing is the reading of a Peggy Noonan op-ed by Ms. Brzezinski.

“It’s a fight the President can’t win. President Obama just might have lost the election,” opines Peggy Noonan, complete with tired “sleeping giant” awakening cries.

That is religious conservatism on parade, not to be confused with political conservatism, as I wrote about yesterday, by none other than Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter. Noonan represents that moment in time where religious intrusion into the modern political fabric began its crescendo after the era of individual freedom broke out in the 1960s.

The bookend to Noonan is E.J. Dionne representing religious conservatism on the Democratic Party side of things. Part of that group is also Sen. Casey, someone willing to continue the tradition of making a woman’s body subject to government intervention, whether state or federal.

What’s been the problem with women’s autonomy and economic issues like birth control, is Democratic Party leaders have continually ceded ground to religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans, because they were afraid to fight on the terms that impact women. Birth control is an economic issue, as can be abortion. But make no mistake about it, when religious conservatives in both parties talk about birth control, they see abortion.

Women, especially poor women, have been made to take a rumble seat on the side car of our national discussion on individual freedoms, because the discussion is forever wound up in abortion rights. Any woman in the throes of such a personal crisis, which I talk about personally in my book through the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?”, is thinking about one life she’s trying to save and that’s her own.

Sebelius in USA Today:

Of the 28 states that currently require contraception to be covered by insurance, eight have no religious exemption at all. [...] It’s important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control. And the president and this administration continue to support existing conscience protections. – Secy. Kathleen Sebelius

It’s the most important conversation on women’s health to be launched in recent memory and if the American people are made to engage in it in a substantive way, which remains to be seen, something fundamentally will have been done by Pres. Obama’s decision on contraceptive coverage.

Joe Scarborough and others have said or suggested Pres. Obama’s will backtrack on his decision.

It will be catastrophic for American women and send a dangerous message on privacy if he proves them right. Because this isn’t just about contraception to religious conservatives. It’s about Griswold and the idea that women should enjoy the same privacy and freedoms as men, which no state or federal law or agency, religious institution or employer should have the right to abridge.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down

By on 06 February 2012

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy. – The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama, by Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson reveals one of the fundamental problems with Republicanism today. It’s not conservative at all anymore.

In a rambling, self-importantly arrogant post, Erickson pontificates on what he thinks he knows about being a Christian through a literal analysis of the Bible. Then he stands in judgment over Pres. Obama.

The self-righteous never see irony coming.

There is nothing Christian in Erickson’s harangue against Pres. Obama. There is also nothing conservative about it.

Conservatism has a measure of grounding when you listen to analysis of it from people who don’t wrap their religion through their conservative ideology.

A religious conservative can be against abortion. But an ideological conservative, while being against abortion and not wanting to fund it, cannot simultaneously take a person’s liberty away by forcing pregnancy on a woman when natural law protects her right to personal autonomy.

The very notion of conservatism is rooted in personal liberty. Whether religious conservatives like it or not, to be true to conservatism, they must honor that liberty. Today, they do not.

Any conservative with intellectual or political integrity would understand that conservatism of any depth must be rooted in the fundamental idea that interrupting the freedoms of any person through the intrusion of government, whether federal or state, is abridging a person’s autonomy in a manner that is the anti-thesis of conservatism.

Religious conservatism or fundamentalist-based Republicanism is actually a self-righteous marketing attempt to make people like Erickson and his ilk think they are on higher ground and have the ultimate interpretation of right and wrong. You hear it through Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the self-righteous radio crowd.

It’s the blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a conservative, but think religious dogma should hold more sway than an individual who’s privacy and personal freedoms are innate to being a person in the first place.

Conservatism without religion can make sense.

Add religion, however, and conservatism becomes authoritarian in nature, relegating women to non-persons, second class citizens and slaves, because the state or federal government, through religious dictates, is now in charge.

Conservatism’s very nature is about doing less, leaving the individual alone to prosper and live without interference, which certainly should include women.

However, since Ronald Reagan invited the “Moral Majority,” which was neither moral or a majority then or now as it exists in other forms, conservatism was bastardized into something that now includes a campaign to take over the domain of a woman’s very body through means of the state or federal government.

