One of the things that has gotten scant attention has been this clip (via Breitbart)

This is significant (and un-reportable) by the MSM for two reasons:

1. President Obama’s whole position on Gay Marriage has been half pander half deceit

2. The NAACP’s official support of Gay Marriage (only two in the board objected) has produced reactions like this:

The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), headed by Rev. William Owens of Memphis, Tenn., said that the NAACP had abandoned its core mission by supporting same-sex marriage.

“This is supposed to be an organization for black people who were beaten, who were mistreated and who were enslaved,” Owens told The Huffington Post. “You’re advocating for something that’s not normal, that’s not natural. It’s still out of line, it’s against moral law.”

“Gay marriage is leading us down a bad path,” Owens added. “Our young people are already hurt. They’re already damaged.”

The media has to dodge this issue because it has the potential to create the same split between leadership and rank and file that we have seen in Unions and mainstream coverage of that applause would shatter that narrative.

But as I said this morning, the MSM coverage doesn’t matter. HERE is what matters:

1. Is the Romney Gay Marriage Clip is being played on Black Radio Stations?

2. What has been the listener reaction to it?

The answers to those questions could be earth shaking.

Master-at Arms-John ClaggartHe left his station last night.

Captain Edwin Fairfax VereIn a good cause no doubt Master-at-Arms.  He showed imitative the Captaincy of the foretop is he reward.

Billy Budd 1962

The talk of the day is the story of a lifeguard who went to the aid of a drowning man and the blacklash against the company who fired him for abandoning his post:

As lifeguards are paid and trained to do, Tomas Lopez rushed down the beach to rescue a drowning man — and then got fired for it.

The problem: Lopez stepped out of the beach zone his company is paid to patrol, a supervisor said Tuesday.

At least two other lifeguards have quit in protest.

“What was he supposed to do? Watch a man drown?” asked one, Szilard Janko.

It is of course axiomatic that he MUST go to the aid of anyone who requests it. This however puts the company in a quandary.

When he left his post he placed ever other person he is paid to protect at risk and don’t think for one moment that he and the company would have been sued if anything had happened while he was gone.

Still the company has no business telling a lifeguard: “You can’t help a drowning man.” It’s not only wrong it’s STUPID! A smart company would have had another solution and it’s actually pretty obvious.

Don’t go after the lifeguard, Go after idiot who decided to swim in the “swim at your own risk” area because nobody was going to tell HIM where he can go.

If I was the company I’d bill the guy for the rescue and for the portion of the liability insurance for that day because it was his carelessness that put everyone at risk.

And if I’m the city and/or the company I’d replace the. “Swim at your own risk” with the following:

“Unprotected area: Any person swimming in this area requiring aid services will be charged a $300 plus costs and assumes any liability due to the absence of personal from the protected area. Swim at your financial risk!

People tend to discount physical risk as they somehow tend to think they are immortal but when it comes to financial risk they take it seriously.

This way the blame and the costs go to the person who deserves it and not to the lifeguards who are, guarding lives.


The DaTechGuy fundraiser is now in in progress. Your help is greatly appreciated. For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.

Throw out that last, take this. This is the most titanic battle of modern times. A David without even a slingshot rises to do battle against the mighty Goliath, the Taylor machine, allegedly crooked inside and out.

Thomas Mitchell Mr. Smith goes to Washington 1939

Yesterday at the daily press briefing White House spokesman Jay Carney forgot the name of Border Agent Brian Terry who was slain in the process of the fast and furious scandal.

I’d like to think that this was a slip of the lip, I really would, just like I’d like to pretend that the Media ignoring the story for a year was just an oversight but it’s reaching the point where that just isn’t possible.

Last night on Twitter Dana Loesch brought up fast and Furious she received the following reply


Nobody cares about? Let’s remind everyone not only was the whistle-blower at the ATF that exposed this scandal fired, not only Brian Terry slain:

But for the family of Brian Terry, it’s the story of their son — murdered with guns given to killers by his own government. Yet many mainstream news consumers never heard of it until this week. According to Media Research Center, the first time NBC mentioned the story was last week.

