Is the FBI Hiding Information on Trump's Possible Ties to Russia?

On Friday FBI Director James Comey took it upon himself to release a letter fanning new flames into the Republican witch hunt over Hillary Clinton's e-mails.  In doing so, Comey seemingly violated federal law as well as long standing policies and procedures.  In fact, Richard Painter, the chief White House Ethics Lawyer in the Bush Administration from 2005-2007, was so outraged that he filed a Complaint against Comey with the Office Of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. In particular, Painter explains why Comey’s inexplicable actions this week may warrant prosecution for abuse of power under the Hatch Act.  Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid has echoed Painter's concerns.   More significantly, Reid also made clear that the FBI has been sitting on information that suggests that Donald Trump may be involved in solicitations from Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government.  The Washington Post has details on both of Reid's statements.  Adding concern to Reid's statements is an article in Mother Jones that indicated that the FBI has credible evidence on a possible Russian intelligence attempt to develop a secret relationship with Trump and/or cultivate him as an asset.  Despite the seriousness of these allegations, Comey has remained utterly silent.   Sloppy usage of e-mail warrants an announcement to the public in Comey's world view, possible covert operations by Trump and/or his advisers doesn't.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post (some from Mother Jones will follow):

In a letter to FBI Director James B. Comey on Sunday night, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) says Comey may have broken the law.

And that's not even the most brazen claim in the letter — not by a long shot.

In the course of arguing that Comey's disclosure that the FBI is looking into new Hillary Clinton investigation emails may have violated the Hatch Act, Reid slips in an extremely bold claim about the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

Reid is saying that he has been told the FBI has evidence of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And he's not just saying this information came from mysterious and unnamed national security officials; he's saying Comey himself has left him with this impression.

Yes, Reid can be a loose canon on occasion.  But this time, he may be directly on target.  Here are highlights from Mother Jones that look very damning to Trump, some of his inner circle, and, of course, Comey:

Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. 

On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jonesthat in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.
In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul.

[W]hen he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."

This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him."

[I]n August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.

"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer comments. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."

According to several national security experts, there is widespread concern in the US intelligence community that Russian intelligence, via hacks, is aiming to undermine the presidential election—to embarrass the United States and delegitimize its democratic elections. And the hacks appear to have been designed to benefit Trump. 

In the letter Reid sent to Comey on Sunday, he pointed out that months ago he had asked the FBI director to release information on Trump's possible Russia ties. Since then, according to a Reid spokesman, Reid has been briefed several times. The spokesman adds, "He is confident that he knows enough to be extremely alarmed."

I suspect that some of my Republican friends supporting Trump will merely scoff, but perhaps they should invest in a Rosetta Stone language course and brush up on Russian. Some of these same people scoffed when I predicted in 2003 that the Iraq War would be a disaster and unleash unanticipated consequences - consequences we are still plagued by today.  Should Trump win the White House, I predict that America will experience an unmitigated disaster. 

Who Really Funds the NRA? Not It's Members

I have long despised the NRA for its disingenuous propaganda pushing for more or less the abolition of all sensible gun control restrictions.  But there's another reason: the organization lies and pretends that it is speaking out for its average members, many of whom want nothing more than to own traditional hunting rifles and/or non-automatic pistols.  However, the reality is that the NRA is increasingly a front organization for gun manufacturers many of whom, you guessed it, manufacture assault weapons and high volume ammunition clips.  So when National Rifle Association spokesman Wayne LaPierre goes on television to claim that the NRA gets its money from its membership in small donations, he's deliberately lying through his teeth.  A research paper shows where the real serious money comes from.  Here are excerpts:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) receives millions of dollars directly from domestic and foreign gun manufacturers and other members of the firearms industry through an organized corporate outreach program according to a new report issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).

The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.

Among the NRA’s “corporate partners” who gave $25,000 or more to the organization are 22 that manufacture firearms, including such well-known gunmakers as: Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli; Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; DPMS Panther Arms; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Marlin Firearms; Remington Arms Co., Inc.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons. Also among the NRA’s “corporate partners” are numerous high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors. 

One manufacturer, Beretta, donated one million dollars to the NRA to work to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" (which for the first time ever recognized an individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense).

MidwayUSA sells ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other shooting accessories and has contributed between five and 10 million dollars to the NRA via its NRA Round-Up Program (which rounds up customer purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA) and other contributions. One Pittsburgh resident who apparently took part in the NRA’s Round-Up Program through MidwayUSA was concealed carry permit holder George Sodini, who in August 2009 opened fire at an LA Fitness Center in Collier, PA, killing three women and wounding nine others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. A copy of the e-mail receipt sent to Sodini from MidwayUSA for his purchase of 9mm and .45 ammunition includes a donation of 74 cents from the mass shooter to the NRA via the Round-Up Program.

The study concludes, "The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines)....The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons.

So when politicians accept NRA money, they not only are little better than paid whores but are also allowing themselves to be played for utter fools.  Are you listening Harry Reid?  The American public needs to open its eyes to who is really speaking for gun manufacturers and not your local neighbor who likes to go hunting from time to time.

Romney: I Paid At Least 13% Tax Rate for Last 10 Years

Even though Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney sullenly said that no more tax returns would be released by she and her husband, GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, the tax return issue simply refuses to go away.  Now, trying to quell the continued uproar, Mitt "Pinocchio" Romney has stated that he and Marie Antoinette have paid at least a 135 tax rate for each of the last 10 years.  Other than Romney's statement, however, there is nothing to confirm that Romney's not lying.  Given Romney's lack of honesty on when and how he left Bain Capital, taking the man at his word is a risky proposition.  And that's not even addressing the issue that Romney is paying a far lower rate than many struggling members of the middle class.  Here are highlights from a Washington Post piece:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that he has paid a federal income tax rate of at least 13 percent in each of the last 10 years, bowing to months of political pressure to disclose more information about his vast personal fortune.

“I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year,” he told reporters here Thursday.

 Romney’s disclosure Thursday came in response to a reporter’s question at a news conference Romney had hoped would focus on a white-board presentation he gave outlining his latest attack on Obama over Medicare. . .  . Romney sounded rankled by the very question, though, saying, “the fascination with taxes I’ve paid I find to be very small-minded compared to the broad issues that we face.”

If the candidate hoped his answer would put the issue to rest, he ended up only inviting more questions. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt quickly challenged Romney to “prove it.”   “He has the ability to answer all of these questions by releasing several years of tax returns. He simply hasn’t done that,” LaBolt told reporters on a conference call. LaBolt noted that Romney’s father, George, released 12 years of income tax returns when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968.

In 2011, Obama paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent, according to his tax returns. Americans paid an average tax rate of 17.4 percent in 2009, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office that was released last month.

In an interview with NBC’s “Rock Center” that aired Thursday, the candidate’s wife said Democrats wants the records for “ammunition.” “The more we get attacked, the more we get questioned, the more we get pushed,” Ann Romney said, adding that the couple has been “very transparent to what’s legally required of us.”

Reid said Romney could prove his statements true by making his records public. “We’ll believe it when we see it,” said the spokesman, Adam Jentleson. “Until Mitt Romney releases his tax returns, Americans will continue to wonder what he’s hiding.”

At his news conference, Romney suggested that his charitable contributions should also be taken into account. “Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent, and if you add, in addition, the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent,” Romney said.

As for Romney's "charitable contributions." giving millions to the Mormon Church which then spends the money on business ventures or supporting discriminatory laws and legislation isn't what I consider a true charitable contribution and illustrates why we need major changes in what is deductible under the tax laws.  We as a nation need to stop subsiding religion, especially denominations that market hate, bigotry and societal discord. 

Has Romney Been Cheating the Mormon Church as Well as the IRS?

A CBS News piece out of Boston offers some further speculation as to why Mitt Romney may be refusing to release his tax returns: he may have been short changing the Mormon Church by not tithing 10% of his income as the church's directives dictate.  If this speculation is true, then it adds another layer to the "what is Mitt trying to hide" story line.   It might further suggest why Harry Reid - a Mormon himself - is going after Romney with such a vengeance since many other Mormons might be less than pleased if the penny pinching Romney was short changing their denomination.  Here are highlights from the column:

Whatever the level of exaggeration from the Senator [Harry Reid] or his source, there is probably at least some level of truth to the statement. Unfortunately, Romney is stonewalling the American public by not releasing his records so we’ll never know the truth.

But the source coming to Harry Reid for these revelations adds a level of intrigue. Reid just happens to be the highest-ranking member of the Mormon Church in the history of this nation.  It is likely that Senator Reid’s source shares the Mormon religion with Reid and Romney.  That message will not be lost on Romney. If the Bain fortress is not a fortress; if people are talking, Romney knows that trouble lies ahead.

And the motivation for this leak may not be political. It is likely personal and tied to the Mormon Church.
Specifically, if Romney was hiding money from the IRS he may have hidden money from his church.

This is something I have speculated about in this space in the past: a large part of Romney’s reluctance to release his records may be based on his relationship with his Mormon Church.  Some have speculated that Romney’s donations to the church might be a problem with the American public. Perhaps it is Romney’s shortchanging of his church that is Mr. Romney’s concern.

Perhaps there is a major story in the works on Romney’s IRS audits.   .   .   .   If reporters are working on stories about Romney being audited then he knows it and his staff knows it.

Whatever becomes of this story, Romney has opened himself up to endless speculation. Whatever is in those records must be devastating because he continues to allow the speculation around his returns to be a dominating cloud over his campaign. 

GOP Goes Berserk Over Reid Claim Romney Paid No Taxes

The saying "thou doth protest too much" springs to mind when watching the Republican reaction to Harry Reid's statement that a former Romney affiliate told him that the Romney paid no taxes at times over a period of a decade.  Of course, there's an easy way to prove whether or not Reid is lying - just release the tax returns.  But no, the GOP demagogues, including Lindsay Graham the Palmetto Princess, would rather fume and posture and call Reid a liar.  And, as I have noted before, if Mitt Romney has nothing to hide, then why the hell does he keep acting as if he DOES have something to hide?  Romney's refusal seems to go beyond mere arrogance - something Romney possess in large quantities.  Politico looks at why Reid is keeping up the pressure while Graham and others act as if they are going to commence foaming at the mouth. Here are highlights:

Jon Stewart called Harry Reid “a really, really terrible person” for his unsubstantiated allegation that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years. Mitch McConnell said it was “beneath the dignity” of the majority leader’s office to make such a charge. And conservative commentators are calling on Reid to put his money where his mouth is and release his own tax returns.

But there’s one person who couldn’t care less: Harry Reid.  Reid has calculated that the frenzy created by his charge has accomplished exactly what he sought to do:   Turn the focus back onto the GOP nominee’s unreleased tax returns, according to several people close to the leader and the campaign. For Reid, he’s got virtually nothing to lose: His approval ratings back home are still upside-down, and he may not even run for reelection when he’s up for a sixth term in 2016.

On top of that, his aides say, Reid genuinely believes his source — an old friend and longtime investor at Romney’s former company Bain Capital — who told the Senate majority leader a couple months back that the GOP nominee didn’t pay taxes for at least a decade.  Despite the uproar and the lack of additional evidence to present, Reid isn’t going to stop talking about Romney’s taxes.

In the short term, Romney has been forced to respond to Reid’s accusation, as he did in Reid’s backyard of Las Vegas on Friday, taking attention away from a mixed July jobs report and the GOP attacks on the president’s economic record.

“Gov. Romney has told me to ‘put up or shut up’ — but he’s the one who shut up when people asked legitimate questions about his finances, and it’s up to him to put up his taxes so we can see the answers,” Reid said in the email.

It’s a deliberate attempt to spotlight the fact that Romney has released his tax returns only for 2010 — when he paid an effective rate of 13.9 percent — and his plans to release only his 2011 returns in October. Democrats believe Romney — whose personal fortune is estimated to be up to $250 million — would be seen as out of touch if he releases more tax returns. If he doesn’t, they can pound him for being secretive.

Somehow, I can't find any sympathy for poor little rich boy, Mitt Romney.

Sane Republicans - A Truly Vanishing Breed

The Republican Party of today is increasingly hostile to much of what the party once stood for - particularly when it comes to fiscal responsibility. In addition, the party has become so craven to the most intolerant and hate-filled elements of the Christianists that attacks on the faith of others for mere political advantage and delay seem to be the norm. Attacks on Harry Reid's faith by GOP Senators Jon Kyl and Jim DeMint in response Reid's statement that he'd keep the Senate in session until January 4, 2011 (the formal end of the session) demonstrate just how cynical and nasty the GOP has become. In response to these unconscionable attacks, former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough - with whom I don't always agree, but who is 100% on point on this issue - had the following to say:
*
"It’s offensive that people would use Christianity for political leverage with an argument that is so baseless that I got to say, my breath is taken away. Do we want to start with the most obvious one about who else is not going to be home on Christmas day? Troops in Afghanistan. ... The Republican Party has the upper hand in so many ways; in these areas they need to just shut their mouth. They’re embarrassing themselves," - Joe Scarborough, in response to Jon Kyl saying Harry Reid is "disrespecting" Christians and Jim DeMint calling Reid "sacrilegious" to consider keeping the Senate in session through January 4.
*

While Kyl's and Demint's comments may play well with the Kool-Aid drinking set, I suspect that they will only further alienate moderates and independents.

Breaking: Reid Files Cloture on DADT- Vote Scheduled for Saturday.

Many of us in Hampton Roads with its thousands of gays in the military have been fretfully waiting to see what will happen to the stand alone DADT repeal bill in the Senate now that the House has passed the measure by a wide measure. Now, Harry Reid has filed for cloture - the process to kill filibuster attempts - and has said a vote will occur on Saturday. The Christianists will be going berserk, so it is important that U.S. readers call their senators and reaffirm that DADT repeal must be passed. Here are highlights first from from Pam's House Blend and then Politico:
*
Movement on DADT repeal is in the air and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid not long ago filed cloture on the stand-alone DADT repeal bill passed on Wednesday by the House and the DREAM Act. The cloture vote will be held on Saturday.
*
And here's the Politico quote:
*
REID: I'm going to file cloture tonight on the DREAM Act, we're going to have a vote on that Saturday morning fairly early. We're going to have a cloture vote tonight on Don't Ask, Don't Tell- oh, not a cloture vote, I'm going to file cloture on it tonight. Those will be sequenced for Saturday, whenever we get to them. Following that, I was told by a number of Republican Senators that they need 6 or 7 days to offer amendment on the START treaty.
*

While repeal of DADT will not result in thousands of openly gay members of the military in this area overnight, it will radically change the atmosphere which all too often has spilled into the private business sector as well. Moreover, repeal of DADT will deprive the Christianists of a huge symbolic tool in their quest to marginalize and stigmatize LGBT Americans. I pray that the repeal vote goes forward and is successful.

Senator Susan Collins: A Study in Disingenuousness

Senator Susan Collins - who like Obama must think everyone else is an idiot and can't discern events as the unfold in plain view - has a self-serving and disingenuous op-ed in today's Washington Post. To believe Collins, the bad behavior in Congress and in the Senate is all the fault of the Democrats. Yep, this bullshit is coming from Collins who just recently joined with the Christofascists in her party and threw LGBT American under the bus with her vote on the Defense Authorization Bill to which DADT repeal was attached. Collins conveniently ignores the fact that her party's announced goal is obstruction - plus the fact that her party has offered no real proposals for any legislation other than a reprise of the disastrous policies that took the country into two needless wars and led to a financial meltdown. Collins is clearly either on mind altering drugs or spinning PR are for the ignorant and uninformed who have been in a coma like state for the last 19 months. Her piece is a clear effort at fiction writing and deserves to be ignored. Here's a taste of the bullshit:
*
I would suggest that a divided government and a more evenly split Senate are more conducive to bipartisanship than the super-majorities and one-party control of the White House and Congress that we see today. When one party has all the power, the temptation is to roll over the minority, leading to resentment and resistance because the minority has so few options.
*
During the past two years, the minority party has been increasingly shut out of the discussion. Even in the Senate, which used to pride itself on being a bastion of free and open debate, procedural tactics are routinely used to prevent Republican amendments. That causes Republicans to overuse the filibuster, because our only option is to stop a bill to which we cannot offer amendments.
*
This unfortunate phenomenon happened again with the recent consideration of the defense authorization bill, which included a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I have supported ending that policy and was the sole Republican on the Armed Services Committee to vote for repeal.
*
I recognized, however, that many of my colleagues disagreed, and that they should have the right to express their views and offer their amendments on this controversial issue . . .
*
I am all for the civility that Collins claims to want back in politics. However, she needs to start by being honest. Her colleagues' sole goal was to kill DADT repeal and the whining about offering amendments is purely a disingenuous smoke screen. Civility requires some measure of honesty and Collins fails the test herself.

The Broken Promise Revue

GetEqual has put together a video that shares some of the promises put forth over the past three years from elected officials, including President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Representative Barney Frank, as well as statements by Rae Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Joe Solmonese from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). All of the promises have been broken. Watch the video and either weep or allow your blood to boil depending upon your inclination. Me, I'm in the blood boiling camp.

White House Upset with "Gay Bloggers" Who Highlight Obama's Broken Promises

The White House continues to seem Hell bent on pissing off as many progressive and LGBT voters as possible. As Mediate notes, just a week after attacking the "professional left," the White House is now having a temper tantrum over gay bloggers who - heavens, how dare they - point out the disconnect between Barack Obama's campaign promises and his failure to shepherd through passage of legislation providing full equality and protections to LGBT Americans. Rather than look in the mirror and admit that they LIED to the LGBT community in an effort to pander for our votes and money, our spineless advocate in the White House would rather get all pissy and act like a peevish drag queen (no offense to drag queens intended) and act as if HE is the one who has been mistreated. John Aravosis, Pam Spaulding and many others - myself included - have been disgusted with the litany of broken campaign promises and many have joined in the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign to shut down the LGBT ATM for Congressional Democratic Committees. First some highlights from Mediate:
*
A week after Robert Gibbs went after the “professional left,” another White House official is allegedly airing his frustration with bloggers and this time it’s the LGBT blogosphere and their constant complaining about the Obama administration that is raising concern.
*
According to John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, the White House’s point person to the LGBT community, Brian Bond, “expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is ‘99 percent supportive of your issues.’” Bond allegedly made these comments at a meeting with state-level activists.
*
The LGBT blogosphere, like progressive bloggers generally, has focused on the Obama administration failures and attempted to rally opposition to the White House. Anyone who sides with the administration– including the Human Rights Campaign and even Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)–is given the same treatment. The larger question for LGBT bloggers, and the White House, is how much harm is there in complaining about activists.
*
Personally, I am beyond fed up with Obama and the gutless leadership of the Congressional Democrats. NOTHING has been delivered on ENDA, DOMA repeal or DADT repeal. The Hate Crimes bill while nice does NOTHING to most LGBT Americans who are more worried about not being wrongfully fired or longing to have some kind of legal recognition afforded to their committed relationships. Never one to be caught with a lack of words, Pam Spaulding has some point on comments on the White House's cry baby behavior. Here are some highlights:
*
I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold - that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing "study"; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you're 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.
*
The bottom line is that I want my civil rights, and I see time and effort frittered away as it is treated like a political football -- we're Charlie Brown and Jim Messina et. al. are Lucy. It sure doesn't feel like 99% supportive if it's all theoretical, as we saw in that hilarious DNC video of Tim Kaine . . .
*
One commenter, Lev Raphael, was quite spot on: "steps to promote" "beginning to address" - These are weaselly constructions. What's happened isn't insignificant, but why should, for instance, Federal workers have it better off than the rest of us? Why such baby steps? And the steps aren't what we were promised.
*
His prologue also did not acknowledge the anger. It's not frustration. I'm frustrated if I have to reboot my computer. I'm frustrated if my dogs won't stop barking. I'm frustrated if I have a bad workout at the gym. I'm frustrated if I screwed up my DVR and didn't record the show I intended to.

I'm not frustrated about the lack of hard progress, I'm angry, disappointed, and disgusted. I think Obama is turning into Clinton. Promise, surface dazzle (at times), but no follow-through, and weak at the core. The very choice of the word "frustrated" by Kaine (or his writers), the way it's balanced with "some of you/some of you" as if we're split down the middle, all show they don't get it. Maybe they will when they don't get our votes?

Gay-Baiting Poll Used Against Pro-Equality Candidate

Krystal Ball (pictured at left) is one of the three gay supportive candidates running for Congress in the Hampton Roads region. Krystal is running for the 1st Congressional District, Glenn Nye is running for the 2nd District, and Bobby Scott is running in the 3rd District. The incumbent running for re-election in the 4th District is my former classmate, Randy Forbes who I can only assume has had a nervous breakdown or submitted to a "Stepford Wife" like program to turn him into a hard right Christo-fascist. All of the Democratic candidates face the prospect of running against an energized GOP base while their traditional base id apathetic due to the endless broken promises of Barack Obama and the weak kneed Congressional Democrat leadership. Part of my undisguised anger at Obama, Jim Webb and others who are throwing the LGBT community and other elements of the Democrat base under the bus arises from the fact that good candidates may well be defeated because of the "what difference does it make" feeling that is palpable among many people that we know (This article in the Washington Post looks at this severe problem for the Democrats). Pam Spaulding looks at the sleazy anti-gay tactics being used by Krystal's opponent, Rob Wittman. Here are some highlights:
*
Pro-equality ally and Virginia U.S. Congressional candidate Krystal Ball attended her second Netroots Nation this year, and she's doing extremely well in the race to represent the 1st district in Virginia.
*
Her opponent, anti-gay Republican incumbent Rob Wittman, is a real bible beater: As a member of the Values Action Team, I will continue to support pro-life, pro-family legislation. I will work in defense of parental rights, religious liberty, and the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Furthermore, I support efforts to curb internet pornography and obscenity.
*
Now one would assume, even with those fundie credentials, Wittman would not want his supporters or his party, given the state of the economy and how it affects his constituents, focusing on gay-baiting Krystal Ball. Well how wrong is this - the Blend has learned that a push-poll in support of Wittman, dialed up voters in the district with lines of questioning that harken back to the 1990s-2004 gay-baiting bullshite of the highest order.
*
First of all, the lead-in statement is for the caller to tell the resident the questions are about "Krystal Ball's obsession" regarding support for "special rights" for the LGBT community. And then the caller is asked this (I sh*t you not): "Krystal Ball has a strange infatuation with gays and lesbians. It makes one wonder what is in her past."
*
It's pretty disgusting, yet folks like Wittman may well be re-elected because of the failure of Democrats to keep campaign promises in any significant way. If Democrats are massacred in the 2010 mid-terms, Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jim Webb and others will bear the ultimate responsibility. They will have taken a golden opportunity to effect real change and they demonstrated a reverse Midas touch - gold turned to sh*t.

Get EQUAL - Fight Back and Hold People Accountablequal:

As regular readers know, I am beyond over the worthless rhetoric and total lack of meaningful action that seems to be all that most of the national Democratic Party establishment gives back to LGBT citizens who have consistently provided money and votes based on promises of legislative action. As the LGBT liaison to the local Democratic committee, I let loose on Tuesday night and basically laid out the reasoning of the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign to turn off the gAy TM and indicated that the representatives of the three congressional candidates needed to provide me with information on what each had actually done in terms f votes, etc., to justify LGBT support. In short, I said don't use the same tired GOP boogieman argument because I and most of my LGBT friends are beyond over it. In keeping with this mindset, GetEQUAL has launched a campaign to hold leaders in the Democratic Party accountable for the non-delivery of promised action after going on nearly two years of Democrat control of Congress and the White House. You can go here to name the Congressional leader you believe needs to be held most responsible for the total failure to keep promises. Here are some highlights:
*
Our so-called "friends" in Congress who are stumping for re-election, speaking at our Pride events and addressing our organizational galas have promised passage of ENDA month after month, and year after year. Why are we allowing our "friends" to collect awards and accolades while breaking their promises?
*
It may not be nice and it certainly won't get us invited to any fancy Washington cocktail parties, but we aren't going down without a fight! To us, the silence is deafening and we want you to help us do something about it.
*
Who do you think we should hold accountable? http://getequal.org/accountable.php
*
Should it be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has promised us since May that a vote will happen by the second week of June?
*
Should it be Rep. Barney Frank, who said "we will get this [ENDA] done fairly quickly," but then called GetEQUAL's pressuring tactics "immature" and "tacky"?
*
Should it be Rep. George Miller, who heads the House Education and Labor Committee and has said via a spokesperson "he intends to get to it [ENDA] very shortly?"
*
Should it be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said that he will "fight hard for the votes to get it passed," but who has failed thus far to pressure the last few Senators for their votes?
*
We're launching direct actions immediately and want to give you the opportunity to decide who is at the top of your list.

Taking to the Streets to Demand Action

I am often critical of HRC and some of the other self-anointed "leaders" of the GLBT movement for equality since they seem more worried about "access" and schmoozing with politicians than getting real equality under the law enacted (I have actually begun receiving e-mails from staffers at HRC telling me what HRC is "doing" for the cause). Is it a fear that HRC will be put out of business and its leadership will have to get real jobs if the GLBT movement ever achieves its goals? I do wonder at times. As do other like Michelangelo Signorile in a new column in The Advocate. The reality is that Congress will never grant GLBT Americans full legal equality under the civil laws out of the goodness of its heart, nor will President Obama move to deliver on his campaign promises without constant pressure to do so. And fancy dinners and soirees do not count as pressure. They are good for fund raising - which I am all for as demonstrated by my involvement in the EV Legends committee for four years running - but they are not the kind of activities that make politicians understand that they have to act, not just talk and give pretty speeches. Here are some highlights from Michelangelo's column as he calls for another national march:

*

Taking to the streets — and to the World Wide Web — is the only way get this White House to move on gay issues, columnist Michelangelo Signorile says. So it could be time to plan another march on Washington.

*
[W]e’ve learned a few things in this first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. First off, this administration responds to pressure, and unlike the previous Democratic administration, these White House officials cannot contain our discontent by going to groups like the Human Rights Campaign or politicians like Barney Frank (more on that and the reasons why farther down). They want to keep LGBTs at arm’s length, but we continue to make that difficult, and we force them to move — ever so reticently — each time we have applied pressure.

*

The successes of the march began when the president decided to address our issues days before the march, agreeing to speak at HRC’s annual dinner. Just as he decided to commemorate Stonewall back in June, inviting gays to the White House after much public criticism of the administration’s dragging its feet, the president was responding to the marchers’ criticisms. The speech didn’t outline any new details on how the president would . . .

*

The White House scrambled in other ways too, among them naming an openly gay ambassador to New Zealand. Nothing big, but evidence of a scramble and our pressure working. Even Barney Frank’s actions, coming on my radio program and declaring the march “useless” a few days before it happened, were an indication of our success.

*

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, feeling the pressure, sent his own letters to the administration, demanding action on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” endorsed the march in a letter to organizers, and met with the organizers to talk about issues. Within days of the march, Reid confirmed that he, a Mormon, told the march organizers that it was harmful and wrong that his church backed California’s Proposition 8. That same week we got the news from the highest-ranking openly gay official, John Berry in the Office of Personnel Management, that the White House is talking to Joe Lieberman about leading the repeal of DADT .

*

The reason the administration can’t contain our discontent is less about this White House than it is about dramatic change in society, certainly since the last Democratic president was in office. With blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, satellite radio, 24-7 cable news and all the other new media, it’s impossible for establishment gay groups or prominent gay politicians to contain us.

*

And let’s get something out of the way: No one, including me, is questioning their commitment to LGBT rights, just disagreeing with their strategy. . . . Same with HRC, often pursing a strategy of access at all costs, including compromising on its beliefs and even going back on its word for the sake of politics. . . . It’s a strategy, but one that many of us very much disagreed with at this time. It’s a strategy that many people who have worked and still work on Capitol Hill and in Democratic politics disagree with as well, as much as HRC and its supporters try to present the criticism of them as coming from out-of-the-Beltway know-nothings.

*

Only HRC seemed to think the speech [by Obama at the HRC dinner] was so “unprecedented” that it didn’t need any criticism, though the speech offered nothing new in terms of a timetable on any of the many promises the president made both before and after the election. Institutions as mainstream as Time magazine and the Washington Post editorial board agreed with many of the marchers who were quoted in the papers the next day discussing the speech, whose opinions could be summarized by the Time headline: “All Talk, No Action.”

*

The radio broadcasts went on. The cable debates didn’t stop. All you had to do was tune in or sign on to any media to find out what gays really thought — and it wasn’t what HRC thought.

*

In addition to criticizing HRC, Michelangelo has constructive ideas of how HRC can play a positive roll. Whether the HRC leadership gets the message will have to be seen. I am not against HRC, I just think that there needs to be a palace coup. Here are some ways in which HRC could be an asset:

*

It [HRC] can start by really representing the mainstream LGBT thinking on Obama and his promises instead of heaping praise on the president and falling back on its access-at-all-costs strategy, which has never worked. And HRC should acknowledge to the White House that the grass roots is very organized, isn’t happy, and will be marching again. HRC can be a facilitator of that truth rather than apologizing for the administration. Rather than looking increasingly irrelevant, our big D.C. lobbying group could actually make itself look much stronger.

*

The march in fact has only made us all stronger as a movement. We were able to organize in a few months, using new media, and got 200,000 people to D.C. without spending much on traditional advertising. David Mixner is to be lauded for his passion and putting the idea out there. Cleve Jones, for his vision and his steadfastness at doing it quickly and keeping the costs down to a mere $150,000. Robin McGehee, Kip Williams, and all the other young activists, for tirelessly organizing the event and using the Net roots so skillfully.

*

We need to continue making a lot of noise — online, but also getting into the streets and protesting everywhere. And we need to march again on Washington — or at least let them know we’re prepared to do so if we don’t see some real action, real soon.

Harry Reid Rips LDS Church's Prop. 8 Support

In an example that at least some politicians grasp the concept of separation of church and state and the fact that the CIVIL laws should not codify one particular set of religious beliefs to the detriment of other citizens, Senator Harry Reid has blasted the Mormon Church for its involvement in the passage of Proposition 8 and efforts in other anti-gay initiatives. It's be nice if the Catholic Church listened to Reid's comments because they apply to the despicable Church hierarchy and Knights of Columbus as well. It's a sad situation, but the Mormons and many alleged Christian denominations are more defined by their hate and bigotry towards others than by their adherence to the principles of the Gospels. Here are some highlights from the Salt Lake Tribune on Reid's smack down of the LDS leadership:

*

In a meeting with gay-rights activists last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized the LDS Church for backing a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in California, saying the leaders of his faith should have stayed out of the contentious political fight. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is the highest ranking elected official who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He previously has not commented on the flood of Mormon money and volunteers who helped propel Proposition 8 to victory in November.

*

"He said that he thought it was a waste of church resources and good will," said Derek Washington, a Nevadan who worked as the outreach director for the march. "He said he didn't think it was appropriate." . . . "he also believes that the resources that went into the Proposition 8 effort could have been put to better use." LDS Church officials declined to comment Monday.

*

In the meeting, those present touched on issues most important to them. Dan Choi, a veteran of the Iraq War, who was booted from the military under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, thanked Reid for lobbying President Barack Obama on his behalf. Robin McGehee, of California, talked about her own family. Then, McGehee said, Reid brought up his LDS faith and discussed a recent meeting with Mormons in which he criticized the Prop 8 efforts. He personally said they needed to be focused on other things," she said, "and he felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue."

Senator Harry Reid Endorses National Equality March

* click image for larger view

I am pleased to see that more and more people and organizations are signing on as endorsers of the National Equality March scheduled for next weekend in Washington, D.C. I hope that the endorsement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as set forth in the letter above will translate into real action as opposed to hand wringing and gutlessness that will only yield more years of inequality to LGBT Americans. As we have learned from Barack Obama, lofty words mean nothing if legislators and other elected officials lack the backbone to take real action and introduce and pass legislation that will grant full equality under the civil laws to LGBT Americans.

*

At this point, I believe that LGBT Americans need to make it clear to both the White House and Congressional Democrats that the LGBT ATM machine will continue to remain shut down unless and until real legislative advances occur on ENDA, the Matthew Shepard Act and the repeal of DADT and DOMA. Talk and pretty letters are cheap. We want concrete action.

Harry Reid Supports End of DADT

In a welcomed but somewhat surprising move, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated - when asked about a proposed amendment to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to suspend the discharge of gay and lesbian service members under DADT for 18 months - that he wants the moratorium to be permanent. Whether or not this statement will translate into real action, of course, remains to be seen, but is in sharp contrast to other mumblings that no one in Congress is in a hurry to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I for one do not trust the Congressional Democrats to actually do what they say, but remain willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Here are some highlights from the Washington Blade:

*

Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today announced support for a legislative moratorium on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that would prevent further discharges of gay service members for 18 months. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is considering the introduction of an amendment to that effect for the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, according to her office. The defense bill is being debated this week on the Senate floor.