Erick Erickson sees no problem with this, because he’s a religious conservative, not a conservative.

You can be religious and you can be a conservative, but once you put the two together in an ideological philosophy you lose the moorings of anything that has integral grounding in what conservatism actually means.

Not even Ron Paul passes this test as a Libertarian. He’s said before that he’s against abortion, because it’s violent, which is perfectly acceptable, but that he’d allow the states to decide the law governing abortions. This fails the basic autonomy test and the very notion of liberty that’s in Libertarianism, which he proved in an interview with Piers Morgan.

The biggest impediment to curtailing abortions is the refusal of religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans to accept the primary component to being a person, which is the body that houses the soul, assuming it exists, is something over which no other, certainly no politician, clergy or the state, has control.

This is about personal autonomy and living freely without any dependencies, the first component of personhood. It’s not abortion, but includes it, because religious fundamentalists are using political means to wage a war against the very notion of women’s individual freedom.

If people believing in true liberty don’t start taking religious conservatives on, whatever party they are in, over their fundamentalism, women’s autonomy won’t be sacrosanct one day.

This includes taking on people like Pres. Obama when he decides that a safe pharmaceutical like Plan B can be used as a stick to the contraceptive carrot that came afterward, because women’s individual freedoms remain a bargaining chip for politicians and their supporters.

The ultimate example of this was seen through the Susan G. Komen fiasco this past week, when Komen decided to make ideology more important than the health of women, especially poor women, who have been a political football since the Hyde Amendment. Yes, Pres. Obama used poor women as a football too, and he did it through the religious conservative playbook that created Hyde in the first place.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

China and Russia Block U.N. Action on Syria

By on 05 February 2012

Thirty years after his father massacred tens of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children in Hama, Bashar al-Assad has demonstrated a similar disdain for human life and dignity. [...] Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern. The Syrian regime’s policy of maintaining power by terrorizing its people only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse. Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community… – Pres. Obama

Diplomatically, it was Secy. Clinton versus Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, giving dueling public speeches that came before the U.N. vote delivering a double veto. From Clinton at the Munich Security Summit:

Here in Munich, I have had productive discussions with a number of my counterparts concerning a list of critical issues. One that kept coming up is the ongoing violence in Syria. As a bankrupt regime clings to power by shelling its own people in their homes, we have seen a living nightmare play out in the city of Homs. It’s a nightmare that has been repeated across Syria over these past many months. Almost 30 days – almost 30 years to the day after the infamous Hama massacre, the international community must send Assad a clear message: By repeating the horrors of Syria’s past, you have lost your place in Syria’s future.

From the New York Times we get the outcome:

A United Nations Security Council effort to end the violence in Syria collapsed in acrimony with a double veto by Russia and China on Saturday, hours after the Syrian military attacked the city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the deadliest government assault in the nearly 11-month uprising.

The veto and the mounting violence underlined the dynamics shaping what is proving to be the Arab world’s bloodiest revolt: diplomatic stalemate and failure as Syria plunges deeper into what many are already calling a civil war. Diplomats have lamented their lack of options in pressuring the Syrian government, and even some Syrian dissidents worry about what the growing confrontation will mean for a country reeling from bloodshed and hardship.

According to Reuters, the latest death toll was 217 people.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context

By on 02 February 2012

The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. ..Three sources told me the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. – Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Warning if you watch the video above, you’ll need a seat belt to escape the spinning by Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen, who has disgraced herself through her decision to take a McCarthyite House investigation as gospel.

The Democrats and progressive advocates of Planned Parenthood act as if they’ve never heard of Sun Tsu. But every battle is won before it’s waged. That’s how this entire conversation moved right to the point where Komen feels it has cover to adopt ideology over public health priorities.

One question that remains worth asking, even if I’m the only one asking it, is why was there no outlet or relationship to tap for those inside Komen to reach out to progressive allies to prepare or fight off the defunding of Planned Parenthood? How could Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood be caught so totally flat-footed on a decision that impacted the organization so profoundly? Is it possible Richards knew it was coming and decided taking the battle on after it was decided was the only option she had? If that’s remotely possible, the left is worse than even I imagined.

