TRANSGENDERS vs US MILITARY - BAN IS REINSTATED (NO SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS)

TRANSGENDERS vs US MILITARY - BAN IS REINSTATED:

THE US MILITARY WAS ESTABLISHED TO LEAD AND DEFEND OUR NATION NOT TO CONDUCT FAKE DISCRIMINATORY SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS.

TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULD NOT USED TO CHANGE THE NATURAL GOD-GIVEN PHYSICAL GENDER OF HUMAN BEINGS.


Sources: BBC, Fox News, YouTube



***** Trump announces ban on transgender individuals serving in military


President Trump touched off a firestorm Wednesday after tweeting that he wants to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military in any capacity -- citing advice from his "generals" and medical costs.

In a series of tweets, he wrote:

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming..victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."

The president’s tweets came only a few weeks after Defense Secretary James Mattis said he would give military chiefs another six months to conduct a review to determine if allowing transgender individuals to enlist in the armed services will affect the “readiness or lethality” of the force. The deadline for that review was Dec. 1, 2017.

“This is worse than don’t ask don’t tell, this is don’t serve, don’t serve,” The National Center for Transgender Equality said in a written statement. “This is an appalling attack on our service members; it is about bigotry rather than military readiness, reason or science. It is indefensible and cannot stand.”

The Family Research Council praised Trump’s action.

“I applaud President Trump for keeping his promise to return to military priorities – and not continue the social experimentation of the Obama era that has crippled our nation’s military,” FRC President Tony Perkins said in a statement. “The military can now focus its efforts on preparing to fight and win wars rather than being used to advance the Obama social agenda.”

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said "we don't need to be experimenting with the military. Plus there's no reason to take on that kind of financial burden."

But Trump himself tweeted during the campaign season that he would "fight" for the LGBTQ community while his opponent "Hillary (Clinton) brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."

During his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis was asked whether he believed that allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the military or women in combat would undermine the military’s lethality.

“Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with,” Mattis testified.

Abbie Goldberg, professor of psychology at Clark University who has researched and written about the LGBTQ community, told Fox News “no one wins under Trump’s plan.”

“Some people will not serve, which is a loss to the military and the country,” Goldberg said. “Others will serve, but not openly, and thus they will be at risk for discharge or verbal, physical and sexual abuse.”

The Pentagon has refused to release any data on the number of transgender troops currently serving. A RAND study found that there are between 2,500 and 7,000 transgender service members in the active-duty military, and another 1,500 to 4,000 in the reserves.

The study also found that allowing transgender people to serve in the military would have a "minimal impact" on the health care costs.

The Pentagon announced it would “continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the commander in chief on transgender individuals serving in the military.”

“We will provide revised guidance to the Department in the near future,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said in statement.

Trump’s announcement comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill debate the current practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for medical treatment for gender transition.

Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler offered an amendment that would prohibit the Pentagon from spending money on transition surgeries or hormone therapy. Her amendment was narrowly defeated earlier this month.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Trump’s decision a “cruel and arbitrary decision designed to humiliate transgender Americans.”

“On this very day in 1948, President Harry Truman signed the executive order desegregating the U.S. military. Sixty-nine years later, President Trump has chosen this day to unleash a vile and hateful agenda that will blindside thousands of patriotic Americans already serving with honor and bravery,” she said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,slammed the sudden announcement and said anyone who is fit to serve in the military should be allowed to do so.

“The president’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter,” McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said.

Transgender service members have been able to serve openly in the military since last year, when former Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended the ban. Since Oct. 1, transgender troops have been able to receive medical care and start formally changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system.

But Carter also gave the services until July 1 to develop policies to allow people already identifying as transgender to newly join the military, if they meet physical, medical and other standards, and have been stable in their identified genders for 18 months.

"I continue to maintain that what matters in choosing those who serve is that they are best qualified," Carter said in a statement. "To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military. There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honorably. This action would also send the wrong signal to a younger generation thinking about military service.”

Key concerns include whether currently enlisted troops have had medical or other issues that cause delays or problems with their ability to deploy or meet physical or other standards for their jobs. Military leaders also wanted to review how transgender troops are treated, if they're discriminated against or if they have had disciplinary problems, the officials said. They were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

PAT MCCRORY BOLDLY SIGNS NC BILL BARRING LGBT BATHROOM SHARING AMID POLITICAL THREATS

NC GOV PAT MCCRORY BOLDLY SIGNS BILL BARRING LGBT BATHROOM SHARING AMID POLITICAL THREATS:

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PUTTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BEFORE COMMON SENSE.

HOW CAN MEN, WOMEN & CHILDREN ALL SAFELY USE THE SAME BATHROOMS TOGETHER??

IT'S NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION, INSTEAD IT'S ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND AVOIDING LAWSUITS.

Sources: WRAL, Charlotte Observer, WNCT-TV, Youtube

*** McCrory signs bill barring LGBT protections against discrimination

A proposal that codifies a statewide nondiscrimination policy in employment and public accommodations and prohibits North Carolina cities or towns from enacting stricter guidelines was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory late Wednesday after clearing the General Assembly in less than nine hours.

"I have signed legislation passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1," McCrory said in a statement. "Although other items included in this bill should have waited until regular session, this bill does not change existing rights under state or federal law.

"It is now time for the city of Charlotte elected officials and state elected officials to get back to working on the issues most important to our citizens."

All Democratic members of the Senate walked out of the chamber in protest Wednesday evening, leading to a 32-0 vote for the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act.

"This bill essentially ties a noose around the necks of the cities and counties, and it smothers their ability to govern in a way that their citizens think they ought to," Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue said as other Democrats left. "We're not participating in this effort that you make to roll back the clock in this state, to take away powers from local governments."

Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger criticized the walkout. "Running out and ducking this vote is a serious breach of their duty to their constituents," he said.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House voted 84-24 in favor of the bill as state lawmakers rushed to push it through the General Assembly in a one-day special session.

"This is historic," said Rep. Dan Bishop, R-Mecklenburg, noting that North Carolina has never had a nondiscrimination statute.

The bill excludes gays and lesbians from discrimination protections, however, prompting an outcry from LGBT advocates, some corporations and Attorney General Roy Cooper, the Democratic candidate for governor.

Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina, called it the "worst anti-LGBT bill in the entire nation."

