EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her.

“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (blog of drizzten).

“One of those ‘very leasts’ [was] George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of [then] president-elect George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).

McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.

Bush is a racist hate criminal and hates black people (please feel free to see my “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” blog). (Schoedinger was an African-American woman.)

BEWARE: If the president of the United States hates one—for whatever reasons—he can continuously criminally stalk one to the point that one cannot get away from it, and one ultimately commits suicide in desperation to escape. He can murder people in this way.

Bush is getting away with his murder of Schoedinger—with no sheriff, prosecutor, or court willing to uphold the rule of law.

Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.

Bush should confess, come out with the names of all of the people whom he murdered in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger, undergo execution, and accordingly find himself at the intersection where he would be free.

(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. It exists very extensively in all major search engines. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death,” hit “Enter,” and find innumerable results.)
_______________
Andrew Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

But Pam Spaulding is another matter entirely–I respect her, respect her work, and it pains me that she's using Aravosis' tactics. That's a shame. I hope when cooler heads prevail, they can take a critical eye to the actual lay of the land, who is responsible for what, and yes push the WH and Congress while also winning allies and not repelling them.

I know I'm still stuck on the brief thing, but it seems the Aravosis crowd either didn't fully grasp the meaning of the brief, why it was done and the legal parameters OR they are deliberately mis-characterizing the brief to gin up outrage. ESPECIALLY the charge I've seen in some quarters that Obama “wrote” the brief or that Obama should have known DoJ would submit this brief–and that the s–t stirrers are deliberately not correcting misinformation. DoJ is SUPPOSED to have some autonomy and independence…or do we really need to return to our just-ended, 8-yr nightmare?

Again, no one's saying that our elected leaders can't be criticized or shouldn't be pushed, but don't be surprised when people tune out those who are being deliberately dense and disingenuous.

Discuss…

“Barney Frank: Obama Brief Wasn't That Bad”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Fra...

…interesting statement from Barney Frank yesterday, which argues that the administration's defense of DOMA wasn't as full-throated as many read it to be:

When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.

Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard — which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.

It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example.

That is, he's noting that the administration was only saying a rational lawmaker could see same-sex marriage as a legal parallel to child marriage, say — not that the administration was actually making that claim, which is a real legal distinction.

That's unlikely to satisfy critics who would have liked to see Obama either refuse to defend the law or defend it far more half-heartedly, but Frank concludes: “After rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.”

You can read the motion itself here.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aravosis

“Aravosis is a lawyer and worked on Capitol Hill as a foreign policy adviser for Ted Stevens, a Republican senator in the late 1980s and early 1990s before becoming a Democrat.”

Therein lies the problem. It IS about emphathy, isn't it? It's their motive(s). They are not altruistic. I don't do much in TOTALLY thinking of myself. I have my children, family, city, state, country, and even world folk in the back of my head when thinking of benefits, costs, repercussions. 'They' don't. The Aravois' – those who are crying “just like Bush.”

In relation to Aravois and other ReThugs, former and still – I was thinking this yesterday. I'm Catholic, attended Catholic college, nuns – the whole works. One of the things I noticed was the obvious “self-centeredness” of the 'religious.' I saw it simply as not being totally responsible for another individual, as in a child. Because when you are TOTALLY responsible for someone and are connected, you understand what it would mean to THEM if that responsibility is shirked. When you're free of responsibility for anyone but yourself, regardless of your age, occupation, etc., you only have yourself to worry over – and you come first. The interests of others aren't in your best interest unless there's a 'payoff.'

So if one is a holdover from Poppy Bush, they should be about to retire then, eh?

I talked with a lawyer friend of mine about this, asking him specifically how this could happen, since surely these lawyers have someone they report directly to. And they do–they report to an Asst. Atty General–but they have lots of autonomy and file many such briefs and work products weekly. This autonomy makes a certain amount of sense so that DoJ is completely politicized–think Nixon…hell, think Shrub–but a holdover uninterested in justice can make a good amount of mischief. I do, however, hope someone is looking at the regs so they can legally get rid of or reassign these clowns.

I'm a little miffed that folks aren't painting the entire picture.

But I'm more than a little miffed at the “betrayal” and “just like Bush” folks. It seems like they're still fighting last year's primaries. Frankly, I'd like to see more movement on these issues; it's just a basic question of human rights. BUT. When some of the community's “leaders” don't tell the whole story and when their language is over the top…I dunno…it makes me think something else is going on.

Oh really now! Well, well, well. This puts A LOT in perspective.

When are Rachel Maddow, Pam from Pam's Houseblend, John Aravois and all of their supporters gonna call Harry Reid out this, like they're doing PBO?

The package of domestic partnership benefits that President Obama established for federal workers on Wednesday drew the loudest protests from some of those it was intended to help, gay men and lesbians who criticized the move as too timid.

The administrative memorandum extending some partnership rights to federal workers in same-sex relationships, which Mr. Obama signed late Wednesday, allows administration personnel to take leave to care for sick partners and requires the government to recognize their partners as household members when determining overseas housing allocations for State Department employees, among other things.

But several of the nation’s most prominent gay and lesbian political leaders quickly attacked the president for failing to extend full health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers, questioning the administration’s explanation that it is precluded from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama had vowed to repeal during his presidential campaign.

And once again, Obama reiterated his support for the repeal of DOMA. But guess what? Obama is the President, not a congressmen, and those are the folks you need to pressure, and given their behavior on DADT, you are doing a pretty crappy job:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate.

“I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.”

A Democratic aide later clarified that Reid was speaking about the possibility of using an executive order to suspend discharges or perhaps halting enforcement of the policy by changing departmental regulations within the Department of Defense.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has continually said in recent months that President Barack Obama believes the only “durable solution” to repealing the military’s gay ban would be to do so through legislative action.

Nothing would be worse for the gay rights movement than to turn these issues into perks of the oval office- elect a Democrat, DADT is suspended. Elect a Republican, DADT is enacted. This has to come from Congress. But, by all means, keep flinging poo at Obama. It feels good, and you get to say clever things like “Hey, unlike Republicans, at least we keep our President honest” while you are shooting at the wrong person.

Aravois has on many an occasion gotten shit SO wrong that he's been called out in the comment section. I stopped reading there when there was bullshit going on about transgender folks being included and he was passionately against it. Folks forget that Aravois 'was' a ReThug at one point, working for Ted Stevens from Alaska.

The Republicans and the MSM would have had a field day if this occurred!

Thanks for bringing the legal perspective to the discussion.