But if ever two events represented the right’s relationship today with the 99% they are the dueling events of Nancy Brinker of Komen and Mitt Romney for the 1%.

Mitt Romney talked about not being concerned about the very poor, because they have a safety net.

Brinker and Susan G. Komen damaging one of those safety nets for poor women by pulling funding for Planned Parenthood reveals what a Mitt Romney presidency might mean.

Meanwhile, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000, which goes on top of the money so many are donating to Planned Parenthood since Komen flipped wingnut.

The primary function of Planned Parenthood is reproductive health care, which lives well beyond abortion, with the funds received by Susan G. Komen kept separate from abortion services, which is a fraction of what it does. Now, Megan McArdle is talking about the funds being fungible:

It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision.

Why is it absurd? McArdle’s lazy analysis of “probably helping to fund abortion” flippantly ignores the impact when a woman is denied any reproductive treatment she cannot afford.

The upper crust analyst class is a scourge.

It also doesn’t begin to deal with the investigative yarn being used by Komen to ostracize Planned Parenthood, which is the primary goal of the right, no matter who gets hurt. That the biggest anti Planned Parenthood contingent also absurdly believes abortion is linked to breast cancer proves how far out on the limb these people will go.

Democrats and progressives are outwitted and outgunned in this department, because they simply won’t wage the fight, always careful to appear moderate while clinging to the coveted centrism above principle or any philosophical foundation.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I believe this event was allowed to happen through negligence and careless naivete of Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, but also their progressive and Democratic allies. They should have seen this coming, because it’s been in the works for years.

What could they have done? State unflinchingly and unapologetically that the rights of women where our own bodies are concerned are nothing less than a basic human right. That means you fight equally on every front and don’t apologize.

However, Democrats and progressives have not only not been diligent, but they’ve become increasingly and embarrassingly meek to the point of weakness in standing on a line and refusing to compromise on a woman’s basic human right to control her own body. That’s how the right carved out an investigative position over which to wage the Komen battle.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer. – Daily Caller

You don’t “fight cancer” by cutting out cervical screenings and mamograms to women who can’t afford them.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor” is the flag under which Susan G. Komen, Mitt Romney and their conservative apologists stand.

This never would have happened if the left was as strong in refusing to compromise on human rights issues of women’s individual freedoms. Compromising this fundamental purpose is how Planned Parenthood got in this position.

You can’t carve out portions of the women’s human rights philosophy because it makes you uncomfortable or you don’t have the spine to make the argument. Well, you can, but the result is that the right beats you and the least able to fend for themselves get crushed.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Leaked Syrian Report at Foreign Policy

By on 31 January 2012

“What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people,” said Malek. “The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released.” – report by Column Lynch

After calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, which was ignored, the Arab League also called off its mission to monitor the carnage inside Syria this past Saturday. Considering they reportedly didn’t have enough armored vehicles and too few bullet-proof vests, with the details from Turtle Bay’s Column Lynch about the Chinese passing the walkie-talkies, it would be laughable if the situation hadn’t been so deadly.

Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Moustafa Al-Dabbi was in charge of the mission, which is part of the problem. Lynch has a good rundown on the general:

The mission’s international standing was also diminished by the selection of its monitoring chief — General Al-Dabbi, a close advisor of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Al-Dabbi also served as a top military officer in Darfur, Sudan, at a time when the government was organizing local militia, known as the Janjaweed, that were involved in mass killings of civilians in the region. An Algerian member of the Arab team, Anwar Malek, resigned in protest, telling Al Jazeera that the mission was a “farce.”

The leaked report is available over at Lynch’s Turtle Bay. The Europeans are unimpressed by it, while the Russians and the Security Council are in it over the bloodletting in Syria. One thing is clear after reading the report and that is the Syrian government seems to have had no intention of allowing it to succeed. From Lynch:

On Jan. 18, Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby ordered the suspension of the organization’s observer mission, its first major experiment in human rights monitoring. He claimed that the escalation of violence had undercut its ability to do its job.