"The bill tears away at the fabric of my community by overturning and pre-empting vital protections for gay and transgendered people," Sgro said. "He [McCrory] goes back on his word again by signing legislation coming out of an expensive and unnecessary special session."

"That the North Carolina legislature would convene a costly special session specifically to invalidate and prohibit the expansion of civil rights for LGBT people is disgraceful," Eric Wachter, associate regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement. "Equality, fairness and the desire to stand on the right side of history are reasons enough for legislators to reject this odious and discriminatory legislation."

"Discrimination is wrong, period. That North Carolina is putting discrimination into the law is shameful," Cooper said in a YouTube video posted by his campaign.

"Our commitment to the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has not changed and is at the core of our NCAA values," NCAA spokeswoman Gail Dent said. "It is our expectation that all people will be welcomed and treated with respect in cities that host our NCAA championships and events."

Greensboro and Charlotte are scheduled to host regional games in the NCAA men's basketball tournament in the next two years.

A similar religious rights measure is pending in Georgia, where corporations and even the NFL have said they'll avoid doing business in the state if it becomes law.

The North Carolina bill also doesn't include disabled people among the groups protected from discrimination, but Bishop said other state statutes already protect them.

Rep. Grier Martin, D-Wake, tried to amend the bill so it included gays and lesbians among the protected groups, as well as veterans, but the Republican majority voted to table that suggestion.

The Senate Judiciary II Committee likewise tabled an attempt Wednesday evening by Sen. Terry Van Duyn, D-Buncombe, to add gender identity to the bill for protections against discrimination.

Bathroom debate prompted bill

The legislation is in response to an ordinance passed last month by the Charlotte City Council that broadly defines how businesses treat LGBT customers. The ordinance includes a provision that allows transgender people to use public bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

Social conservatives have railed against the Charlotte ordinance for weeks, saying it violates the religious freedom of business owners and puts women and children at risk by allowing sexual predators to go into women's bathrooms.

"If God didn't give you access to a male or female bathroom via your anatomy, neither should we give you access via either ordinance or legislation," John Amanchukwu, executive director of Upper Room Christian Academy in Raleigh, told members of the House Judiciary IV Committee on Wednesday morning.

Chloe Jefferson, a junior at Greenville Christian Academy, called the prospect of a boy in the girl's bathroom or locker room at her school "completely frightening," adding that dealing with body image is hard enough for teen girls without having boys around when they change clothes or go to the bathroom.

"I am not the only girl scared," Jefferson said.

Charlotte business owner Heather Garofalo encouraged lawmakers to outlaw local anti-discrimination ordinances, saying they threaten her religious right to choose not to serve LGBT customers.

"Business owners like myself, we would be forced to check our deepest-held beliefs at the door or suffer fines of $500, jail time, lawsuits," Garofalo said. "I am asking for a right to provide for my family."

But several transgender people pleaded with lawmakers to defeat the proposal, saying they are just as scared to go into bathrooms where they don't feel comfortable.

"I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die there," said Madeleine Goss, a Raleigh woman who said she was bullied as a boy in Hickory because of her gender identity.

"I have the right to be safe too," a sobbing Angela Bridgeman told lawmakers.

"I feel bullied by you guys," Skye Thomson, a 15-year-old transgender boy from Greenville, told senators. "Imagine yourself in my shoes, being a boy walking into a ladies room. It's awkward and embarrassing and can actually be dangerous."

"Are you really interested in me being spit on and pushed around and shoved because of who I am in a restroom?" asked Rev. Michael Slack, a transgender man. "Legislating mistreatment, hatred and misunderstanding is shameful."

The bill would require people to use the bathroom that aligns with the gender listed on their birth certificate. Backers noted that North Carolina law allows people who have undergone a sex change to amend the gender on their birth certificates. California and Texas also allow people to amend their birth certificates, but it was unclear Wednesday whether other states had similar regulations.

"This is really not about bathrooms. It's about fear," said Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg. "The spirit of the bill is not what it says it intends to do."

Rep. Tricia Cotham, D-Mecklenburg, said the bill resorts to fear-mongering and "flies in the face of" attempts to move North Carolina forward.

"We must be a state that is inclusive and welcomes in North Carolina and protects everyone," Cotham said. "You are absolutely not protecting children, and you're not protecting women."

But Rep. Dean Arp, R-Union, said "prisoners have more privacy" than people in public bathrooms under the Charlotte ordinance.

"How compassionate is it to strip North Carolina citizens of their right to privacy?" Arp said.

Cotham was able to amend the bill to allow parents or caregivers to take children under age 7 into a public bathroom with them, regardless of gender.

Lawmakers draw line on municipal power

In addition to voiding the bathroom provision of Charlotte's ordinance and spelling out state policy on discrimination in employment and public accommodations, the bill also would prohibit cities and counties from adopting so-called living wage ordinances because that would require businesses to pay workers more than the state-established minimum wage.

Bishop and other supporters said North Carolina needs consistent regulations for business and that Charlotte overstepped its authority by passing its ordinance.

"This is not new law," Bishop said. "It's a clarification."

His characterization of the Charlotte City Council as "a handful of radicals under the influence of an activist group" and the ordinance as "the picture of the subversion of the rule of law" drew sharp rebukes from House Democrats.

"Government is best when handled at the lowest level possible," said Rep. Marvin Lucas, D-Cumberland, who called the bill "micromanaging."

"Even the authority you have given them in the past, you have taken away from them," said Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham, noting the General Assembly has stripped cities of power several times in recent years.

Reps. Mike Hager, R-Rutherford, and Nelson Dollar said the legislature needs to act when Charlotte or another jurisdiction oversteps its authority.

"These cities and counties, especially in this case, have operated outside their boundaries, and they're into the boundaries of the state," Hager said.

"We do not need any municipal government acting outside of its appropriate authority, particularly when they are seeking to make political statements," Dollar said.

Other issues raised

Opponents to the bill also argued that not prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could put $4 billion in federal education funding to the state at risk under the Title IX gender equity law.

Similar legislation has been defeated in Tennessee and South Dakota because of such concerns, but Republicans in the General Assembly argued Title IX has exemptions that would preclude any loss of funds to North Carolina.

Democrats also questioned whether the bill would eliminate some protections for wrongful termination claims by fired workers. Republicans disagreed on whether that was the case, with some saying it didn't and others saying people were better off filing a federal lawsuit anyway.

"A rushed process leads to mistakes, leads to omissions," Martin cautioned his fellow House members.

