FollowUp 5: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

Some,

The Homosexual Lobby is ready to launch their next major push to seize control of the Republican Party:

Oh my. The dreaded "Homosexual Lobby". The catch is, there is no organized homosexual lobby. Yes, there are groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but no lobby in the sense that Mr. Delgaudio means.

A "conservative" Super PAC to buy Republican legislators.

The Homosexual Lobby has been infiltrating the once-conservative party for years.

New sham groups like GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans have tried to convince Republican legislators that it is okay to be conservative and pro-radical homosexualism.

Now this is funny. Many in the LGBTQ Community have been at odds with the Log Cabin Republicans and more recently GOProud for a long time. Since the Republican Party has had denial of equality to the LGBTQ Community as a Platform Plank for years, there are many who think that these folks should not endeavor to be in bed with the enemy. Their response is that if we do not engage the GOP, joining and attempting to influence them, then we will never make inroads and eventually achieve equality.

Still, aside from the gay squabbles, GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are fairly small organizations. Mr. Delgaudio is correct that they have been members of the Republicans (infiltrating) for years. But they cannot have been both doing so for years and be new groups. He has to choose one or the other. While many liberal gays think they are sham, the members of those two organizations are real and are quite serious about what they are doing.

And they’re doing it with their swollen bank accounts.

It’s no secret that the Homosexual Lobby has access to more funding than the pro-Family Movement.

Vast amounts more.

This exaggeration is because Mr. Delgaudio is referring to himself and his donors as if they are the entire so-called "pro-Family Movement". That the National Organization for Marriage has tens of millions of dollars in annual donations, including from the presumed Republican presidential nominee, does not count in Mr. Delgaudio's tallies. Neither do the resources of the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and their allies like the Witherspoon Institute.

And last summer, it was this unlimited funding that persuaded four NY state senators to betray the voters who elected them by voting for homosexual “marriage.”

So, according to Mr. Delgaudio none of these four Republican state senators had a thought about being fair to all of their constituents as they claimed. The gay lobby bought and paid for these state senators just like the National Organization for Marriage has pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars to those who would oppose them in the next election. But, money dedicated to bigotry is okay while money dedicated to equality is evil.

And the man who played an instrumental role in New York is leading this newest push.

Paul Singer is a billionaire who claims to be conservative, but he is fighting with his vast fortunes to institute homosexual “marriage” across this nation.

I don't know Mr. Singer so I can't speak to his individual politics other than to note that he does indeed appear to be pushing for equality among Republicans. What I do know is that there is more than one kind of conservatism. I am a fiscal conservative (albeit not one who screams socialism at any hint of new spending, just a citizen who appreciates a frugal government). Mr. Delgaudio is a "social conservative". These are hardly the same.

As part of the fight in New York last summer, Singer was responsible for more than $11 million being spent to push homosexual “marriage” through.

He openly gave each of the four Republican traitors a quarter of a million dollars for their vote!

If that were true then Mr. Singer and all four state senators would be in a state prison. I am certainly willing to believe that Mr. Singer donated generously to each of the four. But buying votes is illegal; I'm told it is still illegal even in New York.

And now he wants to repeat this strategy in the more than 30 states which outlaw homosexual “marriage.”

Singer has created a new radical pro-homosexual Super PAC specifically to infiltrate the Republican Party.

His “American Unity PAC” has only one purpose: Find conservative politicians who are weak on moral issues -- or just desperate for money -- and buy their votes.

Well, if one goes to the American Unity PAC webpage, there is only a Facebook link. Really. There is nothing there.

Slate Magazine ran a short article on this a few days ago. It does appear that Mr. Singer's goal is to sway Republicans to marriage equality.

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the country’s most important Republican donors. The 67-year-old is also a big supporter of gay rights, giving more than $10 million of his own money to equal rights causes across the country. Now Singer tells the New York Times’ Frank Bruni that he, along with some like-minded Republicans, will be putting forward $1 million to launch a new super PAC with the sole mission of encouraging GOP candidates to back marriage equality.

Back to the letter from Eugene Delgaudio.

