Back to Basics

Sully’s gushing encomium is up at Newsweek, “The First Gay President“:

For gay Americans and their families, the emotional darkness of Tuesday night became a canvas on which Obama could paint a widening dawn. But I didn’t expect it. Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity—and the humanity of all gay Americans—was, unexpectedly, a watershed. He shifted the mainstream in one interview. And last week, a range of Democratic leaders—from Harry Reid to Steny Hoyer—backed the president, who moved an entire party behind a position that only a few years ago was regarded as simply preposterous. And in response, Mitt Romney could only stutter.

And here’s the heroic take on Obama’s cheap political money grubbing:

Barack Obama had to come out of a different closet. He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family. The America he grew up in had no space for a boy like him: black yet enveloped by loving whiteness, estranged from a father he longed for (another common gay experience), hurtling between being a Barry and a Barack, needing an American racial identity as he grew older but chafing also against it and over-embracing it at times.

This is the gay experience: the discovery in adulthood of a community not like your own home and the struggle to belong in both places, without displacement, without alienation. It is easier today than ever. But it is never truly without emotional scar tissue. Obama learned to be black the way gays learn to be gay. And in Obama’s marriage to a professional, determined, charismatic black woman, he created a kind of family he never had before, without ever leaving his real family behind. He did the hard work of integration and managed to create a space in America for people who did not have the space to be themselves before. And then as president, he constitutionally represented us all.

I have always sensed that he intuitively understands gays and our predicament—because it so mirrors his own. And he knows how the love and sacrifice of marriage can heal, integrate, and rebuild a soul. The point of the gay-rights movement, after all, is not about helping people be gay. It is about creating the space for people to be themselves. This has been Obama’s life’s work. And he just enlarged the space in this world for so many others, trapped in different cages of identity, yearning to be released and returned to the families they love and the dignity they deserve.

See my previous entries: “Precious Moments: Andrew ‘Milky Loads’ Sullivan Tells Chris ‘Tingles’ Matthews He’s Moved by Obama’s Statement, ‘We Are Equal Human Beings’,” and “Barebackers for Barack, UPDATED! — Andrew ‘Milky Loads’ Sullivan Cover Story at Newsweek, ‘The First Gay President’.”

What’s amazing about this is Paul is libertarian, folks who are supposed to favor less government in the social realm. It guess he’s not taking too well to O’s pathetic flip-flopping on marriage to keep the progressive campaign money flowing. But what can you do?

At CNN, “TRENDING: Sen. Paul: I didn’t think Obama’s ‘views on marriage could get any gayer’” (via Memeorandum).

At 5:15 minutes at the clip:

Added: From Linkmaster Smith, “Could John Travolta Help Increase Barack Obama’s Marriage Policy Gayness?”

Look, that’s a lot of money. I don’t really care about this Saverin kid, but clearly his case shows that folks like this aren’t really American, with no national loyalty, despite gaining U.S. citizenship and becoming fabulously wealthy in this country.

And his decision to renounce isn’t going over too well among Facebook fans. See the Los Angeles Times: “Americans feel defriended over perceived Eduardo Saverin tax dodge.” I can see why. See, “Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin gives up citizenship: Shrewd tax move?“:

Here’s a tax tip for Mark Zuckerberg: Give up your U.S. citizenship.

The 27-year-old Facebook Inc. founder could face a tax bill of more than $1 billion after the company’s initial public offering, expected next week.

His former Harvard classmate who is known as “the other Facebook founder” may have found a way to cut the bill. Eduardo Saverin, who now lives in Singapore, has given up his U.S. citizenship. Tax experts say it’s a shrewd move.

Saverin, who was immortalized in the film “The Social Network” as Zuckerberg’s contentious former friend and business partner, has a 4% stake in the company, according to the Who Owns Facebook? website. His stake could be worth nearly $4 billion after the IPO.

“It’s definitely savvy tax planning,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor of law at USC who specializes in federal tax policy and international taxation. “He can argue that the value of the Facebook shares in September, when he gave up his citizenship, were significantly less than the value that will be set at the IPO next week.”

“Savvy tax planning.”

Well, no. It’s called tax evasion.

See the Wall Street Journal, “Taxes Got You Down? Renounce!” And at Bloomberg, “Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO.”

And this Savarin kid is a playboy, it turns out. See “The Other Facebook Founder“:

SINGAPORE — Facebook Inc. founder Mark Zuckerberg is one of the world’s most famous chief executives. His former business partner and friend, Eduardo Saverin, is big in Singapore.

The Brazilian-born billionaire’s skirmishes with Mr. Zuckerberg over the future of Facebook were dramatized in the 2010 film “The Social Network,” which portrayed Mr. Saverin as a naive entrepreneur.

Mr. Saverin was squeezed out of Facebook early on, and found his stake in the Internet juggernaut diluted to less than 10% from 34%. Today, after more dilution and sales of some of his shares, his stake is about 2%, according to a person familiar with the matter.

But 2% can go a long way, given that Facebook filed documents Thursday to go public with a valuation of up to $96 billion. It can go especially far in Singapore, a financial center better known for banning the sale of chewing gum than for a thriving technology scene.

Since his arrival in 2009, the 30-year-old Mr. Saverin has attracted intense interest here. Singaporeans avidly track his nocturnal social habits. Many hoped he would fund local tech start-ups, but so far his local investments, which include a cosmetics firm, have been limited.

Mr. Saverin is regularly spotted lounging with models and wealthy friends at local night clubs, racking up tens of thousands of dollars in bar tabs by ordering bottles of Cristal Champagne and Belvedere vodka, according to people present on these occasions.

Well, who knew, really? I thought something was strange about this story all along, particularly with regard to AP’s reporting. So here comes the news that the CIA planted a double agent inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There’s going to be lots more information on this over the next few days so consider this developing. So far, Rep. Peter King thinks the administration is in fact jerking the public, see: “Rep. King suggests administration may have misled public on bomb plot, Calls for review.” Frankly, there’s no doubt in my mind that Obama is working national security — and coordinating press coverage according to intelligence rules — to score political points. President #GutsyCall is going rogue.

Anyway, the Los Angeles Times reports, “Al Qaeda bomb plot was foiled by double agent.”

And at the Wall Street Journal, “Bomb Plotter Was U.S. Informer: Double Agent Infiltrated Yemeni Terror Group, Fed Information to U.S. Intelligence“:

The supposed bomber at the center of a foiled plot to bring down a jetliner was actually a double agent who funneled vital information to U.S. and Arab intelligence agencies, according to officials, marking an apparently successful infiltration of al Qaeda’s most dangerous branch.

The revelation came a day after U.S. officials said the Central Intelligence Agency, working with foreign security services and other agencies, had thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a U.S. jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb used in a failed 2009 Christmas Day attempt.

The newest plot appears to provide a chilling illustration of al Qaeda’s determination to learn from its mistakes: The bomb that was recovered has two detonators, providing a crucial backup in the event one failed, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the double agent spent several perilous weeks working inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, answering to a foreign intelligence service that works in concert with the CIA. Saudi intelligence officials played “a large role” in handling of the double agent inside AQAP, this official said.

The man was able to convince members of the Yemeni terror group that he wanted to carry out a suicide mission, the official said.

The man was given the bomb and general instructions for carrying out the attack, the official said. Instead of following those directions, however, when he left Yemen, he contacted intelligence authorities, turning over the bomb and fresh intelligence about AQAP.

Some of the information gathered in the course of the multiweek operation led to the U.S. drone strike in Yemen on Sunday that killed a top operative of the Yemeni group, officials said Tuesday.

The Saudi embassy in Washington had no immediate comment. In the past, some Saudi officials have chafed at characterizations that Saudi Arabia used former al Qaeda militants as informants to disrupt plots by the Yemeni branch.

Yemeni officials say they weren’t informed about the operation.

Continue reading.

The Journal also mentions the possibility of a congressional GOP investigation of Obama’s intelligence coordination and public manipulation.

Jeez, a sore loser or what?

At CNN, “In statement, Lugar defends campaign while criticizing partisan environment” (via Memeorandum):

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.

Sorry, Dick, but the times have passed you by.

And in case you missed it, there’s been a grassroots tea party revolt raging for the past three years. Have a nice retirement.

The Associated Press reports, “NC voters approve amendment on gay marriage.”

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Meanwhile, supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.

And at the Raleigh News & Observer, “Latest results show marriage amendment up 60 percent to 40 percent“:

RALEIGH North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.

North Carolina is the last state in the south to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 59.72 percent to 40.28 percent. Some large counties, including Durham and Mecklenburg have not reported results.

Primary turnout was heavy. Though there were many other races on the ballot, including primaries for statewide offices and congressional seats, the amendment appeared to drive much of the political discussion.

Marriage rights for gay couples has been a topic of national debate this year, and North Carolina’s amendment and the campaigns for and against it drew international attention.

North Carolinians think of the state as progressive, but that’s within the context of the rest of the South, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. “This is a socially conservative state,” he said.

The state has a 16-year-old law banning same-sex marriage.

At least two other states will be voting on gay marriage rights in November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot. Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. Voters in Maryland and Washington state may be asked to affirm new state laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Money from national interest groups poured into North Carolina. The National Organization for Marriage contributed $425,000 to the Vote for Marriage campaign, according to the latest reports, and the Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates contributed nearly $500,000 to the opposition Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families.

Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million.

And now the progs are having epic hissy fits on Twitter, for example, Chris Kromm, “NEWS: NC officially joins ranks of bigoted states whose neanderthal laws will be overturned by courts in coming years.”

And lesbian radical Pam Spaulding is on Twitter as well. The cries of bigotry and homophobia are going to be deafening.

At the end of a short article at Mediaite by Andrew Kirell entitled “President Obama is not the same as Mitt Romney on gay marriage,” there’s this gem:

The distinction is clear: Obama is (perhaps ironically?) opposed to using the government to impose his views — however slippery they may be — onto everyone else.

And the crowd reacts:

Isn’t the Obamacare law at the Supreme Court right now mostly because of something called a mandate? Or how about the birth control mandate? Drilling moratoriums? Trying to force the market into “clean” energy by throwing taxpayer money into crony capitalism sinkholes? Job killing EPA regs? Executive Orders that skirt Congress? The list goes on.

Doesn’t use the government to impose his views… puh-leeeze!

(h/t American Glob)

The United Nations could be easily placated if the Obama administration would simply offer to include a likeness of Boutros Boutros-Ghali on Mount Rushmore. And who knows… maybe they already have!

From the Daily Mail:

A UN human rights official is urging the U.S. to turn over control of lands considered to be sacred to Native Americans, including the site of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, unveiled his recommendations in Geneva on Friday after completing a 12-day visit to the U.S. where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in six states.

The fact-finder also had a chance to meet members of the Obama administration and briefed the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, but no member of Congress agreed to meet with him.

Other places the United Nations suggests the U.S. cede control over because the U.N. believes them to be sacred to Native Americans include areas in Alaska, parts of the Pacific Northwest, and Elizabeth Warren’s front yard.

Hey U.N., Johnny Cash has a message for you.

My Spring 2012 issue of International Security came by mail last Tuesday, May 1st — the one year anniversary of the bin Laden killing.

We also saw President Obama make his secret trip to Afghanistan last Tuesday — to spike the football for his reelection efforts. So the timing was quite interesting for reading this research paper from Bryan C. Price, “Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism.” Here’s this from the introduction:

Late in the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama announced to the nation that Osama bin Laden was dead. Earlier that day, the president had ordered a team of elite military forces deep into Pakistan to kill the mastermind behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, which had shocked the country and the world nearly ten years before. During his speech, President Obama said that he had told his new director of central intelligence, Leon Panetta, that getting bin Laden was the number one priority in the United States’ counterterrorism strategy against al-Qaida. Upon hearing of bin Laden’s death, Americans broke out in spontaneous celebration, and pundits immediately began speculating about its symbolic and operational importance. But what does bin Laden’s death mean, if anything, for the future of al-Qaida? More broadly, what does it mean when terrorist groups experience leadership decapitation?

Decapitation tactics, which are designed to kill or capture the key leader or leaders of a terrorist group, feature prominently in the counterterrorism strategies of many states, including Israel and the United States. Some scholars argue that targeting the group’s leadership reduces its operational capability by eliminating its most highly skilled members and forcing the group to divert valuable time and limited resources to protect its leaders. Decapitation tactics are also intended to disrupt the terrorist group’s organizational routine and deter others from assuming power. Scholars have credited these tactics with creating intra-organizational turmoil and even organizational collapse, most notably, the demise of the Kurdistan People’s Party and the Shining Path following the arrests of their leaders. Despite questions about the legality and moral legitimacy of targeted assassinations, the United States has expanded, rather than contracted, its targeted killing program since President Obama arrived in offce. In early 2010, the U.S. government even authorized the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen. This unprecedented decision was fraught with constitutionality concerns about due process. Yet, five months after the bin Laden operation and amid criticism about the disregard of the United States for international sovereignty, a U.S. drone fired a Hellfire missile at al-Awlaki in a remote region inside Yemen, killing him instantly.

Domestic audiences and leadership decapitation an appealing counterterrorism tactic for a variety of reasons, but most scholars argue that it is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Whereas proponents of decapitation highlight cases in which the tactic has contributed to the organizational collapse of terrorist groups, critics counter with examples in which it has increased and intensified terrorist activity. Critics argue that targeted killings are both morally and ethically wrong and warn of a backlash effect: rather than reducing the terrorist threat, leadership decapitation is likely to increase the number of willing recruits for terrorist groups to exploit, allowing these groups to grow in size and popularity.

Not better off with the Obamunists.

PREVIOUSLY: “Obama Kicks-Off Re-Election Campaign, Attacks Mitt Romney.”