Under the bill, discrimination complaints would be handled by the state Human Relations Commission, but some Democrats pointed out that Republicans gutted the commission's budget last summer, which would render it ineffective.

Legislation becomes campaign issue

Lawmakers called themselves into session on Tuesday after McCrory declined to do so. McCrory said he thought the issue could be addressed during the regular 2016 legislative session, which starts April 25, but legislative leaders wanted to pre-empt the Charlotte ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect April 1.

Cooper said McCrory sparked the debate by publicly denouncing the ordinance shortly after it passed.

"Gov. McCrory got us started down this path by promising legislative action for political gain," he said. "The governor lit the match and then stood aside as the fire grew out of control."

McCrory's campaign responded by accusing Cooper of not doing his job in fighting the ordinance himself.

"Roy Cooper supports forcing women and young girls to use the same restrooms and locker rooms as grown men, all in the name of political correctness, and he refused to act as attorney general to protect our privacy and defend our state's laws," Russell Peck, McCrory's campaign manager, said in a statement.

Berger and Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, the Republican candidate for attorney general, also criticized Cooper for his inaction on the Charlotte ordinance, which Newton called "a radical and dangerous policy."

"Frankly, if the attorney general would do his job, we wouldn't be here today," Newton said. "It would be easy for him to put a stop to this."

The Attorney General's Office has said no action is necessary because cases of indecent exposure and sexual assault can already be prosecuted under state law.

OBAMA ADMIN BLOCKS PUBLIC INFO & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCESS (GOV'T PROPAGANDA)

OBAMA ADMIN BLOCKS PUBLIC INFORMATION & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCESS (GOV'T PROPAGANDA):

INCLUDES YOUTUBE AND ON-AIR CABLE NEWS ABOUT RADICAL ISLAM.

~ 8 ways the Obama Administration is blocking information

The fight for access to public information has never been harder, Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee said recently at a joint meeting of the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors and the Associated Press Photo Managers.

The problem extends across the entire federal government and is now trickling down to state and local governments.

Here is Buzbee’s list of eight ways the Obama administration is making it hard for journalists to find information and cover the news:

1) As the United States ramps up its fight against Islamic militants, the public can’t see any of it. News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off — there are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the S. bombers fly from.

2) The White House once fought to get cameramen, photographers and reporters into meetings the president had with foreign leaders overseas. That access has become much rarer. Think about the message that sends other nations about how the world’s leading democracy deals with the media: Keep them out and let them use handout photos.

3) Guantanamo: The big important 9/11 trial is finally coming up. But we aren’t allowed to see most court filings in real time — even of nonclassified material. So at hearings, we can’t follow what’s happening. We don’t know what prosecutors are asking for, or what defense attorneys are arguing.

4) Information about Guantanamo that was routinely released under President George W. Bush is now kept secret. The military won’t release the number of prisoners on hunger strike or the number of assaults on guards. Photo and video coverage is virtually nonexistent.

5) Day-to-day intimidation of sources is chilling. AP’s transportation reporter’s sources say that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired. Even if they just give her facts, about safety, for example. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.

6) One of the media — and public’s — most important legal tools, the Freedom of Information Act, is under siege. Requests for information under FOIA have become slow and expensive. Many federal agencies simply don’t respond at all in a timely manner, forcing news organizations to sue each time to force action.

7) The administration uses FOIAs as a tip service to uncover what news organizations are pursuing. Requests are now routinely forwarded to political appointees. At the agency that oversees the new health care law, for example, political appointees now handle the FOIA requests.

8) The administration is trying to control the information that state and local officials can give out. The FBI has directed local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology the police departments use to sweep up cellphone data. In some cases, federal officials have formally intervened in state open records cases, arguing for secrecy.

Sources: Associated Press, Infowars, Youtube

GAY MARRIAGE: Why Is Pres OBAMA Obsessed With GAY Rights?? (UTAH)

#UTAH

WHY IS PRES OBAMA OBSESSED WITH GAY MARRIAGE??

OBAMA RECOGNIZES GAY MARRIAGE IN UTAH

Effective immediately the OBAMA Admin has announced it will recognize GAY Marriage in UTAH.

Why am I Not surprised??

Pres OBAMA will Speak up LOUD & CLEAR for GAY Marriage,

yet remain SILENT for a CHILD in CALIFORNIA who was almost MURDERED just to Cover-Up Medical MALPRACTICE & ORGAN Harvesting.

I have NEVER in my life time seen a U.S. President so Obsessed with GAY Marriage!

And if any American Voters Oppose GAY Marriage, or Disagree with GAY Marriage the OBAMA Admin Punishes those people.

It's absolutely Unreal how much Pres OBAMA caters to GLAAD & other GAY Rights Organizations.

Is it because GLAAD donated a ton of MONEY to both of his Presidential Campaigns??

Let's be real people.

OBAMA fights Harder for GAY Marriage then he does for ANYTHING else in America.

For ex:

AL-QAEDA

Improving OBAMACARE

JOBS

EDUCATION

Fixing the NSA

Restructuring the IRS & Reforming the TAX CODE, etc.,

Instead he is Only Laser-Focused on GAY Marriage & GAY Rights!

So is there any wonder why most American Voters NO longer TRUST him???

WHY IS PRES OBAMA OBSESSED WITH GAY MARRIAGE??




ARTICLE: "Obama Administration Will Recognize Same-sex Marriages In Utah"

The Justice Department announced Friday it will recognize - for federal purposes - same-sex marriages performed for a short period in Utah.

The state on Wednesday said it would not recognize the approximately 1,000 marriages or marriage licenses issued for gay and lesbian couples, at least until the issue is fully resolved in the courts.

"These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a videotaped message.

"In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages," he added.

The federal government's decision will likely create more legal chaos over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage that is playing out in Utah, and several other states.

The Supreme Court last year said gay and lesbian couples legally married in their states were entitled to the same federal benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex partners.

The office of Utah Gov. Gary Herbert had sent a letter to Cabinet officials Wednesday saying that, based on advice from the state's attorney general, "state recognition of same-sex marital status is on hold until further notice.

"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages - that is for the courts to decide," the governor's chief of staff, Derek Miller, wrote. "The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."

The current legal and political fight erupted December 20 when U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby concluded Utah's law banning same-sex marriage, approved in 2004, conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. That prompted many counties to begin issuing marriage licenses, but the state then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The justices on Monday blocked enforcement of the district court ruling until the constitutional questions are fully resolved. A federal appeals court could hold oral arguments as soon as March. A ruling there could affect all states within the court's jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

But Holder said, "In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages."