Singer provided $1 million out of his own pocket to start this up, but he won’t stop there.

He is guaranteeing politicians that if they support homosexual “marriage,” he will keep the money flowing.  It won’t matter if their own constituents reject them, Singer and his Super PAC will make the traitors rich.

The word traitors is entirely wrong and to be expected of Mr. Delgaudio. Supporting equality for all of one's constituents is far from being a traitor. It is being a small-c conservative. Perhaps a dictionary would help Mr. Delgaudio with that word (eleven meanings given at the link).

It is no coincidence that they announced the new radical Super PAC when they did.

Only weeks ago I had the pleasure of announcing that Public Advocate and its supporters were able to drive Sen. James Alesi from office.

Isn't it interesting that the National Organization for Marriage made the same pronouncement ... that they had driven Mr. Alesi from office.

Mr. Alesi was one of the four Republican traitors who received slush funds from Paul Singer.

But you and I still got to him.

And the pro-Homosexual “conservatives” realized that they would have to do even more to weather the pro-Family storm of fury.

So they are going to spend even more money than ever before to buy the Republican Party -- to add the Homosexual Agenda to the conservative platform.

Let's be realistic for a moment. Given that Willard "Mitt" Romney has donated to the National Organization for Marriage and signed a pledge to pass a Constitutional Amendment from the Family Leader or from the National Organization for Marriage to keep the LGBTQ Community as second class citizens. Given that the second and third and fourth place contenders for the Republican nomination, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Ron Raul*, signed the same pledge. There is zero chance that the GOP Party Platform will be modified to include equality for all.

* I should note that Dr. Paul did not really sign the Marriage Pledge.  He signed the Personhood Amendment Pledge.  When it comes to marriage equality, Ron Paul favors letting each state decide, preferably to maintain the caste system.

My friend, this could be their most dangerous strategy.

You and I saw how they made it work in New York.

The only counter-strategy mainstream Americans have is dedicated grassroots lobbying.

Through phone calls, letters and public campaigns to expose them, you and I can fight back.

Public Advocate is the biggest threat to the Homosexual Agenda... you can be sure that this new Super PAC is going to target us in the near future.

Mr. Delgaudio should make sure that he tells this to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Bryan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. They each believe that they are the biggest threat.

For the Family,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

And, of course, by "the Family" Mr. Delgaudio does not include my family. It is only families that meet a narrow definition of opposite gender spouses.

The letter was interesting in that it clearly demonstrates that Mr. Delgaudio, and likely many others among his fellow bigots, are scared of the impact that Paul Singer might have.  In the short run, Mr. Delgaudio's letter goes on to a post script in which he begs for money as he always does.  In the long run, equality will likely be the rule as it was for Blacks and for women.  Perhaps Mr. Singer is tightening that timeline.

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.


12 July 2012, FollowUp 6.

Praise: Women in Combat

The Friday 16 March 2012 Stars and Stripes included an article titled, Female Marines aim to blend in, but be visible enough to set an example.  The title is appropriate.

“We don’t like to be singled out. We’re Marines,” Maj. Jennifer Marino said during a panel discussion Thursday about the role of female Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As women are about to be allowed in units that are explicitly designated as combat units, this will get more attention.

The opportunities for women are changing. Though women are still barred from infantry units, a recent Pentagon decision will open to women more than 14,000 active-duty and reserve jobs that were previously available only to men.

 As early as this summer, a few hundred jobs for company grade officers and staff noncommissioned officers in the Marines will be open to women. Those positions would be in ground combat units like artillery, tanks and combat engineer battalions in military specialties already open to female Marines.

 The first woman to command a combat brigade is being installed today, 17 March 2012.

The California Army National Guard's 40th Combat Aviation Brigade will get its first female commander today.

Col. Laura L. Yaeger will be installed as commander of the unit at an afternoon change of command ceremony at the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos.

She replaces Col. Mitchell K. Medigovich, who served as the unit's commander during its recent deployment to Iraq. Medigovich and his soldiers were among the final U.S. troops to leave that country.

