Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIGHTNING ROUND: MULTICULTURAL FASCISM.
- I get that Barack Obama is prioritizing things other marriage rights for homosexuals. I don't see why he's only unable to juggle multiple things when it concerns gays, but I understand that he's not gung-ho about it. But why is the Obama Justice Department going to excessive lengths to defend the Defense of Marriage Act? It's quite baffling and insulting, and John Aravosis takes it apart for you piece-by-piece here.
- It boggles the mind that many conservatives have decided that instead of distinguishing themselves from right-wing lunatics like James von Brunn, they have chosen to deny that right-wing extremism even exists, and that Brunn is actually a manifestation of the extremist left. But nothing could prepare me for what is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read in years: that Brunn's "political philosophy" is that of a "multiculturalist just like the black studies and the lesbian studies majors on college campuses." Congratulations, Andrew Breitbart. You have officially blown my mind.
- It's quite interesting that stories about National Security Adviser James Jones' being on thin ice keep popping up in a variety of sources from people who tend to have access to administration insiders. Given that the core Obama team is about as leak-proof as you're likely to get in a presidential administration, the implication seems to be that there are other forces at work who are committed -- for reasons not yet known -- to ousting Jones.
- The strangest thing about this ABC interview with John Boehner is that he declares Barack Obama's "Achilles' heel" to be national security weakness. Wasn't it a mere three days ago that House GOP sources were declaring Obama's "Achilles' heel" to be "government spending and the federal deficit?" Talking points FAIL.
- Remainders: The fight over Sonia Sotomayor is over; the war supplemental survives the congressional gauntlet; and the road to serfdom begins with mandatory composting.
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (9)
"One" wonders if they can reach a " settlement"???
Posted by: red | June 12, 2009 5:16 PM
Can we get a FAIL meme FAIL, please.
Posted by: commonwealth | June 12, 2009 5:30 PM
Obama has NEVER been a friend to the LGBT Community. Perhaps his homophobia relates to his being closeted.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2009 6:42 PM
No one expects Mori Dinauer to understand much of anything, so let me give a helpful example of what Breitbart was getting at.
JVB would probably support segregated college grad ceremonies, right? I'm sure the "liberals" here wouldn't support that, right?
OK, now take a look at one such example. That's what Breitbart was getting at, even if Dinauer was too dim to understand it.
Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | June 12, 2009 11:30 PM
What? What's the problem? Obama has two heels!
Posted by: Grumpy | June 13, 2009 12:35 AM
In Tom Goldstein's post on Judge Sotomayor, he
writes, "The unexpected speed of the announcement
caught opponents basically flat-footed."
Huh?
I'm glad this nomination fight seems to be over, and the administration won, but I cannot fathom how Judge Sotomayor's nomination caught anyone "flat-footed." From the day Justice Souter announced his retirement on May 1, Judge Sotomayor was consistently described as the front-runner for the post, or at least among the three leading candidates. Her formal nomination on May 26 was not only not a surprise, the only surprise would have been if she was not the final choice.
Posted by: Andy | June 13, 2009 1:29 PM
To follow my previous post -- this seems to be yet another example of the right being caught completely off-guard when President Obama does exactly what he'd been saying he'd do all along.
Do'oh!
Posted by: Andy | June 13, 2009 1:31 PM
good info,thanks
Posted by: Black notebook | June 15, 2009 3:42 AM
I note that Mr. 24aheaddotcom has taken a break from his tirades against foreigners to weigh in on the shooting. I read the David Borland column from 2002 that he cites as proof of multiculturalism being what Mr. von Brunn really wants.
If Mr. 24aheaddotcom wants to prove that progressives support segregation and exclusion, why does he cite a conservative source? Mr. Borland distorts and obfuscates. Leftists have produced billions of web pages. If Mr. 24aheaddotcom wants to accuse the left of being segregationist, shouldn't he point to at least one source from the left?
The conservative movement in America should not have to "explain" a racist like Mr. von Brunn. He is an extremist. To the extent that his "thoughts" bear any relation to politics, he is from the right. But the political right has geniunely overcome racism. Trying to say he's really a leftist is as unnecessary as it is inane.
Posted by: MIchael A. Shea | June 15, 2009 10:30 AM