Sources: AP, CNN

UTAH SAME-SEX MARRIAGES INVALIDATED BY SCOTUS (Voters Should Approve GAY Marriage NOT Gov't!)

#UTAH


HERBERT v. KITCHEN:

1,000+ SAME-SEX Marriages were Invalidated after the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled GAY Marriage ILLEGAL in the State of UTAH.

I still firmly believe GAY MARRIAGE should be approved by VOTERS Not by the Government.




ARTICLE: "Utah Will Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed Before High Court Stay"

Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday.

Officials say more than a thousand marriage licenses between gay and lesbian couples were issued in the 17 days between the initial ruling and the high court's Monday order blocking enforcement.

"Based on counsel from the Attorney General's Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice," said the governor's Chief of Staff Derek Miller in a letter to cabinet officials.

"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages– that is for the courts to decide. The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby concluded on December 20 the decision that a state law banning same-sex marriage, approved in 2004, conflicted with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. That prompted many counties to begin issuing marriages licenses, but the state then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The justices' two-sentence order blocks enforcement until the constitutional questions are fully resolved. A federal appeals court could hold oral arguments as soon as March. A ruling there could affect all states within the court's jurisdiction: Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

But in the meantime, that left the tricky, unresolved question about the status of those who received marriage licenses after Shelby's ruling.

"The original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts," said the letter from the governor's office. "It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages."

State officials had sharply criticized Shelby's ruling, and his order same-sex marriages be allowed to take place immediately, saying it created legal confusion.

"This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the [federal] District Court for a stay immediately after its decision. It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo," said the state's attorney general Sean Reyes earlier this week.

More recently, same-sex marriage legal battles have become prominent in states where it is prohibited.

But the Utah case is a broad challenge that goes to the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the state ban and could wind up back at the Supreme Court. Same-sex couples say laws like Utah's violate their equal protection and due process rights.

"It could be the challenge that a lot of people have been waiting for, which is does the United States Constitution guarantee a right to marriage for everyone," said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

"That's the issue in this case and it's now working its way through the courts. It could take quite some time."

The Supreme Court ruled more narrowly this past summer on separate issues involving same-sex marriage.

It cleared the way for those unions in California to resume and rejected parts of a federal law, concluding same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits.

Most states still ban the practice, but polls show more support for it publicly.

The case is Herbert v. Kitchen.


Sources: AP, CNN, Democracy Now, Youtube

Uganda's Anti-Gay Government Bans Organizations Promoting Homosexuality: "Kill The Gays Campaign" & Rachel Maddow

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Uganda Bans 38 organizations accused of "Promoting Homosexuality"

Uganda has announced a ban on 38 non-governmental organisations it accuses of undermining the national culture by promoting homosexuality.

Simon Lokodo, the country's ethics and integrity minister, claimed the NGOs were receiving support from abroad for Uganda's homosexuals and "recruiting" young children into homosexuality.

"I have established beyond reasonable doubt that the 38 NGOs, if not even more, exist not for humanitarian reasons but to destroy the traditions and culture of this country by promoting homosexuality," he said on Wednesday.

"We found that, on the pretext of humanitarian concerns, these organisations are being used to promote negative cultures.

They are encouraging homosexuality as if it is the best form of sexual behaviour."

The former Catholic priest said he believes the ban will come into a force next week. "If the NGOs continue to operate, they will be doing so illegally, they will be apprehended and will have to face a court of law."

Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda.

A bill calling for harsher penalties and outlawing the "promotion" of homosexuality, including providing financial support to gays and lesbians, is pending in the east African country's parliament.

A previous bill called for the death penalty for repeat offenders, although the new version is expected to drop this clause after international condemnation of the proposal and threats to cut off aid.

Lokodo said: "Homosexuality is illegal, unacceptable and strange to our culture. It doesn't have any positive aspects at all.

If homosexuality is promulgated and legitimised, that will be like having no future of society. There is no procreation between man and man or woman and woman. We condemn it very strongly."

On Monday he ordered the break-up of a gay rights workshop organised by the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project at a hotel just outside the capital, Kampala.

Police wearing riot gear sealed off the venue for several hours. About 15 activists from Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania were questioned and later released without charge.

Police spokesman Idi Senkumbi told Reuters: "They were questioned on what exactly they were up to and the assembly they were involved in."

Amnesty International condemned the raid. "This ludicrous and senseless harassment of human rights activists has no basis in law whatsoever and has to stop," said Michelle Kagari, its deputy director for Africa.

"The continued persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights activists by the Ugandan authorities is beginning to take on the sinister characteristics of a witch hunt."

Lokodo made a similar intervention in February when he stormed into a gay rights conference and tried to have one of the organisers arrested for insulting him.

Frank Mugisha, head of the NGO Sexual Minorities Uganda, said the minister's ban was part of a wider assault on civil society in Uganda. "The government is trying to use homosexuality to crack down on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly," he said. "If NGOs are closed down, they will not be able to support human rights.

"Simon Lokodo is very homophobic but it's coupled with politics. He's trying to gain popularity and make his name. The president should come out and distance himself from Lokodo."

Sexual Minorities Uganda would defy any ban, insisted Mugisha, winner of the Robert F Kennedy human rights award last year. "We are definitely continuing our operations and we will still hold conferences. We will continue to ask for the oppressive laws that are being used to intimidate us to be abolished.

"They have said they are going to pass the bill before October. That won't stop us. We shall continue to fight until all the legislation is cleared and we are free. Things are changing. It cannot be oppression forever."

Mohammad Ndifuna, the director of Human Rights Network Uganda, another of the organisations to be banned, told Reuters: "We know that they have been all kinds of threats coming towards the [NGO] sector for different reasons."

In May, Uganda threatened to de-register the British charity Oxfam over accusations it made of government involvement in violent land grabs in the country.



Uganda Anti-Gay Death penalty bill re-introduced

The Ugandan parliamentarian who first introduced an anti-gay bill that carried the death penalty for some homosexual acts reintroduced the bill on Tuesday, raising concerns among rights activists who have been fighting the legislation.

Parliamentarian David Bahati first introduced the bill in 2009 but it has never come before the full legislative body for a vote. Though widely supported in Uganda, the bill's progress apparently has been slowed by an international outcry against the bill, including condemnation from President Barack Obama.