*
Reid declared his support for the amendment when asked about it by the Blade at a news conference Tuesday. “If Kirsten offers this amendment, I will support it,” Reid said. He continued: “I would support that. My only difference I would have is I would make it permanent.” Reid added, “We’re having trouble getting people into the military” and potential enlistees shouldn’t be turned down, and not “certainly based on sexual orientation.”

*

The full response from Sen. Reid follows: “I feel on this issue that we’re having trouble, we’re having trouble getting people into the military and I think that we shouldn’t turn down anybody that’s willing to fight for our country — certainly based on sexual orientation. I feel strongly that — I support the president. I support the members of the Joint Chiefs who have not spoken out publicly. If Kirsten offers this amendment I will support it, at least as far as I understand it. What you’ve just told me, it would basically change the current policy for 18 months, is that right? I would support that. My only difference I would have is I would make it permanent.”

Kennedy favors ’08 Senate vote on ENDA

While it will do doubt cause more bickering and back biting by and among gay rights organizations, as the Washington Blade is reporting (http://www.washblade.com/2008/1-4/news/national/11819.cfm), Senator Edward Kennedy is pushing for a vote in 2008 on a "gay only" version of ENDA. In fact, the bickering has already begun based on what I have seen on several other blogs, including some statements that it will sabotage the Democrat candidates. Inasmuch as virtually all of the viable Democrat candidates have already publicly endorsed civil unions, how taking a position of a law that prevent gays from being randomly fired due to their sexual orientation would seem to be not exactly something risky. Particularly when most Americans - except for fundie wingnuts who would NEVER vote for the Democrat candidate anyways - support employment protections for gays. Such was my experience with call-in viewers in Martinsville, Virginia, back in the spring on a show featuring one of my clients. If that redneck area was pro-gay employment protections, most anywhere would be.

True the transgender community would be left out - for now - but as I have stated a number of times, I continue to believe that it is better to get something enacted rather than hold out for something that by all reports cannot pass the U.S. Senate. As for Bush's threatened veto, make him have to veto the legislation during this important election year. With polls showing that roughly two thirds (2/3) of the public support work place employment protections for gays, a Bush veto would only serve to further demonstrate that the GOP's is increasingly out of touch with moderate main stream voters. As for members of the LGBT community that might sit home in a huff over this version of ENDA, I am sorry, but in my view, if they are that stupid and petty, then they deserve Mike Huckabee for President. Here are some story highlights from the Blade:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) is expected to push for a Senate vote in 2008 on the same gay-only version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that the House of Representatives passed in 2007, a Kennedy spokesperson said this week. Kennedy stated on the Senate floor on Nov. 8, one day after the House passed ENDA by a vote of 235 to 184, that he hoped the Senate would follow suit by passing the employment protection bill in the current Congress, which lasts through 2008.

But until this week, Kennedy’s office had not stated publicly where Kennedy stood on the demands by many gay and transgender organizations that Congress should withhold any action on ENDA unless it includes protection for transgender persons. “Although Sen. Kennedy strongly supports protections against job discrimination for transgender workers, inaction won’t advance justice for anyone, and will just make it harder to pass any version of ENDA in 2009,” said Kennedy spokesperson Melissa Wagoner.

Asked if Kennedy thought ENDA could pass the Senate in an election year, Wagoner said, “Yes, if enough Republicans support the bill to give us a realistic chance of breaking a filibuster.” Most political observers have predicted Republican senators opposing ENDA will stage a filibuster against the legislation, which requires 60 votes to break through a parliamentary move known as cloture. Kennedy and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who has joined Kennedy as a chief sponsor of ENDA, have said they were hopeful they could line up a bipartisan “super majority” of at least 60 senators to ensure the bill’s passage.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said this week that Reid strongly supports ENDA and favors holding a Senate vote on the measure in 2008. Manley said Reid would defer to Kennedy on the “strategy and timing” of such a vote.

The statement this week by Kennedy’s office that Kennedy plans to back a gay-only version of ENDA comes after news surfaced last month that a high-level official at the Human Rights Campaign suggested a vote on ENDA would not take place until 2009.

BREAKING: Reid shut downs Bush recess appointments during Thanksgiving

Finally!! The Democrats are not acting as door mats for the Chimperator. A statement from Senator Harry Reid:

The Senate will be coming in for pro-forma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments. My hope is that this will prompt the President to see that it is our mutual interests for the nominations process to get back on track. While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations. I am committed to making that progress if the President will meet me half way. But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/11/breaking-reid-shut-downs-bush-recess.html