But the same media that insists this is all about politics, those same caring people of the left forget that hundreds of Mexican citizens were also killed.

Now if you subscribe to the media template that the left is the crew that cares about the average person, (particularly people of color) this might come as quite a shock. You might ask How can this be that the caring left isn’t concerned about hundreds of Mexicans slain by an US program?

If you, however, have been paying attention, if you are involved in the daily tug of war in this country I’m afraid that like me you will rapidly reach the conclusion that the professional left, the left that makes it case on our airwaves, on the net is desperately trying to retain power in Washington doesn’t actually care about the basic fundamental right of Americans but is just another political machine, and like the fictional Taylor Machine, allegedly crooked inside and out…

Update: Fox reports Nancy Pelsoi says fast and furious is all about voter suppression and big money. Brian Terry remains unavailable for comment.

This line from the NYT piece about putting George Bush’s head on a pike in the HBO series Game of Thrones is simply amazing:

In the audio commentary on the Season 1 DVD release of “Game of Thrones,” the show’s lead producers, David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, pointed out that a scene showing the heads of several vanquished warriors included Mr. Bush’s, obscured under a long wig but recognizable in profile.

“The last head on the left is George Bush,” the producers say in the audio commentary. “George Bush’s head appears in a couple beheading scenes. It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement. It’s just, we had to use what heads we had around.”

Yeah there is no political statement at all having an ex president’s head on a pike. And with a budget of The Between $50-60 million who has the money for a different head.

As Glenn Reynolds notes in an e-mail from a Journalist:

A JOURNALIST READER WHOM I’M SURE WOULD PREFER ANONYMITY WRITES: “I know this game gets tired, but imagine, just imagine the months of fury, the global advertising boycotts, the anguished Senate investigations if a network did this with our current president.”

I don’t frankly expect much better from Hollywood but I think the idea its a given that a journalist would surely prefer anonymity is a much more serious indictment of our culture than Hollywood leftists acting like Hollywood leftists.

Update: And here comes the spin

No disrespect intended, by putting his head on a pike and then bragging about it on the DVD commentary? Not to go all gumshoe, but this new excuse doesn’t mesh with that commentary. A changing story indicates deception. The apology now is one of those “We apologize if…” fake apologies.

The original commentary says flatly that the head is George W. Bush. Now they’re saying that it just looks like him, and they only noticed that after shooting the scenes. No one noticed the resemblance before putting scraggly hair on the head and putting it on a pike? And no one noticed the resemblance before using it in another scene with severed heads?

My suspicions from August have now been confirmed, in a big way

President Barack Obama is rapidly losing support among African-American voters in North Carolina, a new poll out today from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling shows.

The poll finds that Mitt Romney would get 20 percent of the African-American vote if the election were held today,

Now one could look at this in several ways:

1. The Black Community, thanks to the election of President Obama “breaking the dam” have now gone beyond “Race” as the only factor for picking a president and it’s about time too. (If polls showed only 20% of whites willing to vote for a non-white candidate it would be a considered a sign of racism).

2. The economy is so bad that the Black Community is willing to make an exception in this case (think of Norway & Quisling on a much less serious scale).

3. Gay Marriage has changed the equation. Maggie Gallagher at NRO looks at the numbers and says:

One in five black voters in North Carolina actually say they will vote for Romney. The economy? Maybe, but few Republicans have ever won that share of the black vote even when times were tough. A lot of black pastors are pretty upset with President Obama for endorsing gay marriage (see the Coalition for African-American Pastors new petition), and it looks like some of their flocks are as well.

I think everybody is missing the real blockbuster nature of these numbers.

I have long thought that there is an undercurrent of discontent in the black community with the performance of this administration. I felt the Gay Marriage decision was a watershed because it provided an excuse for those who wanted to stay home:

imagine you are a Black voter disgusted with the president’s record but getting pressure over racial solidarity. The Gay Marriage suddenly makes staying home a matter of sticking with your Pastor and your God.

I expected such a thing to take place quietly within the black community and not break into the general conversation. This is far more than that. One out of five Black Americans in a state where the president won 95% of the Black vote the last time around have explicitly told strangers they will not support the first black president for re-election and they have expressed that decision in a public poll..

It is that public nature that makes all the difference because it reinforces what other Black Americans may be thinking in other states but are hesitant to say aloud.

It is a paradigm shift and if it repeats itself beyond North Carolina then this election over.

Exit question: What do Democrats on the ballot in 2012 seeking state and federal level do when asked if they support Barack Obama?

Update: And it’s not just Black Americans

I’ve resisted polling showing Jewish support for Obama slipping as contrary to my life experiences, but it is so bad on so many fronts that even the Jews seem to be coming around to reality

Barack Obama has done what no republican has been able to do, break the hold of the democratic party on groups. Michael Graham said it in 2010, “The greatest maker of Republican voters since Ronald Reagan is Barack Obama”

The Lord certainly works in mysterious ways.

Update 2: Instalanche thanks Glenn, but I still think there is nothing wrong with cocky, as long as it doesn’t mean lazy.

Vodka Pundit at PJ Media also links but I think he slightly misunderstands me. Granted I think Gay Marriage is a big issue faithful black Christians have broken with the administration over it. but I suspect if the Black Community was doing better in this economy a lot of people might have rationalized it away.

What I think Gay Marriage issue did was allow the Black Community to express feelings they already had without being marked as “Race traitors” or “Uncle Toms”. It is that cover more than the issue itself which makes all the difference.

Update 3: Doug Matacoins disagrees with my conclusions in these two posts.

Check out his argument, I sure hope the Democrats buy it.

I read with absolutely no surprise the ruling out of Boston on Gay Marriage. I can’t say the same for Moe Lane’s post on the Boston ruling. I like Moe but with all due respect I simply had to laugh:

I have what can be fairly called a cynical and perverse position on this issue. I favor SSM, as most of you know. I also think that DoMA is blatantly unconstitutional, given that it really is in flagrant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But it’s always been my opinion that if DoMA is completely thrown out then we’re going to see it promptly turned into a Constitutional amendment and ratified with dizzying speed. And that’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario? A Federal Marriage Amendment*. Which means that I’m stuck tacitly supporting a bad law because I’m more afraid of the alternative. Ach, this Fallen world!

Oh Moe Moe Moe, don’t you realize from the very moment that the very first court in Vermont ruled on civil unions (supporters insisted nobody was talking Gay Marriage) to the moment DOMA was proposed (and opponents insisted that there was no need for a constitutional amendment because nobody was talking about redefining marriage) until finally via a 4-3 ruling Gay Marriage was imposed on Massachusetts and then beyond the radical left has worked for this day.

Additionally the Democratic party has now wedded itself to Gay activists and the two biggest fans, Hollywood and the Media to the point where even the NAACP and powerful members of the Black Community are pressuring ministers to abandon the beliefs they have preached forever.

You really think that the folks bankrolling all this stuff aren’t prepared to face a constitutional amendment?

It takes 2/3 majorities in both houses to move a constitutional amendment to get it to the states. Moe thinks that the democrats can’t manage to find 145 votes to block this in the house or 34 votes to block it in the Senate he is out of his mind.

And furthermore Moe if you think the left can’t muster enough power in 13 states to keep this the amendment from passing if somehow it makes it pass congress you have attended one too many Kruiser Kabana.

The left may not work in fields where the people as a whole have a voice, but when they are dealing with a smaller group where money and power can make a difference, watch out!

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:34-39

One of the more interesting aspects of American Politics is the role of the Black Church. Tax law and the left mantra of “separation of church and state” not withstanding the Black Church has frankly been the political center for the black community. If you don’t have the ministers you don’t have the black vote.