But a confidential account of the organization’s mission, signed by the monitor’s controversial chief and obtained by Turtle Bay, shows that the Arab monitors were hobbled from the beginning by a shortage of equipment — and by what Al-Dabbi describes as a ferocious Syrian media disinformation campaign against the monitors and him personally. “The credibility of the mission has been undermined in the minds of Arab and foreign viewers,” he wrote.

[...] “The mission…sensed the acute stress, injustice and oppression endured [by] Syrian citizens,” Al-Dabbi wrote. “Yet they are convinced that the Syrian crisis must be resolved peacefully, in the Arab context, and not internationalized so that they can live in peace securely, and achieve the desired reforms and changes.” That said, he is surprisingly candid and critical of the observer mission’s ability to perform well the task required of them.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Newt Gingrich Can’t Beat Barack Obama

By on 21 January 2012

NEWT GINGRICH WINS SOUTH CAROLINA

Memo to GOP Star Chamber. RE: Not Losing the *(&#! House and Senate GOP Majority w/ Newt Disaster. Time for a Secret Meeting. – Mike Murphy tweet

UPDATE (10:00 p.m.): Once again I want to make it very clear, I do not have a candidate in the race in 2012. I will not support any candidate this year. The headline is simply a statement based firmly in reality.

Romney got clocked in South Carolina. Gingrich was in full grandiosity swoon that doesn’t lend itself to synopsis. But his characterization of Pres. Obama is unrecognizable & loopy. GOTV jet engine for Democrats. If Newt doesn’t implode it’s a first. The graph on CNN with women & men listening in Florida went sky high for males, plus for women, but lower. Earlier, priceless Chris Matthews on Gingrich in Florida: “vibraphone of erogenous zones,” referring to playing all the ethnic richness of the state.

A great mentor of mine used to say you can’t win until you’ve lost the fear of failure. Mitt Romney as underdog, could he turn into a force? Republicans sure hope so.

Rick Santorum serves up working class red meat, making the pitch for vice president.

Ron Paul seems to be talking not just about 2012, but addressing what he hopes will be a revolutionary movement that will be passed, I believe, to his son Rand Paul.

_____original post below_____

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt. – Washington Examiner



The polling compilation from the Washington Examiner article linked above won’t surprise many, especially the girls around here.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ice Mitt Romney, who’s now trying to hold on instead of trying to win, at the very least represents the corporate Wall Street decay in both parties for all to see. There’s some educational benefits to this contest.

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ick Newt Gingrich reveals the rot of Republicans, but it also lets Pres. Obama off the hook on any substantive challenge that won’t be reduced to race baiting “food stamp presidency” invective.

Maybe that’s what the America people have earned for their laziness and lack of involved citizenship. People don’t seem to care that indefinite detention is real and that we continue to hold people at Gitmo without trial, because we’re too squeamish to incarcerate them with murderers in maximum security prisons. The ideals on which this country was founded are less important than the fear factor pushed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Pres. Obama’s refusal to lead continually revealing what ails us.

Leading from behind didn’t start with the bombing of Libya, though it is the first time our sleepy national press picked up on it. Pres. Obama’s entire leadership style is to lead from behind so as not to put himself too far out in front on any issue. With a majority in Congress his first two years he negotiated with himself on the stimulus, while bargaining with private insurance and drug companies, never stepping out on health care, until he sided with Stupak for optics. Leading up to the 2010 midterms, Obama hung back on offering an economic message, then extended the Bush tax cuts when he got shellacked. On the Keystone Pipeline decision this week, it wasn’t made boldly on the side of principle and the potentially dangerous environmental impact; instead it was no for now, blaming his decision on Republicans who wouldn’t give him more time, with the win more to do with activists raising a ruckus than anything. On contraception, which could have easily been embedded earlier in ACA, the decision came down just yesterday on the heels of a report that had an Obama official warning that the budget to come wouldn’t be liked by the left. This requires warning? Pres. Obama works through delivering carrot (contraceptive coverage) and stick (scuttling Plan B) tactics that depend on his political needs (the coming budget to woo independents) and have a foundation in austerity, choosing conservatism as his guide.