Bahati has said that homosexuality poses a serious threat to family values and that his bill has helped raise public awareness about what he calls "the dangers to our children."

Scuffles at funeral for gay activist in Uganda
Uganda proposes death penalty for gays

Bahati told The Associated Press last year that he is willing to drop the death penalty provision if that is the recommendation of a parliament committee, though a current reading of the bill hasn't been made public.

European countries such as Sweden and Britain have threatened to cut aid to Uganda if the bill is passed.

Homosexuality, already illegal under Uganda's penal code, is highly stigmatized in Uganda. Opinion polls frequently show the bill's wide support among Ugandans. Lawmakers other than Bahati have sometimes spoken passionately about the need for such a law, and none have condemned it.

The bill has been championed by Pentecostal clerics, who warn that young Ugandans are at risk of being indoctrinated into gay lifestyles by gays visiting from the U.S. and Europe. Even pastors who oppose the draft law do so not because it is draconian or unnecessary, but rather because they believe the police would not be able to enforce it.

"I've rejected it because it does not address Uganda's homosexuality problem," said Solomon Male, a Pentecostal cleric who has been dragged to court for accusing another pastor of sodomy. "The system can't permit any good law to be enforced."

Male said that an existing law against homosexuality, inherited from the colonial days, had not been enforced.

"It is a big problem-homosexuals are in our schools, in our churches, everywhere, and we don't even know where to start," he said. "Sensitization is the best."

Bahati's original bill carried harsh provisions. The original bill would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. "Serial offenders" also could face capital punishment, but the legislation did not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act would face life imprisonment.

Anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality" would face seven years in prison. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to gays also could get seven years.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Guardian.co.uk, Politics Daily, Youtube, Google Maps

Prop 8 Ban Sponsors To Seek SCOTUS Ruling For Final Decision: Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Court Won’t Revisit Gay Marriage Case; May Go to Justices

The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Tuesday they plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a landmark appellate court ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional.

Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Proposition 8 backers "absolutely" would take the case to the high court now that it has run its course at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He did not know if the Proposition 8 defense team would take the entire 90 days they have to petition the Supreme Court.

The move follows a federal appeals court's refusal to revisit a decision by two of its member judges declaring the voter-approved ban to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians in California.

Backers of the ban petitioned the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February to review the decision instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gay marriage opponents said at the time they would go to the high court if the appeals court declined to rehear the case.

Same sex unions were briefly legal in California before voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008. Due to the ongoing legal wrangling, it's unlikely the practice will resume in the state anytime soon.

The 9th Circuit said Tuesday a majority of its 26 actively serving judges had voted not to revisit a three-judge panel's 2-1 decision declaring the voter-approved ban to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians in California.

The 9th Circuit does not often agree to rehear cases, a procedure known as en banc review. Federal court rules reserve the practice for appeals that involve "a question of exceptional importance" or if the original decision appears to conflict with Supreme Court or 9th Circuit precedents.

After voters approved Proposition 8, two unmarried couples sued to overturn the ban in May 2009, and their lawsuit gave rise the next year to the first federal trial to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ultimately sided with the couples.

The ban's sponsors appealed, and the split 9th Circuit panel affirmed Walker's finding that Proposition 8 violated those civil rights. But, instead of finding any gay marriage ban would be unconstitutional, the panel limited its decision to California, saying Proposition 8 improperly took away an existing right.

Several other high-profile same-sex cases also are making their way toward the high court. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared last week that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex couples unconstitutionally denies Social Security and other federal spousal benefits to married gay couples.



LGBT donors back President Obama, big time

After President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, a group organizing a fundraiser on his behalf suddenly had to find a bigger venue. The event, featuring the pop singer Pink, is one of two LGBT-organized fundraisers Obama is expected to attend on the West Coast on Wednesday.

A CNN analysis of President Obama's biggest fundraisers, known as bundlers, shows that at least 33 -- or about one in every 16 bundlers -- is openly gay. Together, they have raised at least $8 million for the campaign between January and the end of March.

By contrast, in the same period, bundlers from the television, movie and music industry, some of whom attended a recent high-profile fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney, raised $6.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

While campaign finance laws require donors to disclose their full names, addresses, occupations and employers, there is no box to check for sexual orientation.

Nor does the law require candidates to release information about their bundlers. Under prodding from watchdog groups, presidential campaigns have released bundler data in past elections.

Obama's campaign has released its list. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign has not.

In CNN's analysis, only bundlers who have disclosed their orientation in past CNN reporting or in trusted LGBT publications were counted as gay. The Washington Post has reported that as many as one in six bundlers supporting Obama are gay. The Advocate Magazine estimates one in five.

Glancing down the names on the bundlers list released by the Obama campaign for the first quarter, it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.

Tim Gill, a software entrepreneur who runs a large Colorado-based foundation that backs gay rights projects, has already contributed $672,800 with his partner Scott Miller to the Obama for America campaign. Fred Eychaner, who owns the Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., has donated $1,220,550 so far.

He co-hosted a $35,800-per-person LGBT organized fundraiser for Obama in February. Kathy Levinson, the former president and CEO of the Menlo Park, California-based Etrade, gave $202,150.

The LA Gay and Lesbian Center Women's Night named Levinson a "Community Role Model" in 2000. She was instrumental in raising money to stop the anti-same-sex marriage law in California.

Donations made after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage May 9 won't be released until mid-June, when the campaign files its second-quarter reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Many LGBT bundlers have maintained a close relationship with the president throughout his first term.

A state dinner in March was attended by bundlers Gill; Eychaner; Barry Karas, a former Human Rights Campaign board member; James (Wally) Brewster, senior vice president of General Growth Properties, a real estate investment trust that owns and operates shopping malls;

Dana Perlman, a corporate lawyer who has served as co-chair of the Obama/DNC LGBT Leadership Council; Joseph Falk, a Miami mortgage broker and others.

Support for Obama from the LGBT community was challenged after the initial excitement of his first campaign, largely because of what was perceived as his lukewarm support on same-sex marriage. Some say a low point came during the election in 2008, when evangelist pastor Rick Warren asked Obama how he defined marriage and he called it "a union between a man and a woman."

He added: "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." He further angered the community by picking Warren to deliver his invocation at the presidential inauguration.

Actor Alan Cumming wrote in 2010, "We keep hearing that Obama is an ally, that DADT [the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that kept LGBT people from openly serving in the military] will end under his watch, but what do we actually get? Diddly squat."