I’ve written several times about the president’s need to keep the left hand from knowing what the right hand is doing. I suspect that a lot of the congregations in black churches around the country were unaware of the president’s position but I also suspect their pastors were but as long as the president’s position was not explicit they were able to deny this both to their congregations and to themselves.

Now with all the press about the announcement and the Newsweek cover that their congregations will see on every newsstand for those pastors denial is an untenable position.

In the hours following Mr. Obama’s politically charged announcement on Wednesday, the president and his team embarked on a quiet campaign to contain the possible damage among religious leaders and voters. He also reached out to one or more of the five spiritual leaders he calls regularly for religious guidance, and his aides contacted other religious figures who have been supportive in the past.

The damage-control effort underscored the anxiety among Mr. Obama’s advisers about the consequences of the president’s revised position just months before what is expected to be a tight re-election vote.

These Pastors whether contacted by the White House or not have a decision to make: How do they define themselves? Are they Pastors who happen to be black or does race trump what they have preached for years?

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. John 6:60-68

Where do the pastors stand? With those who went home, or with the twelve who stayed?

At least one pastor in Maryland has made his choice:

Rev. Dr. Emmett Burns, who insists that, while he and his peregrines won’t support Mitt Romney, they have no interest in going to the polls.

And where one pastor, even in a state as blue as Maryland is willing to stand up and be counted others will follow all over the country with the potential of disaster for the left up and down the ticket.

Two final thoughts: I’ve talked about the Barber Shop election saying the following:

the Peggy Josephs and the “Obama Money” crowd in Detroit expected great things for themselves; instead got a president who has kept his distance from the community that provided his most loyal support.

The result? That’s the question. We are seeing only slight glimpses of discontent, but what is it that we aren’t seeing?

Let’s say it aloud: If Barack Obama had Jimmy Carter’s pigmentation there would be democrats lining up to primary him with slogans like: “We can do better” and “Let’s nominate a fighter for the working man“. Those potential candidates are discouraged by the party because if even 10% of the black community abandons them, democrats become unelectable.

Forget the absurdity that a vote based on race to begin with and imagine you are a Black voter disgusted with the president’s record but getting pressure over racial solidarity. The Gay Marriage suddenly makes staying home a matter of sticking with your Pastor and your God.

But let’s say that enough Black voters and Black Pastors decided that Obama at the top of the ticket is reason to equivocate this year. What happens in 2016 if the Party decides to go all in for Gay Marriage in 2016? I submit it will be a lot easier for those same Black ministers to decide to stay home for Mrs. Clinton or Joe Biden that it is for a President Obama.

Update: And there is another one

A Texas pastor who once led the Southern Baptist Convention in introducing a resolution that recognized Obama’s historic achievement has voiced his displeasure with the president’s support and approval of gays, reports the Associated Baptist Press.
Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, wrote in a blog on May 9 that Obama’s statement is worthy of incurring wrath of biblical proportions. . . . “President Obama has betrayed the Bible and the Black Church with his endorsement of same-sex marriage

If 15% of the Black vote that would normally vote for Democrats go home 2012 is going to be a landslide of, dare I say it Biblical proportions.

Back in February I was standing in line to enter a blogger event in DC when I struck up a conversation with the fellow next to me. The line was held up for quite a while and we spoke at length.

His name was Larry Sinclair I was rather surprised to hear him claim to be a former lover of the president as we waited he talked of his encounters with Obama during his Chicago years and his subsequent treatment by the press and the president’s security over his claims.

I took it in, asked a question or two and filed it away with all the other odd tidbits that you hear when you do this kind of thing. I never bothered to write about it since:

1..I wasn’t in a position to verify it

2..Didn’t plan to follow it up

3..and frankly the topic really didn’t interest me.

But when I saw this week’s Newsweek cover the first thing I wondered was how Mr. Sinclair would react on his site:

Newsweek has published the above cover on its next issue proudly declaring Barack Obama as “The First Gay President.” Problem with openly gay, British writer Andrew Sullivan’s article is, he’s 3 years late as Sinclair News declared Barack Obama America’s “First Gay President” more than 3 years ago

Mr. Sinclar goes on to say he expect Mr. Obama to actually “come out” after this election.

My thoughts on Mr. Sinclar’s claims is they are just that, claims. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary I’m not inclined to buy it, and even if true it’s totally irrelevant. The president could be a 4th degree Knight of Columbus with seventeen kids all brought up Catholic and it wouldn’t change the fact that he is pretty much an inexperienced machine pol from the Corrupt Chicago machine who has governed for three years with all the results you might expect from an inexperienced Chicago Machine pol.

I’ve further argued that any day when we are not talking about the record of this president, the economy, gas prices and unemployment is a good day for the White House.

But the bottom line is thanks to that Newsweek cover there is going to be a fair amount of people who will google “Obama is Gay” or “Is Obama gay” and they will find Mr. Sinclair’s site and other posts elsewhere with even more interesting claims. I doubt it will become the topic du jur in the media or make a splash on the web but it will be something filed in the back of people’s minds.

and that can’t be good news for the Obama campaign come November.

Life is nine tenths work, my boy, and a little play when you can get it. Same in the Greenwood as it is on the Lord’s manor or in Nottingham town.

Little John: The Adventures of Robin Hood 1955

if some adults, even a few, believed Gillian’s Island was real, just think of the effect other shows on television have–shows with much greater emphasis on reality.

Sherwood Schwartz Inside Gilligan’s Island 1988 p188

Andrew Sullivan’s Newsweek Cover story “The First Gay President” has been the talk of the town. Actually it’s not so much been the story as Tina Brown’s cover. It has been compared to Time’s sensational cover of last week and reproduced all over the net.

Glenn Reynolds had the best snark “If I were a GOP operative, I’d distribute thousands of those Newsweek issues to black barbershops in key precincts. . . .” but I think, snark aside, this cover is going to have a much bigger impact than anyone realizes.

One of the things you become conscious of when cover or write about news every day is how uninformed and/or disinterested the average person is concerning news.

This is in fact normal. Folks are busy living their own lives, worrying about their own problems and paying their bills. They may in passing notice something during the day but with hundreds of channels to choose and millions of choices on the world wide web they have little time or inclination to devote what free time they have toward topics they aren’t interested in.

Let’s look at this cover again

This cover is all over TV and as Jazz Shaw suggests it is almost certainly going to be on posters:

The poster that comes from this is going to sell millions. Take that to the bank.

I suspect we will see it on T-Shirts too. This image, in my opinion is going to be an iconic image of Obama.

Think about what that means for a second:

How many people are going to see this cover in passing? How many doctor’s offices, waiting rooms, barber shops, (Black and otherwise) and other places where free copies of Newsweek go to die will this cover sit for months, perhaps all the way to election day?

And How many of those people who are too busy to read the story inside will see this cover on a magazine called NEWSWEEK without reading Andrew Sullivan’s piece and think Obama has come out as Gay?

I’m betting an awful lot.

If you think that is going to have a positive net effect on the president’s re-election effort, then you just might live in the MSM media bubble.

Update: Charles from Left Bank of the Charles points out that if you had a poster like the Newsweek cover at a tea party in 2008 you would have been branded as a racist.

Update 2: While I was out beating the bushes for advertisers for the Radio Show (WCRM AM 830 Saturday 10 – Noon this weeks Guest Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Next Saturday Jack Mitchell author Fireside Chat) I was apparently linked by Hot Air. Welcome, take a peek around, discover what a Sarah Palin endorsement can do to a Nebraska Senate Candidates election chances, marvel at women deciding they like the good looking clean cut rich guy named Romney after all, and find out why I’ve been advising Republicans to “Ride right through them (Democrats), they’re Demoralized as hell” since last May.