However, up against Newt Gingrich little would matter beyond the ick factor of this despicable man.

When it comes to women, Mr. Ick, who’s always had a problem with female voters and for very good reasons, doesn’t stand a chance against Mr. Cool.

Oh, and the video above has gone viral. …as well it should. Did you hear those squeals?

Read full story · Comments { 102 }

No Wonder People Support Ron Paul

By on 31 December 2011

photo by Pete Souza

He huffed and he puffed, then Barack Obama did what he always does, he signed conservative legislation. The NDAA is now law of the land.

The head of the Democratic Party believes indefinite detention for terrorism suspects and that they deserve to be locked up without trial. Oh, but not to worry, Pres. Obama has “serious reservations.” What he didn’t consider is the impact of this law in the hands of others who come after him. It’s recklessly negligent and foolish. It is also un-American.

Tell me again the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Mr. Obama signed a bill Mitt Romney would have signed.

From the Atlantic, Ron Paul’s take:

The decision will inevitably become fodder for criticism as Obama ramps up his 2012 reelection campaign. This is the same bill that Ron Paul recently compared to the Patriot Act but with more dire implications. “When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured,” Paul said earlier this week. “The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”

Happy New Year, Democrats and progressives.

Now get busy for Obama, four more years, baby.

Pres. Obama’s statement:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

With Visions of ‘Laziness’ Dancing in Obama’s Head

By on 24 December 2011



‘Twas the weekend after the debacle, when all through the town; everyone was thrilled to be rid of these clowns.

The Congress deserved hanging by the monuments for their idiocy, but instead they were sipping Scotch after the deal they’d just botched.

The middle class had no security and no clue about next year, with visions of unemployment and an election providing no cheer.

With Gingrich and Perry kicked off Virginia’s ballot, Mitt Romney sat snugly and dreamed of a wrap.

I’ll stop there, so as not to torture the “Night Before Christmas” any further.

Pres. Obama can take it from here. This might explain why he never bothers to work the Congress, bending their ears in phone calls and visits to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., always a sweetener. He’s just not that into his job. Compliments of Barbara Walters:

“It’s interesting…. Deep down underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me,” Obama said. “It’s probably from growing up in Hawaii, and it’s sunny outside. Sitting on the beach.”

Well, at least he’s not into the part of his job that has to do with leading or dragging Congress to consensus. However, when it comes to signing statements, delivered on a festive holiday weekend no less, Pres. Obama is all in.

The signing statement says that on the issue of accused terrorist detainees, Obama will interpret and apply provisions that bar the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, “in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts.”

Obama also objected to Defense provisions in the bill that limit the president’s ability to put troops under foreign command and require 30 days advance notice to Congress for any use of the military which would involve more than $100,000 in construction costs.

Political shenanigans don’t stop even at a time when we the people aren’t paying attention. It’s actually a perfect time to weave power where you want it.

Now you know why people like me work 24/7.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Secy. Clinton’s Speech on Women, Peace and Security

By on 20 December 2011

Of course, we understand that there are differences that are of historic and cultural importance in many places around the world. And many of those we respect, and we try to be very sensitive to the legitimate concerns that people have about protecting what they value in their own societies. But there are certain actions that are beyond any cultural norm. Beating women is not cultural, it’s criminal, and it needs to be addressed and treated as such. (Applause.) – Secy. Clinton

It was a tremendous speech and a very important one. I tweeted many of her best sound bites, but there were so many. Secy. Clinton also announced an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, for which Pres. Obama deserves credit.

We all know that this focus on women as part of U.S. foreign policy is being guided by Secy. Clinton, who began this push as first lady that is the foundation of my book (now in print). It is part biography of Clinton, part autobiography as well because of the trajectory of my life and its link with the modern feminist movement and Hillary’s rise, which follows 20 years of politics.

It is another example of the Hillary Effect, with Clinton’s position at State solidifying the importance of women in United States foreign policy under Pres. Obama, which has never been given the focus it has before.