Dustin Lance Black, who won a best screenplay Oscar for "Milk," a movie biography of the gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk who was gunned down because of his sexual orientation, said last year that he had been an Obama supporter before but might sit out the upcoming election.

When President Obama finally signed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and "evolved" in his position on marriage by saying he was in favor of it for the LGBT community, both Black and Cumming did more than just say they supported the president. They donated money. They also encouraged others to do the same.

David Mixner, who started one of the first LGBT-themed PACs in the late 1970s, said the community has come a long way in being accepted in electoral politics. "We had some candidates who wouldn't take our money back then because they didn't want to be associated with anyone who was gay," Mixner said.

He said he believes that changed with the Clinton administration, which the PAC raised $4 million to support. "Now the community knows how to raise money and contribute on their own and we are more than welcome at the table."

The LGBT community is such an important part of this president's re-election effort that the Obama for America campaign hosts a special section for it on its website. It includes a video discussing the president's support for LGBT issues narrated by actress Jane Lynch, who is openly gay.

It also offers Obama merchandise like T-shirts and drink koozies to bring to Gay Pride events this summer.

The president has already attended several LGBT-organized fundraisers, including one in New York hosted by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, the Futuro Fund, and Obama for America LGBT Leadership Council.

Another event in Washington, hosted by Karen K. Dixon and her partner, Dr. Nan Schaffer, was rumored to have raised more than a million dollars for the campaign, although the Obama team won't comment on the record about fundraising.

Tickets for one of the California events were selling so well the campaign had to find a larger venue. There also is great interest in a Chicago fundraiser co-hosted by LGBT bundlers Brewster and Bob Satawake. The couple has already raised $288,663, according to the CNN analysis.

"I think there has always been a strong base of support from LGBT people for the president," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, whose incoming president Chad Griffin is a bundler.

"He earned even more respect from the community -- from repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' to signing the hate crimes law giving the first civil rights protection for us in federal law, to coming out against DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for federal purposes as unions exclusively between a man and a woman.

"Now, with his saying he believes in full marriage equality, we have another reason for people in our community to be generous with their time and money."

It is difficult to know if there are any openly gay bundlers for the Republicans, because Romney has not disclosed his bundler list.

The Republican candidate has, however, voiced his opposition to civil unions and supports a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

But some gay Republicans say Romney is not totally close minded on LGBT issues. "On gay issues, where Romney stands is not as black and white as it seems," said R.

Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans. "One thing he has been consistent on, as governor and as a candidate for president, is he has spoken in broad terms about ending discrimination in the workplace. He has said there is no room for it."

Cooper said the Log Cabin Republicans haven't decided yet if they will endorse Romney. That announcement will come sometime this fall. He does believe, though, that there are gay donors to Romney's campaign. They just might not be as outspoken.

"We joke that at Pride (festivals), the question we most often ask other Republicans we see there is, 'Are you out?' Meaning 'out' about your politics yet."


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, ABC, CNN, NY Times, PBS News, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Earmarked Tax Cut Deal Creates GOP Revolt! Pay To Play

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Revolt: Republicans Angry About Omnibus Spending Bill Decry 'Total Mess'

Republicans poring over a 1,924-page overarching spending bill proposed by Democrats to cover the rest of the fiscal year are threatening to grind the legislation to a halt, citing massive earmark spending, which, if passed, would be enacted into law without debate in the full Senate.

Two sources who spoke to Fox News are describing the legislation as "a total mess."

But the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said he believes the legislation must pass.

"The twelve bills included in this package fulfill the Congress' most basic responsibility, to exercise the power of the purse," he said in a statement. "This measure reflects a year's worth of work by members of both parties. Together, we have closely scrutinized the president's budget request, held hundreds of hearings, thousands of meetings, and asked literally tens of thousands of questions to each and every federal department and agency seeking justification for how taxpayer dollars are being spent."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded in a statement, saying that after neglecting to pass a budget, "today we learn Senate Democrats now want to sandwich them together, totaling almost 2,000 pages, and jam them through in the waning moments of this lame duck session before anyone can read them. This political end-around reveals just how quickly my colleagues across the aisle have already forgotten the voters' message in November."

Though none of the spending bills has passed the Senate, all the individual appropriations bills have been through the full committee process. In an afternoon release, the Appropriations Committee website listed all of the requested earmarks, winnowed into separate categories that go into making up the 12 separate annual spending bills.

In total, thousands of earmark requests are listed. The financial services earmark chart, for instance, lists 220 earmark requests from dozens of lawmakers, mostly in the House, each worth anywhere from $50,000 to $2.4 million. The largest sum was requested by Inouye and his Hawaii colleague Sen. Daniel Akaka for "Bank on USA" demonstration projects" in their state. The projects are designed to give underserved communities greater access to financial institutions.

Elsewhere, the Department of Defense earmark list, mostly requests by senators, is 29 pages long and individual requests more often are worth $2 million to $5 million each. In that list, Inouye's requests total more than $159 million, including $21 million for a Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Cornyn's defense spending earmarks total nearly $16 million.

The list was released after a Republican policy lunch that a source said was devolving into pandemonium.

"All hell is breaking loose," the source told Fox News, noting that Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina were expected to insist the omnibus bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held. They also were expected to seek debate on all earmarks and any amendments.

If the clerk follows the pace of last year's reading of the health care bill -- 53 pages an hour -- it will take almost 40 hours to read the omnibus bill.



A spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky responded that "all hell is not breaking loose just yet. But I'm sure there will be a robust conversation."

In a news conference, McConnell compared the omnibus bill to the health care legislation last year, calling it a big bill arriving amid cold weather and no one knowing exactly what's in it.

On top of Republican angst, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also is revolting against the Democratic-sponsored bill, saying she will not support an omnibus spending bill unless it includes an amendment proposed by McCaskill and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that calls for a three-year cap in discretionary spending. Democratic leaders told McCaskill on Monday that they would meet a one-year gap, which she rejected, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

But sources said Inouye was confident he had the votes needed to get the legislation passed and sent to the House.

The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1-Sept. 30. Currently, a continuing resolution, the stopgap measure to keep government operational until a budget is passed, is set to expire on Saturday. If another CR or the bill itself isn't passed and signed into law by President Obama by then, the government will shut down.

On the House side, Republican leader John Boehner is apparently warning that if the Senate sends over the bill as it is, "We will work to kill it." House Democrats had hoped to file a year-long CR at the previous year's rates.