It should be no surprise that some people have objections.  Among the Republican presidential contenders, Rick Santorum is the most vocally opposed,

Santorum had to explain past statements that he opposed contraception because it allows consequence-free sex, and that women should not work outside the home. He also said women shouldn't be allowed in combat.

Most Americans support women in combat roles according to a recent Quinnipiac Univeristy poll.

American voters also support 75 - 22 percent allowing women to engage in close ground combat. Support is 70 - 27 percent among men, 79 - 17 percent among women and 67 - 29 percent among voters in military households. All party, age, income, religious and education groups support the measure.

To be fair, aside from Mr. Santorum, most of the GOP presidential contenders have backed off of this issue.

Asked during the February 22 GOP presidential debate in Arizona about their views of women in combat, the candidates by and large played up to those polling numbers, with at least three of them expressing general openness to an expanded role of women on the battlefield.

Predictably slippery, Mitt Romney said that he would “look to the people who are serving in the military to give the best assessment of where women can serve.” Noting the 100-plus women who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, he expressed his belief that “women have the capacity to serve in our military in positions of significance and responsibility, as we do throughout our society.”

Newt Gingrich pointed out that in the present environment of “total warfare,” anyone “serving our country in uniform virtually anywhere in the world could be in danger at virtually any minute. A truck driver can get blown up by a bomb as readily as the infantrymen.” He added that “you ought to ask the combat leaders what they think is an appropriate step, as opposed to the social engineers of the Obama Administration.”

Rick Santorum, who had been criticized for earlier suggesting that it may not be appropriate for women to serve alongside men in combat, subtly backpedaled on that opinion, saying that while he still had concerns, “I would defer to at least hearing the recommendations of those involved” in making the decisions about where women serve.

On February 10, during an appearance on NBC’s Today Show, Santorum said that “when you have men and women together in combat … men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way. I think it’s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective, and that was my concern.” He added that the issue is “is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, or potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”

Men react to seeing fellow countrymen in harm's way in exactly the same way, without regard to gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or any of the other human differences that make for political wedge issues.  When you train and fight together, the rest simply doesn't matter.

It isn't that women don't end up in combat.  We had women earning combat medals during World War II, when a cap of no more than two percent of the military being female was established..  A commentary by Colonel Michael Underkofler tells a small part of the history of women in combat.

Every day women in our country put on combat boots and serve in the air, on the ground and on the seas. While we may define and re-define what it means to serve in combat, make no mistake, women have always served in harm's way. The war today clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of all of us and the evolving nature of warfare. We couldn't fight it as well as we have without the contributions of our women warriors.

They already train for combat, even in competitions.

Integration of women into combat units is no more challenging than was integration of Blacks, both of which are more challenging than integration of lesbians and gays.  In each case, the United States is stronger with the contributions of highly talented sailors, soldiers, and airmen without regard to their minority status.  In each case, the United States is stronger because of the diversity that each brings to her or his unit.  The ideals of E Pluribus Unum work.

Repudiation: Newt Gingrich on the Food Stamp President

The day of the State of the Union Address, 24 January 2012, jump to about the 3 minute mark for the comparison of President Obama as "the most effective Food Stamp President in American history."



Almost the same wording the next day.  Again, jump to the 3 minute mark.



President Obama responds. The whole clip is only 27 seconds.



And yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois responded to Newt Gingrich, who has begun calling President Obama the "Food Stamp President." Armed with facts, the Congressman has a little fun setting the record straight and despite the name calling, concluded that "hunger knows no race or religion or age or political party. Hunger is colorblind."



We should be lowering instead of increasing the number of people on food stamps as a side effect of improving the economy and getting more people working in well paying jobs.  So, this is not a cheer.  But it is wrong to lie about the facts.  Mr. Gingrich, it appears, has not moved entirely beyond his ethical challenges.

Pattern: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

The various denominations of Christianity have a tradition of not getting along well.  From outside appearances, a truce is in place.  At least they have agreed to use common language and approach in their claims that President Obama is attacking their religious liberty. That there is no real attack on the practice of religion is immaterial.  Here are a few examples beginning in November 2011, culminating with reactions to the announcement about two weeks ago that contraception must be covered by all health plans:



Evangelical Protestant: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association complains that women's shelters in Colorado lost federal funding because they have mandatory bible study as part of the care for homeless and battered women. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service. He then complains that nurses were being forced to participate in abortions in New Jersey when they were required to care for women before and after abortions, not during the surgery. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health care practice with a church service.



Mormon and Roman Catholic: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich take the same positions. Both claim that Catholic Charities have been forced to curtail their adoption services because they won't serve gay couples. No, they just don't get federal funds if they are going to be bigots. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service.



Evangelical Protestant: Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel complains that the United States and Israel, all of Western Civilization, are threatened by marriage equality, gender equality, and family equality. Somehow if my partner and I can legally wed then Mr. Staver loses his religious liberty; while I gain my religious liberty. This is confusing equality and liberty with a zero sum game.



Roman Catholic: Bishop William Lori complains that the Church are being driven out of health care and adoption services. He is concerned that freedom of worship will replace freedom of religion. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service, then conflating a social service and a church service. One is free to celebrate one's religion, not to impose it on the rest of society.



Mormon: Hannah Smith complains that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.



Roman Catholic: Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Newt Gingrich complain that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

The pattern is clear.  The cry that religious liberty is being attacked by President Obama is not likely to abate.  That some might see that requiring that contraception be covered by health plans does not mean that individuals are required to use contraception is not going to slow or stop this allegation of President Obama being anti-religion.

What can or should President Obama do?  My gut reaction is that he should use the bully pulpit and explain both the misunderstanding at hand and why partisan interests are turning this into something that is larger than it ought to be.  Sadly, I don't think it would work.

I think the President is going to have to change this policy into something that is worse for the United States.  Employees who want birth control will have to pay for it out of pocket, if they can afford it.  That the cost of preventive measures is far less than the consequences of not taking those measures is not the issue.  That no one would be forced to use birth control in violation of their religious compass is not the issue.  This is entirely about how the President is perceived.

With that in mind, it is fair to consider additional perceptions.  President Obama, despite periodic allegations, is clearly a Christian.  That should have been obvious from his tumultuous exit from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.  At some point someone other than the President is going to need to point out that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not adhere to the Nicene Creed; they are not considered by most Christians to be Christian.

I don't like playing that kind of politics.  Unless a presidential contender adheres to a religion that is a threat to the United States, the Church of American Dissolution or something dangerous outside of spiritual questions, I don't like using that issue.  Still, those who want to make Mr. Obama a one-term president are already playing religious politics.  To not recognize the politics for what it is could result, if one takes Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney at their words, in a shift toward theocracy.

My hope is that President Obama and his advisers both see what is happening and have ideas for getting out of this religious trap that they have sprung on themselves and avoid the low road that I mentioned.

28 February 2012: FollowUp 1.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

FollowUp 2: Personhood Amendments

Wednesday evening there was yet another Republican debate in South Carolina, this time sponsored by Personhood USA and called a Pro-Life Forum.  Despite an explicit invitation, Mr. Romney was a no-show.  All four of the remaining Republican contenders are opposed to legal abortion.

But, the facts are that if one wants to see abortion rates reduced, then one should favor legal abortion and legal contraception.  A news release from the Guttmacher Institute, a Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health of the World Health Organization, indicates that abortion rates are starting to rise globally.  The study was released in the Lancet.  The details of what is happening are important.  First from the news release:

“The declining abortion trend we had seen globally has stalled, and we are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries, where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe. This is cause for concern,” says Gilda Sedgh , lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. “This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake. Without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist.”

Research from WHO shows that complications due to unsafe abortion continued to account for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide in 2008; almost all of these deaths occurred in developing countries. Globally, unsafe abortion accounted for 220 deaths per 100,000 procedures in 2008, 350 times the rate associated with legal induced abortions in the United States (0.6 per 100,000). Unsafe abortion is also a significant cause of ill-health: Each year approximately 8.5 million women in developing countries experience abortion complications serious enough to require medical attention, and three million of them do not receive the needed care.

“Deaths and disability related to unsafe abortion are entirely preventable, and some progress has been made in developing regions. Africa is the exception, accounting for 17% of the developing world's population of women of childbearing age but half of all unsafe abortion–related deaths," notes Iqbal H. Shah, of the WHO and a coauthor of the study. “Within developing countries, risks are greatest for the poorest women. They have the least access to family planning services and are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of an unsafe procedure. Poor women also have the least access to postabortion care, when they need treatment for complications.”

The findings provide further evidence that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. For example, the 2008 abortion rate was 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries. In contrast, in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is 12.

So nations that are so radical that they allow legal abortions have an abortion rate of less than half that of those without legal abortion.  Worse, when abortions are not legal women are three hundred and fifty times more likely to die than during a legal abortion.

This is not surprising data.  In 2007, the Guttmacher Institute produced a similar study that found that use of contraception is correlated with reduction in abortions.

The number of induced abortions worldwide declined from nearly 46 million to under 42 million between 1995 and 2003. Abortion rates fell most significantly in Eastern Europe, a trend that corresponds with substantially increased contraceptive use in the region, according to “Induced Abortion: Rates and Trends Worldwide,” a new report by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in the 13 October 2007 issue of The Lancet.

If one really wants fewer abortions, Personhood Amendments are not the answer.  Restrictive abortion laws are not the answer.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but for fewer abortions, encourage contraception and give women and their doctors abortion as a legal choice.

11 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

4 December 2011, FollowUp 1.

Pattern: October Surprise?

This morning Joe My God ran a clip from Reuters on Russia warning the United States against attacking Iran.  At the same time, all of the Republican contenders, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, are saber-rattling against Iran.  This set me thinking about October 1980, but the story starts much earlier.

In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi overthrew the Persian government, a Turkish family having held the seat for a couple of centuries.  He sought to modernize Iran without Westernizing the country.  As part of the battles of World War II, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran and sent him into exile.

In 1941, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah, the son of the exiled ruler, was placed on the throne.  A decade later there was a coup and the last Shah fled the country.  Two years later the United States and Britain overthrew a constitutional government to force the last Shah back onto the throne.  The last Shah fled Iran again in 1979 as the modern theocracy took over.

It is important to go back to the Pahlavi dynasty to understand why Iranians today hold animosity toward the United States.  While these are not recent events to many of us, they are not forgotten in the ancient land of Persia.

In November 1979, fifty-two Americans were taken hostage at the United States embassy in Tehran.  They would be held for 444 days.  This would be part of why President Jimmy Carter failed to win a second term.  Mr. Carter did endeavor to free the hostages, both by negotiations and by military extraction.  All efforts failed.  To make matters worse for the President, media coverage was greater and more persistent than it had ever been previously, including the introduction of Nightline to cover the hostage drama.

On 20 January 1981, minutes after Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into office as the fortieth President of the United States, the hostages were freed.  The timing inspired conspiracy theories.  I was serving in the U.S. Navy at the time and there were many rumors, scuttlebutt it was called, floating around about both Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan.  The truth would not come out until several years later.

In 1988 fourteen of the released hostages filed suit against the U.S. government for collusion with the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the release until after Mr. Reagan was sworn into office.

To support the lawsuit's charges, Davis cited recently declassified top- secret documents and court transcripts. He is relying mostly on statements by two self-described former CIA agents: Richard Brenneke and Heinrich Rupp.

The two claim to have played roles in three meetings between Reagan campaign officials and Iranian officials in Paris on Oct. 19-20, 1980.

Brenneke, an Oregon businessman and former arms dealer, told a federal judge in Denver last month that he attended one of the meetings along with William Casey, then-chairman of the Reagan campaign and later the director of the CIA, and Donald Gregg, now George Bush's national security adviser. He said he was not at an Oct. 19 meeting that he was told included Bush.

The group discussed trading weapons for a delay in releasing the American hostages until after the election, Brenneke said.

''The logistics of transferring $40 million for the purchase of weapons was worked out,'' Brenneke said in his testimony. ''That was the figure that William Casey and Mr. Gregg discussed at the meeting as being available for the purchase of weapons.''

More information came out in the book October Surprise in 1991.

Now let's look at 2012.  There have been tensions between Iraq and Iran for a long time.  Our withdrawal from Iraq has left an opening for Republicans to question whether this helps Iran (a fair question).  The second nuclear scientist assassinated in Iran in a short period leaves Iran blaming Israel and the United States (perhaps correctly, I don't know).  Russia is on Iran's side so that it can ensure its own delivery of oil from the Persian fields.  And the Republican contenders for President are rattling their sabers.

I don't like conspiracy theories.  I would hope that no American who seeks the presidency would be dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat.  But that apparently did happen just thirty-two years ago.  Could history repeat itself?  What sort of surprise might October 2012 hold?  I offer no predictions, just concern.

FollowUp 1: Ken Cuccinelli to Change Primary Rules

It seems that Mr. Cuccinelli has failed to convince the courts to change the rules and allow his preferred candidates to be on the Republican Primary ballot in Virginia.  CNN reports

A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.

Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.

The four candidates "knew the rules in Virginia many months ago," the judge wrote in his ruling. "In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair."

This leaves only Mr. Romney and Dr. Paul on Virginia's ballot.  But, it may not be the end of the story in Virginia.  The CNN article notes that Mr. Cuccinelli has not given up.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said he didn't expect the ruling to be the last word in the ongoing case, which is expected to be appealed to a federal appeals court in Richmond.

"I am pleased that the district court is allowing Virginia's orderly election process to move forward," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "The ruling today dealt only with the request for a preliminary injunction. The litigation is ongoing."

So, kudos to Judge Gibney for following the rules.  Mr. Cuccinelli sounds like a sourpuss.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

1 January 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

FollowUp 1: AFA OneNewsNow Misquotes AP News

Here we go again.  They lie about the nature of homosexuality, the nature of marriage, and the nature of politics, the latter being today's topic.  The original Associated Press story, by Laurie Kellman, loses the author and most of the material when shown on One News Now.  Consider the opening paragraph of the original:

Prominent conservative leaders want their rank and file to quickly get behind a single presidential candidate, fearful that persistent splits will help Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination.

And the One News Now version:

Conservative leaders say it's time to rally behind a single Republican presidential candidate -- and fast -- to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the GOP nomination.

There is an important change in tone.  The differences are more stark in the second paragraph, again beginning with the original:

The former Massachusetts governor narrowly won the Iowa caucuses when conservative voters divided their support among several challengers, and the worry is that the same thing will happen in South Carolina, Florida and beyond if Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all stay in the race.

And the One News Now version:

The former Massachusetts governor narrowly won the Iowa Caucuses after conservatives split their support among Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Now, some conservative leaders are talking about a group endorsement before the South Carolina primary Jan. 21. Any challenger to Romney must win that primary to survive.

Um, this is no longer the same.  There is one full paragraph and two more individual lines in the One News Now version.  The original has more than twenty additional paragraphs.  One News Now turns the focus to Tony Perkins of hate group the Family Research Council.  That is a tiny bit part of the bigger story from the AP.  The focus was supposed to be on the candidates, not one of the AFA's favorite bigots.

As I said before, falsification of data, misquoting, and plagiarism are among the guarantees that a student earns an 'F' in my classroom.  AFA earns that 'F' again.

29 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

Humor: Secret Asian Man on Political Sins

Political Punditry from Secret Asian Man

Secret Asian Man is no longer a daily comic, but items in the attached blog are frequently brilliant. This is the commentary that goes with the above picture:

I thought I should throw in Obama to be fair and balanced. Actually, I just really wanted to type the word "vainglory". It was a toss up between Gingrich and Santorum for gluttony and lust (with Gingrich's past infidelities and Santorum's apparent love of fatty foods) but anyone who can inspire the definition of the byproduct of an anal sex act wins the lust title. Thanks Dan Savage.

The insights here are appropriate.  Don't click on the byproduct link unless you are away from work.  I'm not sure that vainglory should be counted as a sin, particularly as most of Mr. Obama's accomplishments are discounted by the media, but that is for you to decide.