Farah Pandith, special Representative to Muslim Communities for the State Department, attributed this goal to the “Hillary effect,” a phrase that has come to describe Clinton’s contagious enthusiasm. Pandith applauded Clinton for her 2008 presidential campaign, citing “15 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” – Clinton inspires Barnard students at State Department (h/t Daniel Aubry)

The text is here.

That is why this morning, President Obama signed an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security – a comprehensive roadmap for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the United States Government to advance women’s participation in making and keeping peace. This plan builds on the President’s national security strategy, and it was jointly developed by the Departments of State and Defense, USAID, and others with guidance from the White House. I also want to take a moment to recognize all our partners in civil society and the private sector who contributed, many of whom are here today. Without your on-the-ground experience, your passionate commitment, and your tireless effort, this plan would not exist, and we look forward to working just as closely together with you on implementing it.

…It’s true that the question of just how women contribute to peace and security, aside from the high-profile woman who sits at the table, or the nation’s leader that makes the peace, what it is that women themselves across the board can do? Well, this does deserve far more quantitative research and rigorous study. That’s why Georgetown’s plan to establish an Institute for Women, Peace, Security, and Development, to support scholarship and research, as well as outreach, will help us elevate public understanding of this important matter. It will be a home for primary source material such as oral histories, and quality analysis that will help activists and leaders as well. I can’t wait to see it up and going. A new push on research and data collection will be particularly useful for us as we implement our own National Action Plan.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Secretary Clinton: ‘Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights’

By on 06 December 2011

The United States will begin using American foreign aid to promote gay rights abroad, Obama administration officials said on Tuesday. President Obama issued a memorandum directing American agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality. – U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad

What Pres. Obama has done through this directive is historic. Having Secy. Clinton to deliver the message makes it resound.

To use American foreign aid to combat foreign governments from criminalizing homosexuality is something only a president can do and Barack Obama has done a great and controversial thing, given the focus on foreign aid and our economic state, through his decision.

This speech continues what Hillary began in Beijing, China as first lady in 1995, a speech that is foundational to my book, The Hillary Effect, and which is cited in the Introduction. The Hillary Effect itself, along with Secy. Clinton’s advocacy, helped by time, made possible by Pres. Obama’s courageous act, aided by the advocacy of gays and lesbians fighting for equality, which reached critical mass on DADT, manifested a global moment of pride for our country today.

Contrary to the naysayers, I always contended, in fact I knew, that Barack Obama could have no stronger partner than Hillary Clinton in his Administration. Having studied her for two decades, I had never a doubt. Their partnership here sings out.

It is a great day for which we owe Pres. Obama a great deal, with this speech by Secy. Clinton a historic moment for her as well.

Of course, in an election season, nothing this grand could go without scurrilous words from the right. It’s fitting that it comes from Rick Perry.

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. … Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. … This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Ah yes, human rights as “special rights,” the threats of torture and even death for gays not enough to convince Republicans like Rick Perry that this is a human rights issue.

This is the sort of action that inspires people to repeat the axiom that presidential elections be seen as a choice and not a referendum. Only a president can make such a groundbreaking, sweeping decision. It’s a reminder that hits deep for many and will bind some people to Pres. Obama tightly, while also revealing a core tenet of the Democratic Party.

First Lady Hillary Clinton said “human rights are women’s rights.”

Today she spoke for America once again saying, “human rights are gay rights.”

It is a great day.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

BARNES & NOBLE Chooses THE HILLARY EFFECT in ‘NOOK First’ Featured Authors Campaign

By on 14 November 2011

It’s incredibly exciting to announce that The Hillary Effect has been selected as one of two non-fiction e-books in the Barnes and Noble “NOOK First” featured authors campaign, just launched.

Being selected as part of this “NOOK First” Barnes and Noble project was an incredible honor and opportunity. Now you know why we waited until this week to publish.

This is a tremendously exciting moment for the entire team that made this happen, beginning with Thomas Ellison and Hutch Morton of Premier Digital Publishing.

What a stunning send off they’ve given my e-book.

So, Barnes and Noble is the only place you can buy The Hillary Effect until December 15th.