Opponents of the package are finding support among conservative groups who describe the legislation as a Democratic attempt to lock in 2010's $3.5 trillion budget for the next year without allowing any spending cuts.

"Despite the dire fiscal crisis the nation faces, with a $13.8 trillion national debt that cannot be paid, and in spite of the American people who are demanding action to cut spending, Congress is busy voting to kick the can for yet another year. A vote for the continuing resolution is a vote for another trillion dollar-plus deficit, and that is simply unacceptable to all Americans. Any politician in Congress that has ever promised to reduce the deficit should vote 'no' on this continuing resolution," Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said in a statement Tuesday.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Earmarks Used To Lure Support For Tax-Cut Bill


In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers.

There are ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs, wind and solar grants for the environmentalists - all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats.

The holiday additions are being hung on the big bill that was Congress' main reason for spending December in Washington, long after the elections that will give Republicans new power in January. The measure will extend Bush-era tax cuts, averting big tax increases for nearly all Americans, and keep jobless benefits flowing.

Republicans generally liked that agreement, worked out by Obama and GOP leaders. Democrats generally didn't, hence the add-ons.

It's expected to come to a decisive vote next week, at a total cost by the latest congressional estimate of $857.8 billion.

Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.

For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year.

Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.

The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax-incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.

While the add-ons may have won more votes for the Obama-GOP deal in the Senate, their potential impact is less clear in the House, where Democrats have criticized the package as a tax giveaway to the rich.

There's the possibility the added goodies will have opposite the intended effect for some lawmakers. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said the add-ons could turn his fiscally conservative colleagues against the bill.

"You don't want to be accused out there of supporting stimulus three," he said. "It will knock some votes off in the House, but more than anything, it will show the voters out there that things haven't changed with Republicans."







CBO Score Shows Tax Plan Ups Deficit $900 Billion In 5 Years


The Congressional Budget Office released its score Friday on the tax plan hammered out between Republicans and President Barack Obama, showing a $893 billion hit on the deficit over the next five years.

The bulk of the deficit increase comes from loss of revenue -- $756 billion -- with the rest coming from additional direct outlays.

The 13-month extension of unemployment benefits adds less than $57 billion to the deficit.

The highest price item is the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which will add more than $400 billion to the deficit, followed by the payroll tax holiday at about $225 billion.

Earlier, Obama enlisted former President Bill Clinton to help sell a compromise tax package negotiated with Republicans to reluctant Democrats.

After meeting with Clinton at the White House, Obama brought him to the briefing room to tout the proposal to reporters, even backing off after a brief introduction to let Clinton do the talking and take questions.

"I personally think this is a good deal, and the best we can get," Clinton said, arguing that the combination of payroll tax cuts, unemployment insurance benefits and various tax credits would help the economy grow.

Acknowledging that the Republican insistence on extending tax cuts to the wealthy would help him personally, Clinton said the compromise meant that both sides had to accept provisions they disliked.

"There's never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan," Clinton said. "I believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country."

It was the latest salvo by the Obama administration in a battle for public and political support for the plan that combines extended tax cuts from the Bush era with extended unemployment benefits, tax breaks and the payroll tax holiday intended to bolster a sluggish recovery from economic recession.

House Democrats declared Thursday they opposed the package because it would extend the lower Bush-era tax rates for millionaires. They support the stance Obama has championed for years -- extending the current lower tax rates only for those earning up to $200,000 a year, or families earning $250,000, while letting rates for higher incomes return to 1990s levels.

However, Senate Republicans have refused to accept any difference in tax treatment for the wealthy, demanding that all current rates be extended. With the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, and Republicans able to block any legislation in the Senate, Obama and Democrats face a fast-approaching deadline to reach a deal or see tax bills increase for everyone.

Earlier Friday, Obama told National Public Radio that the tax and benefits package would gain congressional approval because "nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to see people's paychecks smaller on January 1 because Congress didn't act," Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio.

"And I think that the framework that we've put forward, which says not only that people's taxes don't go up on January 1, but also that we extend unemployment insurance for a year, that we make sure that key provisions like the college tax credit, the child tax credit, the earned-income tax credit are included -- that that framework is going to serve as the basis for compromise," Obama said.

The debate over taxes in the waning days of a lame-duck session of Congress illustrated the mistrust and animosity that has built up in the deeply partisan environment on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told CNN Friday that the tax plan will need Republican support to pass so that voters in 2012 will know it was not Democrats who approved the measure's projected $857 billion cost.

Obama will have to "get more Republicans than Democrats to make it go through," Ackerman said.

So far, Republicans "haven't said that they're all going to vote for it. They haven't said how many votes they're going to provide," Ackerman said. "This is on our (Democrats') watch. Then they're going to attack us in the next election for increasing the deficit when most of them are going to vote against it. ... Why should the Democrats get all the blame? The Republicans are very good at this. ... They get the credit for everything we do. We get the blame for everything they did that went bad."

Also Friday, conservatives Republicans questioned the tax and benefit package, warning it went against the campaign mantra from November of holding down the deficit.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, told CNN that the package would increase the deficit, adding that "investors are reacting to the increases in the deficit and so we're concerned about that. We want to get on a sound financial footing."

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, vowed earlier this week to filibuster the tax and benefit package to prevent a vote on the Senate floor. He noted that those who ran from the right in the election had said they would oppose anything that increased the deficit.

The Senate will consider the tax package first. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, released the first version of legislation to implement the negotiated deal and said the first vote on it, a procedural one to open debate, would occur Monday.

The Senate version made public by Reid was largely the same as the deal announced by Obama, but it added a one-year extension of a program that provides cash grants in lieu of a tax credit for construction of new solar and wind energy projects. The Treasury Grant Program was part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that the additional clean energy provision added $3 billion to the cost of the package. Meanwhile, a letter to House Democratic leaders signed by at least 79 Democratic members called for the provision to be extended for two years.

The negotiated package includes a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, as well as 13 months of unemployment benefits and a cut of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax. In addition, the plan extends current tax breaks for students and lower-income Americans, and adjusts the estate tax in a way that Democrats believe benefits the wealthy.

However, Bachmann and other conservatives complained that the compromise resurrects the estate tax, which had expired for 2010 but was set to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55%, with inheritances under $1 million exempted. A bill that passed in the House set the tax rate at 45% and exempted inheritances under $3.5 million, while the provision in the tax deal would exempt estates up to $5 million and set the tax rate at 35%.

To Obama, the bottom line is that legislators from both parties will prevent a tax increase on January 1 by accepting the main components of the negotiated package, including the extension of unemployment benefits.

"At the end of the day, people are going to conclude we don't want 2 million people suddenly without unemployment insurance and not able to pay their rent, not able to pay their mortgage, not able to pay their house note," Obama said, adding that the package also will bolster the so-far sluggish recovery from a recession that has unemployment still near 10%.

"I think that people are also going to understand that the single most important thing we can do for all of our constituencies is to make sure that the recovery that is taking place right now gets stronger," he said, adding that economists have noted the negotiated package would increase growth and could mean more jobs, a development that "has got to be the highest priority for everybody."

He called for legislators "to act responsibly and to think not in terms of abstract political fights here ... on Capitol Hill, but to think about those families that, in the middle of the holiday season, are trying to figure out -- are they still going to have unemployment benefits at the end of this month?"

"I'm confident that we're going to be able to get this resolved by the end of the month," Obama said.

Thursday's vote by the House Democratic caucus was a defiant rejection of both the agreement on tax and benefit measures, as well as what many Democrats in the chamber perceived as being marginalized in the talks by the White House.

"This message today is very simple. That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who represented House Democrats in the negotiations. He pledged to "work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs."

During their meeting, caucus members chanted "Just say no," according to two Democrats in attendance, and Rep. Laura Richardson of California later asked reporters outside the room: "Did you hear us saying 'Just say no'?"

Overall, Republicans generally appear supportive of the package, which White House advisers noted gave them their two main priorities -- an extension of the lower tax rates from the Bush era to everyone, including the wealthiest Americans, and setting a lower-than-expected estate tax rate only on inheritances of more than $5 million.

Both provisions angered liberal Democrats, who oppose extending the lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 to the wealthy. Some said Obama should have forced a showdown with Republicans over the tax cut extensions by holding out longer to force more GOP concessions.

However, Obama and White House aides said the deal reached in negotiations was the best they would get from unyielding Republicans, who will take control of the House and enjoy a stronger minority stake in the Senate when the next session of Congress begins in early January.

Gibbs told reporters Thursday that he expected Congress to pass a package this year because the alternative was higher taxes for everyone after December 31.

"At the end of the day, members are not going to want to be in their districts, senators are not going to want to be in their districts, when their constituents find out their taxes have gone up by several thousands of dollars," Gibbs said, noting that the deal is a compromise with elements unpalatable to both sides. "If everybody took out what they didn't like, we'd have nothing. And we know the consequences of doing nothing."

A top Democratic adviser to the White House added that Senate Democrats "have several vehicles they can use" as the legislative base for the tax plan, and are working on a plan to pass a tax bill and "then jam the House" with that legislation.

Some House Democrats say they will support the tax package as a compromise made under tough circumstances.

"If it passes the Senate and this is the compromise the president of the United States has committed to, what are we going do in the House, hold this up?" said Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.





Will Congress Find Funds For Obamacare & Lots of Pork Under the Tree This Christmas?


Last Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans the lump of coal known as Obamacare. This year, they may take even more of our money to fund it and also force us to buy a pork-barrel full of thousands of earmarks. In a 212-206 vote, House Democrats pushed through a flawed continuing resolution yesterday that funds Obamacare and extends overall funding for the next year at reckless 2010 levels.

As Sen. Tom Coburn has pointed out, the House-passed bill contains significant Obamacare funding, which is why Coburn called the bill a “Trojan Horse to Fund New Health Law.”

Now the focus shifts to the Senate, where efforts are underway to amend the House-passed version—and not for the better.

Senate Democrats will offer an amendment to make it even worse with a full-blown omnibus appropriations bill packed with pork-barrel earmarks, spending increases, and even more funding for every top Obama administration priority. And unfortunately, some Senate Republicans may be poised to help the Democrats pass it.

Rumors are swirling that despite the fact Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell pulled the plug on official Republican support for the omnibus, a small group of rogue Republican appropriators are playing ball, planning to vote for the massive bloated spending bill in exchange for a parting Christmas gift of pork-barrel goodies for their states.

The most likely to play ball are three retiring appropriators: Kit Bond of Missouri, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Robert Bennett of Utah who will never face voters again. Plus, there's also the highest-ranking Republican appropriator: Thad Cochran of Mississippi.

We don’t know which earmarks made it into the omnibus yet but we do know that Kit Bond requested 142 earmarks this year totaling over $600 million. George Voinovich requested 172 earmarks totaling over $460 million, Robert Bennett requested 321 earmarks topping $1.3 billion, and Thad Cochran requested a whopping 712 earmarks totaling over $2.4 billion.

Other Republican senators worth worrying about identified themselves last week when they voted against the Coburn-McCaskill amendment to ban earmarks: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Dick Lugar (R-Ind..), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

These nine Republicans must be urged to abide by the wishes of the American people and to learn the same lesson Mitch McConnell, himself an appropriator, made clear in his wonderful Senate floor speech embracing the earmark moratorium:

“Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.”

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, some Republicans may vote for the Democrats’ pork-packed, Obamacare-funding omnibus monstrosity.

That’s why pressuring Democrats is critical, starting with the ones who voted in favor of the Coburn-McCaskill earmark ban.

Claire McCaskill herself is the most likely Democrat to oppose the omnibus. Unlike her pork-loving Republican colleague Kit Bond, McCaskill has requested no earmarks this year and has long been a proponent of reform. This vote will test whether, when the rubber hits the road, she is really willing to vote to stop a rolling pork-barrel.

The other Democrats who voted with Coburn include Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), neither of whom requested any earmarks this year, along with Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.). They will be put to the test of whether their earmark reform was sincere when they have the opportunity to stop the omnibus.

Moreover, all senators need to be forcefully reminded that this will be the first vote on funding Obamacare, a signature issue that will loom large in the 2012 election.

The bottom line is that this Congress had all year to do its job and pass legislation to fund the government before the November midterm elections. They failed. They should not now be rewarded with a massive omnibus spending bill on their way out the door.

Sen. Coburn got it exactly right when he said: “It’s time for Congress to extend current tax rates, pass a clean spending bill – a ‘continuing resolution’ -- without extraneous and vague health care provisions, and go home.”


View Larger Map


Sources: AZ Central, CBO, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Zimbio, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps