This is absolutely hilarious. Fag prank phone call to a guy’s girlfriend.
Your 2011 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover Model and our current “Bad Hot” of the day is Russia’s own Irina Shayk. Check out this beauty below and don’t forget her video and multiple other sexy pictures.
Continuing with one of our original series with the blog, we introduce you to a first hand account of interations between young Barack Obama and John Drew. Dr. Drew recounts his meeting young Obama at Occidental College and subsequent interactions with him. This is a very good read, even though it is quite lengthy.
My first meeting with young Barack Obama raised strong feelings and left me with a positive first impression. At the time, I felt I’d persuaded a young man anticipating a Marxist-Leninist revolution to appreciate the more practical alternative of conventional politics as a channel for his socialist views.
I met Obama in December of 1980, a couple of days after Christmas, in Portola Valley — a small town near Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. I was a 23 year old second-year graduate student in Cornell’s Government Department, and had flown to California to visit a 21 year old girlfriend, Caroline Boss. Boss was a senior at Occidental College, where she had taken a class in the fall of 1980 with political theorist Roger Boesche. She met and befriended Obama in that class.
I had been an angry Marxist revolutionary during my undergraduate career at Occidental College. During my hyperactive sophomore year, in the fall of 1976, I founded the Marxist-Socialist group on campus and named it the Political Awareness Fellowship. As I recall, I developed this innocuous sounding name because there were so few students on campus as radical as I, and I was fearful of turning off moderate students who might be willing to learn more about Marxist theory.
On my watch, our group grew to a dozen student activists and managed to attract crowds of 80 or more to our events. The most successful of these was a campaign to raise awareness of the plight of homosexuals who were beaten by Los Angeles City police officers along the Hollywood strip. I promoted this event with a large banner in the Occidental College quad reading: Anita Byrant: Hitler in Drag? During my junior year, I left Occidental College with the mission to study Marxist economics at England’s University of Sussex in the fall of 1977.
By the time I returned to Occidental in the fall of 1978 for my senior year, the Political Awareness Fellowship had morphed into something much bigger, an organization with strong leadership, its own office space and a new name. The group’s president was Gary Chapman, an older student who had served as a Green Beret in Viet Nam. Chapman was a colorful figure who shared stories from his military career including how he was required to take apart and reassemble his rifle in the dark. Under Chapman’s leadership, the group had changed its name to the Democratic Socialist Alliance (DSA). As I recall, he told me “the old name wasn’t letting people know what we stood for.” I agreed. The DSA met weekly and brought in speakers about once a month. Events were advertised by big signs in the campus quad. During my time at Occidental, the group searched for ways to embarrass the administration, help students to see the evil of the U.S. capitalist system, and mobilize people in preparation for the coming revolution.
In the spring of 1979, Chapman and I joined forces with other students on campus to found an anti-apartheid coalition, called The Student Committee Against Apartheid, which included the leadership of the DSA as well as several other groups. Although the coalition included liberals as well as radicals, I think it is fair to say the most significant intellectual and organizational leadership came from students in the DSA. One of the ironies of our effort is that the white students took the lead in organizing these protests while African-American students seemed strangely passive and uninvolved in fighting the South African regime.
My romance with Boss began in the spring of 1979. Boss had joined the DSA and participated in the anti-apartheid events I helped organize that year. Like me, she was a committed Marxist, preparing for the approaching revolution. That year, I completed my senior honors thesis on Marxist economics. Boss and I danced together after I accepted my Occidental degree in June of 1979 wearing the red armband that signified my solidarity with my Marxist brethren around the world and my commitment to the anti-apartheid movement.
My relationship with Boss continued through the summer of 1979 and the academic year 1979-1980. She spent the summer of 1980 with me at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. When Boss returned to Occidental in the fall of 1980 for her senior year, she enrolled in Professor Roger Boesche’s European Political Thought class. It was there that she met Barack Obama who was starting his sophomore year.
When I first saw Obama, I remember I was standing on the porch of Boss’s parents’ impressive home as a sleek, expensive luxury car pulled up the driveway. Two young men emerged from the vehicle. They were well-dressed and looked like they were born to wealth and privilege. I was a little surprised to learn they were Boss’s friends from Occidental College until she articulated the underlying0 political connection. “They’re on our side,” she said.
The taller of the two was Obama, then only 19, who towered over his five-foot-five companion, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo – a wealthy, 21 year old Pakistani student. Chandoo had a full dark black, neatly trimmed moustache, and was dressed in expensive clothes. Nevertheless, Obama was the more handsome of the two. At six foot two, Obama carried himself with the dignity and poise of a model. The diminutive Chandoo, in contrast, came across as more of a practical, businessman type. Obama displayed a visible deference to Chandoo when they were standing together at the vehicle.
Chandoo was vaguely familiar to me as a participant in the earlier anti-apartheid rallies on the Occidental College campus. In David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, Chandoo’s bona fides as a committed Marxist were well-known to those close to him. Chandoo’s girlfriend at the time, Margot Mifflin, told Remnick that “[I]n college, Hasan was a socialist, a Marxist, which is funny since he is from a wealthy family.” (See, Remnick, David, The Bridge, Alfred A, Knopf, 2010, page 104.) Young Obama, on the other hand, was completely new to me.
“This is Barack Obama,” Boss said.
Since I was not much taller than Chandoo, I remember I looked up at Obama as we shook hands. I was completely mystified by the pronunciation of his name. He did not put up a fight over it, however.
“You can call me Barry,” Obama said.
During the introduction, Boss and Chandoo were eager to let me know that Obama was a graduate of the prestigious Punahou Academy, an elite prep school in Honolulu. I vividly remember that Chandoo was intensely proud of Obama’s ties to Punahou. This prestige, however, was wasted on me. I had never heard of the school and did not have a clue about what it meant to be one of its graduates. Obama seemed embarrassed by the fuss. Boss, I remember, wanted to make sure I understood that young Obama was not merely an attractive socialite dabbling in Marxist theory. “You’ve worked with us,” she observed. “You’ve been at our DSA meetings. You’ve been active in the anti-apartheid movement.”
After a while, all six of us — the four students and Boss’ adoptive parents — drove in two cars to a local restaurant. The owner knew Boss’s father. The food was delicious, the setting spectacularly “California casual,” with tall redwood trees all around. At the restaurant, we six continued our talk. Chandoo was quiet, less forceful, and deferential to Obama. Obama was polite to Boss’s parents, calm, and distinguished in his manner. Mr. Boss disapproved of his daughter’s radical perspective and could barely disguise his contempt for me.
Despite the recent election of Ronald Reagan, the focus of our discussion was on El Salvador and Latin America. I remember I was especially angry about what was happening in El Salvador, particularly the recent rape and murder of four American nuns and a laywoman. We also discussed the recent assassination of John Lennon in New York City. After lunch, the entourage returned to the Boss’s home in Portola Valley. Mr. Boss, a gruff Swiss-born businessman, was an aficionado of luxury cars who took pride in his successes in the greeting card and display case businesses.
“That’s an impressive car. Which one of you is the owner?” he asked.
“It’s mine,” said Chandoo, graciously adding: “Would you like to see it?”
While Chandoo and Mr. Boss gave Chandoo’s luxury car a once over, the rest of us engaged in small talk until Chandoo returned. Chandoo beamed smugly, having impressed Boss’s father with his expensive car. Inside the house, Mrs. Boss prepared snacks for everyone. All four of the students lit up after-dinner cigarettes in the dining room of the Boss’s home. Caroline Boss sat at the head of the table to my left. Obama sat directly across from me. Chandoo sat on the other side of the table on Obama’s left. Naturally, our conversation gravitated towards the coming revolution. I expected that my undergraduate friends would be interested in hearing my latest take on contemporary Marxist thought. I was in for quite a bit of a shock.
My graduate studies that fall had tempered my earlier Marxism with a more realistic perspective. I thought a revolution was not in the cards anymore. There was no inevitability, in my mind, to the old idea that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the ruling classes. Now, the idea that we could entirely eliminate the profit motive from an advanced industrialized economy seemed like a childhood fantasy. The future, I now thought, would belong to nations with mixed economic systems — like those in Europe — where there was government planning of the economy combined with a greater effort to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth. It made more sense to me to focus on elections rather than on preparing for a coming revolution.
Boss and Obama, however, had a starkly different view. They believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….” In my mind, I remember thinking that Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory that had characterized my own views while I was an undergraduate at Occidental College. “There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.
I know this may be implausible to some readers, but I distinctly remember Obama surprising me by bringing up Frantz Fanon and colonialism. He impressed me with his knowledge of these two topics, topics which were not among my strong points — or of overwhelming concern to me. Boss and Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism. While I felt I was doing them a favor by providing them with the latest research, I saw I was in danger of being cast as a reactionary who did not grasp the nuances of international Marxist theory.
Chandoo let Boss and Obama take the crux of the argument to me. Chandoo, in fact, seemed chagrined by the level of disagreement in the group. I cannot remember him making any significant comments during this discussion.
Drawing on the history of Western Europe, I responded it was unrealistic to think the working class would ever overthrow the capitalist system. As I recall, Obama reacted negatively to my critique, saying: “That’s crazy!”
Since Boss and Obama had injected theory into our debate, I reacted by going historical. As best I can recreate the argument, I responded by critiquing their perspective with the fresh insight I had gained from my recent reading of Barrington Moore’s book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). Moore had argued that a Russian or Chinese style revolution — leading to communism — was only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.
Since I was a Marxist myself at the time, and had studied variations in Marxist theory, I can state that everything I heard Obama argue that evening was consistent with Marxist philosophy, including the ideas that class struggle was leading to an inevitable revolution and that an elite group of revolutionaries was needed to lead the effort. If he had not been a true Marxist-Leninist, I would have noticed and remembered. I can still, with some degree of ideological precision, identify which students at Occidental College were radicals and which ones were not. I can do the same thing for the Occidental College professors at that time.
By the time the debate came to an end, Obama — although not Boss — was making peace, agreeing with the facts I had laid out, and demonstrating an apparent agreement with my more realistic perspective. I have a vivid memory of Obama surrendering to my argument including signaling to the somewhat bewildered Chandoo — through his voice and body language — that the argument had concluded and had been decided in my favor. Around 9 p.m., Chandoo and Obama left for another appointment, either in Palo Alto or San Francisco. In retrospect, Obama had proved to me that he was indeed, as Boss had promised, “on our side.”
Long before I realized Obama had grown into a spectacular political career, I have treasured this particular memory as an early example of my own intellectual growth and an early sign of my modest promise as a teacher. At the time, I had the impression that I might have been one of the first to directly challenge Obama’s Marxist-Leninist mind-set and to introduce him to a more practical view that saw politics, rather than revolution, as the preferred route to socialism. Had I really persuaded him, or was he just making nice to smooth things over with a new friend? I’d like to think it was the former.
Whatever progress I made with Obama that evening, the price of our debate was a greater ideological wedge between me and Boss and a further decline in our rocky relationship. Our relationship would officially end in February and then flicker out completely by June 1981 — much to the satisfaction of Boss’s father.
I remember that Obama was friendly to me on at least three other occasions over the next several months. For example, Boss and I visited the apartment he shared with Chandoo. I spoke with him again on campus in the student union. I saw him on campus in The Cooler — the school’s coffee and sandwich shop. I also spoke with him at large party in June 1981. I certainly considered him a friend, a confidant and a political ally in the larger struggle against poverty and oppressive social systems.
Whatever impact our encounter might have had on him, I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism. Knowing this, I think I have a responsibility to place on the public record my account of this incident from our president’s past.
Most of Libya is out of control of the government, and Muammar Gaddafi’s grip on power may soon be confined only to the capital, Tripoli, Libya’s former interior minister has said.
General Abdul Fatteh Younis told Al Jazeera on Saturday that he had called upon Gaddafi to end his resistance to the uprising, although he does not expect him to do so.
The embattled Libyan regime passed out guns to civilian supporters, set up checkpoints and sent out armed patrols, witnesses said in Tripoli.
Some of Libya’s security forces reportedly have given up the fight. Footage believed to be filmed on Friday showed soldiers joining the protesters.
The footage showed demonstrators carrying them on their shoulders in the city of Az Zawiyah after having defected — a scene activists said is being repeated across the country.
Al Jazeera, however, is unable to independently verify the content of the video, which was obtained via social networking websites.
Our correspondent in Libya reported on Friday that army commanders in the east who had defected had told her that military commanders in the country’s west were also beginning to turn against Gaddafi.
They warned, however, that the Khamis Brigade, an army special forces brigade that is loyal to the Gaddafi family and is equipped with sophisticated weapons, is currently still fighting anti-government forces.
Our correspondent, who cannot be named for security reasons, said that despite the gains, people are anxious about what Gaddafi might do next and also because his loyalists were still at large.
Mustafa Mohamed Abud Ajleil, Libya’s former justice minister, has led the formation of an interim government based in the eastern city of Benghazi, the online edition of the Quryna newspaper reported on Saturday.
Quryna quoted him as saying that Muammar Gaddafi “alone” bore responsibility “for the crimes that have occurred” in Libya and that his tribe, Gaddadfa, were forgiven.
“Abud Ajleil insisted on the unity of the homeland’s territory, and that Libya is free and its capital is Tripoli,” Quryna quoted him as saying in a telephone conversation.
Abu Yousef, a resident from the town of Tajoura, told Al Jazeera that live ammunition was being used against anti-government protesters.
“Security forces are also searching houses in the area and killing those who they accuse of being against the government,” he said.
Anti-government protesters have attacked black Africans in Libya, mistaking them for mercenaries.
“The situation is very dangerous. Every day there are more than a hundred who die, every day there are shootings. The most dangerous situation is for foreigners like us and also us black people. Because Gaddafi brought soldiers from Chad from Niger. They are black and tey are killing Arabs,” Seidou Boubaker Jallou told Al Jazeera.
Jallou and his friend, both from Mali, fled by night to the Tunisian border. They said the roads out of the West are still in the hands of those loyal to Gaddafi.
Zawiya, a town 120 km from the Tunisian border, is now in the hands of the people. Egyptians who arrived at the border described a bloody massacre on Thursday which left many dead.
“I was in Zawiya’s martyrs square. There was a group of army men in the square who attacked the protesters. It was a very fierce confrontation. They were shooting using heavy weaponry. There were at least 15 to 20 dead and I had footage of what happened but the Libyan authorities on the Tunisian border took even my phone. Gaddafi wants to commit a crime with the absence of any media,” Ahmed, an Egyptian, told Al Jazeera’s Nazanine Moshiri.
Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, the Libyan leader’s son, said people in “three-quarters of the country are living in peace”.
In an interview on Al-Arabiya television, Seif said that the protesters are being manipulated and that the situation had “opened the doors to a civil war”.
He denied that African mercenaries had been recruited to attack the protesters in a crackdown that the United Nations say has killed at least 1,000 people.
“Show us the mercenaries, show us the women and children who were killed,” he said. “These reports about mercenaries are lies.” The protests were being led by “small groups, armed groups,” according to Seif al-Islam.
“Those provoking these people are terrorists,” he added, echoing his father who in a televised address last week blamed al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for manipulating the country’s youth with drugs.
The eastern region of the oil-rich North African nation is now believed to be largely free of Gaddafi control since the popular uprising began on February 14 with protests in the city of Benghazi.
Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from the town of Al-Baida in eastern Libya, said that while many parts of the country’s east is no longer government controlled, local residents do not want to separate from the rest of Libya.
“They still want a united Libya, and want Tripoli to remain its capital,” she said.
Our correspondent added that many in the country’s east have felt abandoned by the Gaddafi government, despite the vast oil wealth located in the region.
The crackdown has sparked international condemnation. The United States said it was moving ahead with sanctions against the regime.
Barack Obama, the US president, issued an executive order, seizing assets and blocking any property in the United States belonging to Gaddafi or his four sons.
The European Union also agreed to impose an arms embargo, asset freezes and travel bans on Libya.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said on Friday that decisive action by the Security Council against the crackdown must be taken, warning that any delay would add to the growing death toll which he said now came to over 1,000.
The official death toll in the violence remains unclear. Francois Zimeray, France’s top human rights official, has said that it could be as high as 2,000.
Ban’s call, as well as an emotional speech by the Libyan ambassador to the United Nations, prompted the council to order a special meeting on Saturday to consider a sanctions resolution against Gaddafi.
Don’t look now, but Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees is taking advantage of a tax loophole that will allow him to only pay 4 cents a day for his 6 million dollar suite.
They were crying foul Friday about a sweetheart tax loophole that will enable Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez to live in his new $6 million luxury West Side penthouse and pay virtually no real estate taxes.
The cost of a 28th row ticket for the Yankees 2011 home opener is $1,211.
The cost of an A-Rod autographed bat is $700.
The value of the Yankee third baseman’s special real estate tax break is just about priceless. He’s paying the bargain basement price of less than 4 cents a day.
“It’s really obscene, but not only that people who live in these buildings pay full taxes and they keep going up and up and up,” Batya Lewton, president of the Coalition for a Livable West Side, told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.
Rodriguez and all the residents of his posh high rise will get tax breaks for 10 years under the city’s 421A tax abatement program. Luxury developers get tax breaks in exchange for making sure affordable units get built elsewhere. Rodriguez is one of some 45,000 New Yorkers who have scored the tax break.
“I think it’s outrageous,” Lewton said.
When Rodriguez’s moves into his $6 million, five-bedroom penthouse his tax bill will be $1,150. In contrast, Stephen and Phyllis Franciosa pay $3,100 in taxes one their one-family home in the Pelham Bay section of the Bronx.
“Going up again up, up, up,” Stephen said. “We got to make sure we don’t start chasing people from the city because it just gets too expensive.”
“Everything’s going up,” Phyllis added.
“I think my constituents feel a sense of outrage,” NYC Councilman James Vacca said.
“To find that someone rich like this is paying so little, it just goes to our core our feeling that this is not right.
This has got to be addressed.”
The councilman said the law needs to be changed because this year alone the program will cost the city $900 million in lost revenue.
A-Rod’s taxes are so low that if he paid the going rate his tax bill would be 50 times higher. He should get such a break when he faces the Red Sox pitching staff.
City officials claim the tax breaks on Rodriguez’ building helped build over 575 units of affordable housing in the Bronx.
More turmoil in the Middle East. All the king’s and quasi dictators are having their days of reckoning. Bahrain’s king reshuffled his cabinet on Saturday, under pressure as an exiled opposition leader returned and thousands of protesters marched in Manama to demand the Sunni rulers stand down.
“His Majesty King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa today formally swore in new ministers covering five cabinet portfolios,” the government said in a statement without elaborating.
The move came on the 13th day of protests calling for reforms in the country, as opposition leader Hassan
Mashaima returned home to Bahrain from self-imposed exile in Britain.
“The time has come for true unity and our priority today is for the opposition to sit down with the protesters at Pearl Square and clearly set our demands,” Mashaima told reporters at his home.
The Shiite leader was among 25 men charged in October with forming an illegal organisation, engaging in and financing terrorism and spreading false and misleading information.
Mashaima was in Britain for medical treatment when the charges were pressed last year. He had remained there until the group was granted royal pardon this week.
Lebanese authorities had arrested Mashaima on Tuesday because of an outstanding Interpol warrant against him. He was freed on Friday after confirmation of his pardon.
King Hamad’s pardon came amid daily protests mainly by Bahrain’s majority Shiite community, which complains of discrimination and is pushing for power to be transferred from the Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty to an elected government.
Pearl Square, which has become the epicentre of anti-regime demonstrations, has been transformed into a makeshift camp where protesters have kept daily vigil in hundreds of tents.
Thousands of protesters massed there on Saturday and then marched out along a major highway chanting “leave Hamad, leave Hamad,” blocking traffic.
They marched up to the the walled compound where the foreign ministry is located, stopping outside the building to chant “Down, down Hamad!”
Then the massive, flag-waving crowd proceeded up the street, which is flanked by towering buildings housing banks, to the cries of “the people want to topple the regime!”
The demonstration eventually wound its way back to Pearl Square, ending where it began.
Official opposition groups have stopped short of demanding outright regime change, instead calling for major reforms, including an elected prime minister and the creation of a “real” constitutional monarchy.
Seven people have been killed by security forces since the beginning of the protests against the al-Khalifa dynasty, which has ruled for some 200 years.
Opposition MPs said on Saturday they were still awaiting details on a proposed dialogue with the government before agreeing to the talks, which the king has charged Crown Prince Salman with opening.
“Until now the government did not give any (specific) initiative for political reform,” said Mattar Mattar, one of 18 Shiite MPs who withdrew from parliament in protest at the killings last week.
“Our target was declared very clearly: we want an elected government, and we want the people to write their constitution themselves through an elected council,” Mattar, a member of the Al-Wefaq opposition bloc, told AFP.
Ali al-Aswad, another Al-Wefaq MP, added that, “One of the most important preconditions… is that the government needs to resign first.”
However, Saturday’s cabinet reshuffle fell far short of that demand, and many of the appointees had held other cabinet posts.
Majid al-Alwi, formerly labour minister, was appointed to the housing portfolio, while Abdul Hussein Mirza, who was oil and gas minister, was appointed minister of energy, the statement said.
Nizar al-Baharna, the former minister of state for foreign affairs, was appointed minister of health, and Jamil Humaidan, who was undersecretary in the ministry of labour, was appointed minister.
And Kamal bin Ahmed Mohammed, who was the chief operations officer of the Bahrain Development board, was named minister of cabinet affairs.
According to Citigroup’s chief economist Willem Buiter, the US will drop from the largest to the third largest economy by 2050.
“We expect strong growth in the world economy until 2050, with average real GDP growth rates of 4.6 percent per annum until 2030 and 3.8 percent per annum between 2030 and 2050,” Buiter wrote in a market research.
“As a result, world GDP should rise in real PPP-adjusted terms from $72 trillion in 2010 to $380 trillion dollars in 2050,” he wrote.
As the world watches oil prices rise sharply amid unrest in the Middle East, Buiter’s analysis of the world’s long-term prospects offer some hope that better times are ahead but if he is right power will shift from the West to the East very quickly.
“China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020, then be overtaken by India by 2050,” he predicted.
As countries become more democratic and capitalistic, they will only grow larger while our own country seems to be heading toward a more socialistic fate with rising taxes and more governmental regulations.
With the world becoming more global, look for entrepreneurs to seek places outside of less friendly business environments, like the US is becoming, and tend to move towards more developing freer countries.
For those of you who consider Obama to be a smart man, maybe you should read up on constitutional authority, specifically what powers the president is afforded and what powers the congress has. In the news today of his administration pulling legal support of a federal law, he is saying the law is unconstitutional and not worth defending anymore.
The president must think he is Hugo Chavez to pull something like this. This president needs to read the constitution because he obviously hasn’t a clue about what is in it.
The president is not the lawmaker!!!
The congress makes the laws and the president has the authority to pass or veto them.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say the president has the right to decide which laws he feels are constitutional or not and then decide which ones will be defended by his attorney general.
Maybe Obama needs to appoint himself over all 3 branches of government. Why do we even need the other two if he is going to usurp their powers and do whatever he wants to anyway. The audacity of this man is beyond belief.
Regardless of where you come down on this issue is not the point. The point is Obama is playing dictator and it is time for him to stop trampling on the constitution.
Mr. Obama, stop acting like a dictator and start abiding by the constitutional.
The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it has pulled its legal support for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, stating that the law fails to meet constitutional scrutiny standards and therefore the administration is under no obligation to defend it.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement released Wednesday that President Obama has decided that his administration “will cease defense of Section 3,” which states that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“The President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” Mr. Holder said. “The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.”
The move comes as a huge victory for supporters of same-sex marriage, LGBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) Americans, who supported the president in his 2008 election campaign but have criticized the administration for its defense of DOMA in the face of recent lawsuits
Critics said the announcement makes it clear that the Obama administration has finished evolving and that it clearly favors legalization of same-sex marriage.
“The president has finally come out of the closet on gay marriage,” said Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. “After months of obfuscation and wishy-washy answers, the president has made it clear that he has no regard for the voice of the people, who have shown in election after election that they support traditional marriage.”
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called it a “monumental decision” and urged Congress to “not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said in a tweet that she was “thrilled” with the decision.
A spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, asked why the president had chosen to “stir up a controversial issue” in the middle of a budget crisis.
For those of you misinformed people, the CBO came out with a report stating the cost of each job created or saved cost at least 228k dollars and up to over 500k dollars.
Maybe the opposition was correct in their initial assessment that this bill had very little to do with stimulus and was much more about wasteful spending for the unions who had a great deal to do with Obama being elected in the first.
This is just more proof of why the government should not stick it’s noses in job creation and should instead do everything it can make it easier for the private sector to create the jobs.
How many private sector businesses would spend upwards of half a million dollars to create 1 stinking job? If they would, I surely hope whatever product or service they are producing/providing has a healthy profit margin and will last a very long time with little to no competition.
The jobs created and saved by the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009 cost at a minimum an average of $228,055 each, according to data released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
In a report released Wednesday—“Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from October Through December 2010”—the CBO said it now estimates the stimulus law cost a total of $821 billion, up from CBO’s original estimate that the stimulus would cost $787 billion.
In the same report, the CBO estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2010 there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted. “CBO estimates,” says the report, “that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010: … Increased the number of people employed by between 1.3 million and 3.5 million.”
This estimate seeks to state the net impact the stimulus had on the number of people employed in the United States as a result of the stimulus, taking into account not only the new jobs believed to be created and the existing jobs believed to be killed by the stimulus, but also the existing jobs that were saved that otherwise would have been lost.
The CBO’s estimate that there were 1.3 million to 3.5 million people employed in the fourth quarter of 2010 who would not have been were it not for the stimulus represents a decline from the 1.4 million to 3.6 million people CBO estimated were employed as a result the stimulus during the third quarter of 2010. (See Table 1 in the report.) In fact, CBO now estimates that the apogee of the stimulus’s net job-creating-and-saving power occurred in the third quarter of 2010 when it believes somewhere between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people had jobs they would not have had except for the stimulus.
Thus, the $821 billion cost of the stimulus divided by the maximum of 3.6 million jobs the CBO believes the stimulus may have saved or created equals an average of $228,055 per job.
At the lower end of the CBO’s top job-creating-and-saving estimate for the stimulus—1.4 million jobs—the jobs would cost an average of $586,428 a piece.
In February 2009, when President Obama signed the stimulus law the national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In January 2011, the national unemployment rate was 9.0 percent.