Obama says he wants to repeal DADT during his 2008 campaign. He instructs his Pentagon to review DADT with an eye on enacting repeal of it by the end of 2010. He invites congresspeople to the White House from his party to build a compromise and legislative strategy to repeal DADT after the military finishes a year long review (to end in December 2010) and prior to all this he deals with a huge economic crash, passage of health care reform, passing financial reform, establishing strategy for two wars and resetting diplomacy for the future of the country.

Meanwhile, yes, it sucks because honorable soldiers are being dismissed from the military due to this discriminatory policy. Some to the left of Obama suggested Obama simply doesn’t give a damn about DADT repeal and others demand he act more like how they perceived George W. Bush , rule by bullying and Executive Orders. Their claim is if Obama was the more like the fake cowboy, he could put a stop to DADT and do whatever the hell else he wants to . In reality Bush had the help of “centrist” Senate and House Democrats at every turn (and failed when he tried to win some issues like carnivore prior to 9/11 and Immigration Reform post 9/11). These give absolutely no thought to the fact that a DADT Executive Order repeal would inevitably create a volatile political situation where hypocritical Tea Baggers/Libertarians (like Rand and Ron Paul), idiots in the main stream media and the GOP would begin raising hell about Obama abusing power to ghey up the military. All this noise could inevitably spook enough senate and house Democrats and could result in DADT repeal law not ever passing and an executive order to end DADT being rendered impotent by a politically careful caucus who could underfund the mandate. (Don’t believe me? Tell me when they closed Guantanamo Bay in 2009 or tried KSM in Federal Court) .

The cynical why is DADT repeal an Obama priority in May 2010 after all this time? questions ignore the reason why proponents of immediate executive order DADT repeal are upset with the Obama Administration in the first place: the strategy to enact DADT repeal by passing a law and then implementing the policy within the Pentagon bureaucracy after a thorough review was announced earlier in Obama’s first term. See Robert Gates interview with Fox News Sunday in 2009:

WALLACE: In January, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a one-word answer, “yes,” when asked if this president is going to end the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for gays in the military.

Where does that stand? And why is there currently money in the 2010 budget to keep enforcing that policy?

GATES: Well, it continues to be the law. And any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow the law, whatever it is.

That dialogue, though, has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now, and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.

via Transcript: Secretary Gates on ‘FNS’ – FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace – FOXNews.com.

and reiterated in Obama’s State of The Union address:

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama said, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Six days later, Obama’s top Pentagon officials offered the Senate Armed Services Committee details on how Obama’s pledge will be carried out.

“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” said Gates. “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen, speaking “for myself and myself only,” added that he is in favor of “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly” in the armed forces.

[…]

Gates and Mullen cautioned that the switch would not be immediate. Not only does Congress need to change the current law, but the Pentagon will first carry out a detailed “implementation plan” led by Pentagon legal counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who commands the United States Army in Europe. It’s likely to take months for the Pentagon to complete its plan.

In the shorter term, Gates said that the Pentagon would move toward enforcing the current policy “in a fairer manner.” Gates established a timeline of 45 days for those changes.

via PolitiFact | Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – Obama promise No. 293:.

I think Obama chose to stabilize the economy, change war strategy, pass health care, establish an international diplomatic agenda and enact wall street reform before tackling DADT, and rightly so. DADT repeal has wide public support and congressional support. He chose to do the harder things first. In general, I think that this makes sense as a framework for legislative strategy. It’s a cold triage of priorities that is of no comfort for the soldiers who have been disgraced, the currently enlisted who still fear expulsion due to their sexual orientation, Americans who understand DADT makes our government discriminate against law abiding citizens, and those who understand removing capable soldiers from duty diminishes our national security infrastructure.

If the unfair DADT policy is outlawed by congress and signed into law by the President it will be a true repair to our democracy. Anything just ordered away by the Commander in Chief is just a temporary patch.

Andrew Sullivan thinks Rand Paul wants to lower government debt and may even think about a tax hike at some time during his six year senate term so we should…hear him out.

If he’s serious, he’ll compromise to get real change, even if it means some tax hikes. If he’s unserious, he’ll keep posturing. But give him a chance.

via Rands Win, Ctd – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.

What kind of politician is Sullivan insisting that we give a chance? Well let’s look at one of his positions… (bold is mine)

He said he was, however, concerned about the future of Appalachia due to what he feels is an attempt to restrict coal use by President Obama.

He explained, “Every time you want to mine coal, you must get a permit, and basically, Obama has slowed the process because he’s very anti-coal… if you interview any spokesman for the different coal companies, they’ll tell you they are very worried… I think that’s the biggest problem facing Appalachia right now.”

Rand Paul would not just be trying to bring spending restraint to the Senate. He is a right wing radical who has stated his position on a variety of issues. Rand Paul believes the biggest problem facing the thousands of Appalachia coal miners and the 29 workers that died in the death trap that was Upper Big Branch Coal Mine in West Virginia, run by the despicable Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, is the permit process was too slow and prevented Blankenship from mining coal. Here is the truth about mining Permits…

In the federal register for August 28, 2000, there’s record that Performance Coal Company—a Massey subsidiary—was approved for a permit modification to use belt ventilation in their Upper Big Branch Mine-South

Belt air ventilation is a method in which air used to ventilate a mine runs through the same area where coal is exiting on a conveyor belt. It was specifically outlawed in the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. Now, if companies want to use the system, they have to petition for a permit modification.

Jerry Tien is a professor of mining engineering at the Missouri University of Science and Technology. He says one of the concerns about belt air is that it runs over the coal being transported out of the mine. The conveyor belt is a dusty area, and coal can release methane.

via Upper Big Branch used ventilation system with a history of problems – WVPubcast.org.

10 years ago, Massey was allowed to use an illegal ventilation system for its mines, because Massey requested that privilege, and never addressed even basic modifications to make the mine ventilation system safer. The federal, state and local governments routinely bend the rules to allow business to do whatever the hell they want. This continues today. Obama appointee Joe Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, and his predecessors did not hold Massey and other big coal companies accountable to the standards on the books. The weak permit system and enforcements allowed the Upper Big Branch accident to happen.

“This is a case not only of the operator thumbing his nose at the strictly legal requirements and regulations,” Ken Hechler, former West Virginia congressman who was lead sponsor of a 1969 law that overhauled mining safety, said this week in a phone interview. “It also involves a failure of the Mine Safety and Health Administration itself to act aggressively against the mine in order to ensure that either the conditions be made safe, as provided in the law, or to toughen the enforcement … to close the mine.”

Virginia-based Massey Energy, which owns the Upper Big Branch, “has a long history of having used every possible loophole to avoid the piling up of fines,” Hechler added, “which, of course, should have given the authority — which is clearly contained in the law — for [MSHA] to have closed that mine.”

A former MSHA manager echoed that sentiment this month, telling TWI that MSHA leaders — notably Joe Main, who heads the agency — haven’t done nearly enough to confront coal companies that show patterns of safety violations.

“[MSHA] was soft-pedaling — staying in the background, keeping a low profile,” the former official said. “And you can’t do that with this industry. You’ve got to use a big stick — especially with Massey.”

via Plenty of Blame Still to Go Around in Massey Mining Disaster « The Washington Independent.

So its not really true that Obama has been the bane of the coal industry. The Obama Administration has made some regulatory noise, but had very little bite behind its bark. What Rand Paul really believes is that the US government should abolish the EPA and MSHA and never attempt to make the MSHA get serious about regulating dangerous labor and safety practices of dastardly CEOs like Blankenship.

Paul also believes the Civil Rights Act goes too far because it prevents private businesses from discriminating against protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, national origin or physical impairment, age, sexual orientation). Watch it all.

Ta-Nehisi Coates addresses Rand Paul’s position that private business should be able to discriminate as their owners may see fit.

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I think there’s this sense that it’s OK to be ignorant about the Civil Rights Act because it’s a “black issue.” I’m not a lawyer, but my sense is that for a senator to be ignorant of the Civil Rights Act, is not simply to be ignorant of a “black issue,” but to be ignorant of one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed. This isn’t like not knowing the days of Kwanzaa, this is like not knowing what caused the Civil War. It’s just embarrassing–except Paul is too ignorant to be embarrassed.

via The Proud Ignorance of Rand Paul – Politics – The Atlantic.

And let’s be clear, Paul wants to starve government and privatize as much as possible and replace government agency with private enterprise. In Paul’s ideal USA, the Civil Rights Act would be modified to allow these private businesses to discriminate as they see fit. He’s too radical a candidate to get a benefit of the doubt, a minute to explain or a chance. You cannot infer from Paul’s stated positions that there is any willingness to compromise.

Should we be looking to cut the budget deficit as our economy is becomes or is somewhat stabilized? In my opinion, yes. It is still absurd for Sullivan to ask for Paul to get further fair hearing. He has been heard, and if you review Paul’s complete ideology, not just one (temporarily) favorable platform point, you can see he is an establishment far right Republican. Not some principled Republican who seeks a sane and coherent public policy.

Continue reading

Bill Maher insists the President is a secret atheist (starts about 3:45m in). If Obama says he is a Christian, writes about his acceptance of Christian religion and raises his children as Christian, than I believe he is a Christian. Maher’s routinely insists that Obama is practicing deceit when he proclaims to be a Christian and he is as cynically deluded as right wingers who proclaim Obama is a secret Muslim. Maher’s insistence on Obama’s secret atheism allows Obama to fit into Maher’s view as religious = idiot, atheist = smart. I would rather Maher say: this President is foolish because he believes in God than say: this President must be lying because he can’t be foolish enough to believe in God. Regardless, Maher is alarmingly prone to being misled by alternative medicine frauds.

It is hilarious that Maher is saying religion “cock blocks science” when Maher, an avowed atheist, smugly believes vaccines are innefectual and cause autism and that the “Master Cleanse” laxative of cayenne pepper, water and lemon should be a daily elixir to help maintain health. His atheism still allows him to engage in completely warped support of alternative medicine quackery. He practices a naturalist fundamentalism that is illogical and is also a “cock block” to scientific, evidence based health and medical practices. (Video’s is audio excerpt from Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast 218 9/23/2009 discussing Maher’s blind embrace of quackery).

I find this ad hilarious…

Grover Norquist’s fantasy:

“This remark is the equivalent of using the ‘n’ word. It shows contempt for middle America, expressed knowingly, contemptuously, on purpose, and with a smirk. It is indefensible to use this word. The president knows what it means, and his people know what it means. The public thought we reached a new low of incivility during the Clinton administration. Well, the Obama administration has just outdone them,” ATR president Grover Norquist tells Inside the Beltway.

via Inside the Beltway – Washington Times.

Rachel Maddow discusses reality:

Well we know what Fanelli thinks a terrorist looks like. He obviously is limiting his definition of terrorist looks to some who resembles a person that committed an act of terror on 9/11.

Timothy McVeigh?

The Unabomber?

John Allen Muhammad?