Pop the champagne! …just don’t spill it on your NOOK.

NOTE: Aps for your pc, MAC and iPad are available for free at Barnes and Noble.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Update on the The Hillary Effect

By on 08 November 2011

Today’s not going to be the day we publish, but I promise we’ll have a big send off for the publication next week! It will be worth the wait.

Some book PR to give you a little more on what it’s all about.


Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.

The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.


Read full story · Comments are closed

About the Book Cover

By on 25 October 2011

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

The Meaning of Success

By on 24 October 2011

Amid glee across the sphere on Libya, while remaining against Pres. Obama’s decision to bomb Libya in the first place. What unfolded upon Gaddafi’s capture and subsequent assault, according to CBS, opens out on another one of those moments that begs for our humility.

Segue to Jonathan Turley:

The United States appears to have been successful in bringing forth another country that rejects notions of separation of church (or mosque) and state as well as a country that will by definition disenfranchise religious minorities. Our new allies in Afghanistan and Iraq have not only imposed radical Islamic groups but denied women and minorities basic rights. I am not sure we can afford any more successes in our foreign policies. – New Libyan Leader Pledges To Impose Sharia Law on the Country

What are we doing?

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

DCCC Supporting Anti Women Democrats: Reps. Mark S. Critz, Mike McIntyre, and Jim Matheson

By on 15 October 2011

**UPDATED**

The freedom is just for men crowd in the House continue their war against women, which is being waged by conservatives who inhabit both political parties. It surrounds the absurd notion that in the Affordability Care Act using public funds for abortions is not already prohibited. Never mind that it was Pres. Obama who signed an executive order to pacify Bart Stupak when it passed in the first place, making it cool to wage war against women. From the Huffington Post:

After an emotional floor debate, the House of Representatives on Thursday passed the so-called Protect Life Act, which prohibits women from buying health insurance plans that cover abortion under the Affordable Care Act and makes it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions.

Now women can’t even buy a health insurance plan that would cover an abortion, an extreme extra step at one of the most emotionally wrought times in a woman’s life.

To some Democrats, men like Critz, McIntyre and Matheson, the mother isn’t considered a life. That’s how far the Democratic Party has fallen in the Obama era. [update] Here are a list of all the so-called Democrats voting for this anti women’s rights bill: Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), Heath Shuler (NC)

Pres. Obama has threatened a veto. However, let’s remember it was Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker in U.S. history, who emboldened these cretins in the first place.

Some of you may remember Mark Critz, who ran for John Murtha’s old seat. Former Pres. Bill Clinton helped get him elected. Critz, McIntyre and Matheson all voted against saving a woman’s life in an emergency. But yet the DCCC is using money raised from abortion rights proponents to help keep these men against women’s freedoms in office.

From Credo, with a petition at that link, here’s their campaign to hold anti women Democrats accountable:

The House of Representatives voted to let women die by passing a bill that would make it legal for hospitals to refuse to perform a life-saving abortion on a woman as an emergency procedure.

In response to that vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to donate to help protect the health of women.

But three out of fifteen of the DCCC’s top candidates who would receive that money voted to let women die.  Tell the DCCC: You can’t have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women’s health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who vote to let women die.

It is shameful that the DCCC is using these horrible attacks on women’s lives as a chance to fill their own coffers with the money of supporters who are genuinely angry about the war extremists in Congress are waging against women.
Not only is it hypocritical for the DCCC not to mention that the money raised for their women’s health fund will be going directly to three anti-choice candidates, but it is simply wrong that they are funding candidates who are so anti-choice that they voted for a bill that would let women die in a hospital without any intervention.

The DCCC’s two-faced messaging must stop. If they care about protecting women’s health, then they need to stop funding extreme anti-choice candidates — and if they want to fund those anti-woman candidates, then they need to stop running fundraising campaigns that use attacks on women’s health to solicit contributions from pro-choice activists.

Tell the DCCC: You can’t have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women’s health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who want to let women die.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Obama Deploys 100 Troops to Uganda

By on 15 October 2011

**bumped**

By end of 2011, SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command] estimates its forces will be in 120 countries, up from 60 under President Bush. #NotBreakingNews – Jeremy Scahill (via Twitter)

We’ve been engaged in Uganda for years, but one hundred troops? Seriously?

In an update to his report, Jake Tapper adds: A Defense Department official tells ABC’s Luis Martinez at the Pentagon that the U.S. troops will be in Africa “for a few months in an advisory role.”

Oh. My. God. People are so ignorant they don’t realize what can be triggered from “an advisory role” position.

How many military engagements has Pres. Obama launched? I’ve lost count.

Hey, but at least he notified Congress this time, evidently getting the message, at least in part.

Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Help Combat Lord’s Resistance Army

The president in his letter noted that Congress passed “the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,” signed into law on May 24, 2010, in which, the president said, “the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.” [...]

When the president signed that letter in May 2010, he said the bill “crystallizes the commitment of the United States to help bring an end to the brutality and destruction that have been a hallmark of the LRA across several countries for two decades, and to pursue a future of greater security and hope for the people of central Africa. The Lord’s Resistance Army preys on civilians – killing, raping, and mutilating the people of central Africa; stealing and brutalizing their children; and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Its leadership, indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, has no agenda and no purpose other than its own survival. It fills its ranks of fighters with the young boys and girls it abducts. By any measure, its actions are an affront to human dignity.”

Log this one under the same humanitarian emotionalism that convinced Pres. Obama to bomb Libya.

All of those Democrats and progressives who utilized candidate Obama’s anti Iraq war speech to elevate him above all of the other Democrats really do look foolish today.

At this rate, Iran will be next. We’re in the conservative throes of a presidential election season where the Democratic president and his people think his best card is military. I mean, really.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Taylor Marsh Authors The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

By on 11 October 2011

Due out in November. Available on Amazon.com, on your Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook, and iPad.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.
The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

THE HILLARY EFFECT: Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 Goes to Three Activist Women

By on 07 October 2011

It’s another nod to the Hillary Effect.

Congratulations to Liberia’s Pres. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first female president of Africa, Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakul Karman of Yemen.

The importance of women’s role around the world elevated, with the Nobel committee making a statement and headline news, offers another change in the status quo. This is truly something to celebrate.

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to Three Activist Women

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 was awarded on Friday to three campaigning women from Africa and the Arab world in acknowledgment of their nonviolent role in promoting peace, democracy and gender equality. The winners were President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia — Africa’s first elected female president — her compatriot, peace activist Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakul Karman of Yemen, a pro-democracy campaigner.

[...] Most of the recipients in the award’s 110-year history have been men and Friday’s decision seemed designed to give impetus to the cause for women’s rights around the world.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakul Karman stand on their own courage, their own actions leading to the changes still evolving in their corners of the world. They certainly didn’t need Secy. Clinton to tell them their own passions and purpose.

However, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton who has tirelessly trumpeted to the world to wake up to what women’s contributions to their countries mean to the world and anyone wanting stability to rein in still developing, often troubled, regions.

As the Washington Post reported in January, 2010, the Hillary Effect was already in full swing around the world, because of Hillary’s presence, her footprint.

“Hillary Clinton is so visible” as secretary of state, said Amelia Matos Sumbana, who just arrived as ambassador from Mozambique. “She makes it easier for presidents to pick a woman for Washington.”

No one in the Obama administration has worked harder in the last few years to put women’s rights in the forefront of changing countries more than Secy. Clinton. No one has so relentlessly made the case that women can close the gap in stabilizing a troubled country, including setting a burgeoning economy on firmer ground.

It’s the case she began making when she was first lady and went to Beijing, China to give her now famous speech on “human rights are women’s rights.” It has been one of her main missions as secretary of state to bring focus to the roles of women in their government and the importance of their voices being heard. Clinton’s historic and very difficult visit to the Congo revealed the depths of her commitment.

The stability of countries depends on women being engaged in their government, as well as their voices heard and heeded.

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to three women changing their worlds sends a message around the globe that has the potential to inspire more women to be brave, becoming the catalyst for even more progress.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }