Rush Limbaugh On Gov. Scott Walker Prank Call: “There’s No News Here”

by Jon Bershad | 3:46 pm, February 23rd, 2011

audio

The big news of this morning was the prank call by Ian Murphy of Buffalo Beast (which is still down as of this writing) to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in which Murphy got Walker to believe he was actually David Koch. While protest sympathizers will eagerly be combing the 20 minutes of conversation looking for anything embarrassing or incriminating, Rush Limbaugh quickly demonstrated what will doubtlessly be the strategy of the opposing side: arguing that there really isn’t any there there.

“There’s nothing new here. There’s no news. By the way, there wasn’t anything in the whole call, he didn’t say anything that he hasn’t said publicly. So there’s no gotcha here. But the media’s having fun with it all because it’s a…’secret conversation.’”

Part of the reason all of Walker’s defenders will be using this strategy is because, well, he’s pretty much right. Whatever you have to say about the tone of the call or the familiarity with Koch, the protesters will be hard pressed to find any juicy sound bites to hurt him with. Even his agreement to visit “Koch” could be brushed past as being polite to a powerful supporter.
Listen to the audio of Limbaugh’s response below:

Keith Olbermann Re: Current TV: “I’m In Charge”

by Mark Joyella | 3:15 pm, February 22nd, 2011

Ex-MSNBC host Keith Olbermann may have lost his perch in cable news primetime, but–if quotes attributed to him are to be believed–he hasn’t lost any of his, um, confidence. The Current TV-bound Olbermann is quoted by Cindy Adams in the New York Post today describing his new gig, saying “I start beginning June. Al Gore’s Current TV, station 103 in Manhattan. My producers and staff suggest I even veer a little to the middle politically.” Sorry? Did you say middle?

You’d be leaving MSNBC and going to Current (Channel 103 in Manhattan) to “veer to the middle?” Well, let’s leave that aside for a moment. It’s the next line in Adams’ story that’s even more surprising. Olbermann’s quoted as saying “No cut in salary. In fact, I’m in charge. I’m the news director.”
Hold on. First. Is Al Gore’s company really paying Olbermann what he was making at MSNBC? North of five million dollars annually? That is, the same money to host a nightly show that will reach a mere fraction of the audience of Countdown? (Yes, Mr. Gore, I know, Current’s audience of course has the potential to rise from where it is, but, it’s still far, far, smaller than that of MSNBC)?
And what about “I’m in charge?” At the time of Olbermann’s hiring, Current’s “bosses,” Joel Hyatt, Current co-founder and executive vice president, and Mark Rosenthal, CEO, of Current Media, described Olbermann’s role as “Chief News Officer,” responsible for executive producing his own nightly show and consulting on the expansion of Current’s primetime lineup to include the possibility of other shows. He’ll also have an equity stake in Current.
Now maybe he was making all these comments tongue in cheek, but if these quotes are to be taken at face value, his “I’m In Charge” Status means he won’t even be constrained by the limits of traditional timeslots. He’ll, essentially, have the power to pre-empt the show that follows him—right from the desk during his show? Adams quotes Olbermann saying:
“So I’ll stay on one hour longer, but I’m in charge of that, too. If we’re long, then I’m on a little more and the next show’s a little short.”
And then, if that’s not enough, there’s this. (Again, see repeated caveats above) Olbermann professes to have no idea why he’s not at MSNBC anymore.
Quote: “Keith Olbermann on MSNBC shedding him: ‘I don’t really know why.’”
If these quotes are all serious and true, Olbermann doesn’t know why he’s out of MSNBC, but he does know that he’s landed in a gig giving him total and complete power to do whatever he wants at Current TV–with no cut in pay. Either Olbermann was misquoted, he’s exaggerating his role, or he’s got one helluva sweet gig.

Lawrence O’Donnell Interviews The Gov. Scott Walker Prank Caller Ian Murphy

by Alex Alvarez | 9:08 pm, February 23rd, 2011

Video

On tonight’s The Last Word, host Lawrence O’Donnell spoke with Buffalo Beast editor Ian Murphy, the man behind the 20 minute prank call Wisconsin governor Scott Walker had with who he thought was conservative billionaire businessman David Koch. Murphy made the call because rumor had it that Democrats trying to get in touch with Walker, who is currently embroiled in his state’s ongoing union protests, were unable to get through to him.
When asked how he was able to get through to Walker, Murphy said that, when asked for his number, he made up a story that his maid, “Maria,” had accidentally “washed his phone.”
And in case you were wondering about Murphy’s personal feelings towards Walker, he told O’Donnell that he didn’t feel he would get caught in his lie because Walker is “oblivious” on all counts.
Watch the segment, via MSNBC:

Meet Gov Walker's Prank Caller

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

Scott Walker's Prank Caller: I Was Going To Pretend To Be Mubarak First

First Posted: 02/23/11 12:57 PM Updated: 02/23/11 12:57 PM                               

WASHINGTON -- The man who pretended to be conservative bankroller David Koch on a prank phone call with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said Wednesday that he originally planned to pose as exiled Egypt President Hosni Mubarak but couldn't perfect the voice.
Ian Murphy, the editor of the Buffalo Beast, told The Huffington Post in an interview that he was "shocked" at how easy it was to get Walker, currently the nation's most-talked-about governor, on the phone merely by pretending to be a billionaire donor.
"Fifteen minutes in, I wanted to almost stop it and say, 'Are you so dumb, I'm not David Koch. How can your staff be so incompetent and how could I get on the phone with you so easily,'" Murphy said, barely suppressing his glee. "But I didn't."
Instead, Murphy spent an additional five minutes talking to Walker about a host of outlandish proposals and takes on the protests that have erupted around the governor's anti-union budget legislation. Walker's office insists that he said nothing on the phone with Murphy that he wouldn't have said in public, but the governor pitched the Koch impersonator some bizarre plans.
Walker said he wanted to ostensibly trick Democratic lawmakers to return to Wisconsin so that he could call a quorum and quickly pass his bill to strip collective-bargaining rights from the state's public-employee unions. He also talked openly about putting plants in the crowd of protesters to sway public opinion against their favor.
"He didn't do it because it was unethical, but because it didn't work," Murphy said. "People ask me what was the smoking gun. That's what I'm saying."
How the call came to happen provides a window of sorts into how even the most audacious forms of guerrilla journalism -- if a prank call can be called that -- can affect political debates. Murphy said he came across a Huffington Post article quoting a Democratic state Senator complaining that Walker wouldn't take his calls.

"I just wondered ... who could get ahold of him," Murphy said.
After deciding not to call as Mubarak, Murphy said he was looking to pose as someone whose voice was "more generic." He settled on Koch and practiced imitating the billionaire's voice with the help of some YouTube videos.
Perfection, however, was elusive. Instead, Murphy just spoke with a bit more bass, with the idea of playing the part of a Koch caricature. "I just envisioned him saying 'beautiful, beautiful' a lot, and things like 'crush those union bastards,'" he said.
Calling the phone number on the governor's website, he managed to talk his way onto the line with Walker's chief of staff, via Skype. After explaining that Walker couldn't call him back because his "maid" threw his phone in the washing machine and he'd have her "deported" but she made "next to nothing," Murphy waited for 10 minutes on the phone -- a tell in itself, he noted: "You don't expect David Koch to wait 10 minutes on the phone."
Nonetheless, Walker came on. "I kind of just let him talk. I was in shock," Murphy said.
So too, apparently, was the governor. As Murphy noted, Walker seemed "thrilled" to talk to "Koch." The impression left was that the billionaire backer and the upstart governor really hadn't rubbed elbows before.
"That might be one downside of this thing, it shows that they don't have the intimate relationship people imagined," Murphy said. "It's henchmen passing envelopes back and forth and the billionaire never actually talks to the politician."
But Murphy said took another key lesson away from the prank. "If you are David Koch, you can get anyone on the phone," he said, "period."

Blogger who prank-called Gov. Scott Walker as Koch brother has stained journalistic past

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller | Published: 7:00 PM 02/23/2011 | Updated: 7:05 PM 02/23/2011

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker talks to the media at the state Capitol in Madison, Wis., Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011. Opponents to the governor's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for many state workers are in their ninth day of protests at the Capitol. (AP Photo/Andy Manis)

The Buffalo Beast blogger who prank-called Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, falsely posing as billionaire David Koch, has written some edgy pieces that call into question his journalistic credibility. For the publication he edits, Ian Murphy has written such pieces as “Fuck The Troops,” a dissertation explaining why he thinks, “the nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops,” and “Let There Be Retards,” an exclusive look inside a Kentucky creationism museum – while Murphy was falsely pretending to have Asperger’s Syndrome.

The Walker storyline has blown up on the left-wing blogosphere, and several mainstream publications like the Washington Post, NPR and USA Today have run with stories on the prank call as well. Most mainstream publications that have published articles about the prank call have left out mention of Murphy’s journalistic past.
Murphy gave an interview to the left-leaning Salon.com, and said that he was “wildly unprepared” for the conversation he was about to have with Walker while falsely masquerading as David Koch. Salon.com did mention Murphy’s Asperger’s story, but didn’t mention the story he wrote slandering American soldiers.
One of the 14 Democratic state senators who is currently hiding in Illinois after fleeing Wisconsin to avoid voting on Walker’s budget plan, commented on the call, too, saying it confirmed what they thought all along.
The Democrat, Tim Cullen, said the call is an “astounding confirmation of what we’ve been saying for a couple weeks now. This bill is about the money. This bill is about destroying public employee unions.”
But Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie says the call demonstrates that Walker says the same thing behind closed doors that he says in public.
At the end of the call, Walker thanked the man who he thought was David Koch, saying, “We appreciate it, and we’re doing the just and right thing for the right reasons, and it’s all about getting our freedoms back.”
But that came after Murphy, while impersonating David Koch, said that Walker should bring a baseball bat to meet the Democrats who fled.
“I have one in my office, you’d be happy with that,” Walker said to Murphy. “I’ve got a slugger with my name on it.”

Border State Senators Reveal: House Budget Bill Could Result In Almost 900 Fewer Border Patrol Agents -- Say Cuts Are "Giant Step Backward In Securing Our Border"

February 21, 2011

"Dangerous" Cuts Effectively Repeal The Bipartisan Border Security Bill Passed Last Congress - Emergency Legislation Added 1,000 Agents

Washington, DC— U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Jon Tester (D-MT) today revealed that H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution (CR) approved by House Republicans, could result in 870 fewer border patrol agents guarding our nation’s borders.  The senators called the cuts a “giant step backward in securing our border” and said that they could effectively repeal the emergency bipartisan border security bill passed last Congress.  The proposed cuts would also reduce funding for border security fencing, infrastructure and technology by $272 million. 

In a letter to Congressman Harold Rogers, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, and Congressman Robert Aderholt, Chairman of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, the senators called the cuts put forth in the CR “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” and said they would harm the security of our nation.   

The senators wrote, “We are troubled to learn that the proposed House Continuing Resolution provides funding for only 20,500 agents, which effectively nullifies the very border security gains that were made in August, and again leaves our agents understaffed against the dangerous cartels that we were attempting to combat through our emergency legislation.”

The senators said that a bipartisan emergency border security bill passed in August of last year allocated $600 million to bring the total number of border patrol agents up to 21,370 – an increase of 1,000.  The House CR reduces that number by 870 to 20,500.  The House proposal also reduces the Department of Homeland Security budget for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology by $272 million.  Reducing the funding available to repair the fence will greatly reduce its effectiveness, wasting the billions of dollars invested to build it in the first place.  With a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report indicating that only four percent of our northern border is secure, and with thousands of attempted incursions across our southern border every year, the senators called the cuts proposed by the GOP “simply dangerous.” 

All told, the cuts will result in a less secure border and open the country up to increased drug smuggling, currency smuggling and illegal immigration.  At a time when crime south of our border is out of control, these cuts are simply unacceptable the senators will say. 

The senators vowed to oppose the cuts and pledged to work with the Congressmen in making sure that the security and protection of the United States is upheld.   

A copy of the letter appears below.

February 21, 2011

The Honorable Harold Rogers

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives

2406 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt

Chairman, Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives

2264 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairmen Rogers and Aderholt,

As Senators from border states, we write today to express our grave concerns about the House Appropriations Committee’s proposed spending levels for border security and immigration enforcement for fiscal year (FY) 2011.

As you know, in August 2010, Congress unanimously passed a $600 million emergency border security bill that increased the size of the Border Patrol by 1,000 agents to a total of 21,370 full-time agents.  The emergency supplemental bill was specifically enacted to address concerns that the border did not have sufficient personnel to combat illegal immigration, drug and gun smuggling, and human trafficking.   Now, we are troubled to learn that the proposed House Continuing Resolution (CR), H.R. 1, provides funding for only 20,500 agents.  This effectively nullifies the very border security gains that were made in August, and again leaves our agents understaffed against the dangerous cartels that we are attempting to combat.

The House CR will also reduce the Department of Homeland Security budget for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology by $272 million compared to FY 2010 levels.  Even if reasonable lawmakers might disagree about the optimal mix of infrastructure and technology used by the border patrol, this magnitude of reduction is simply dangerous.  Over the course of a year, thousands of incursions are attempted through our southern border security fence and the repeated damage caused to the fence during these incursions must be continually repaired in order to maintain our current level of security.  Reducing the funding available to repair the fence will greatly reduce its effectiveness, wasting the billions of dollars invested to build it in the first place.  In addition, given the Government Accountability Office’s recent report indicating that only four percent of the northern border is secure, we can no longer ignore the need for increased border security infrastructure and technology along the northern border.

Simply put, cuts of this magnitude will be devastating to our security and our economy.  They will render us unable to secure our borders and, even worse, will reverse the progress Congress has made in reducing the flow of illegal immigration, guns, and drugs along our border.  As terrorists and smugglers continue to devise new methods to harm America, we must stand ready to make sure our men and women on the ground have the tools they need to keep us safe.  Cutting their budget at this important time is irresponsible and dangerous.

We thank you for your attention to this important matter, and look forward to working with you to ensure that we are fulfilling our solemn oath to protect the United States.

Sincerely,

Sen. Charles Schumer

Sen. Jeff Bingaman

Sen. Jon Tester

Fox Licks Windows Clean

Order Fox Window Cleaning service today and a small fox will lick clean the lower quarter of your sliding glass door in a very short amount of time at no charge.

Fox Licks Windows Clean - watch more funny videos

ObamaCare Is Already Damaging Health Care

• FEBRUARY 23, 2011

Many of its changes don't kick in until 2014. But the law is forcing dramatic consolidation and reducing choice in the industry.

By LLOYD M. KRIEGER

The Republicans who now control the House of Representatives hope to repeal or defund ObamaCare, but the law has already yielded profound, destructive changes that will not be undone by repeal or defunding alone. Active steps and new laws will be needed to repair the damage.

The most significant change is a wave of frantic consolidation in the health industry. Because the law mandates that insurers accept all patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, insurers will not make money with their current premium and provider-payment structures. As a result, they have already started to raise premiums and cut payments to doctors and hospitals. Smaller and weaker insurers are being forced to sell themselves to larger entities.

Doctors and hospitals, meanwhile, have decided that they cannot survive unless they achieve massive size—and fast. Six years ago, doctors owned more than two-thirds of U.S. medical practices, according to the Medical Group Management Association. By next year, nearly two-thirds will be salaried employees of larger institutions.

Consolidation is not necessarily bad, as larger medical practices and hospital systems can create some efficiencies. But in the context of ObamaCare's spiderweb of rules and regulations, consolidation is more akin to collectivization. It means that government bureaucrats will be able to impose controls with much greater ease.

With far fewer and much larger entities to browbeat, all changes in Medicare and Medicaid policies will go through the entire system like a shock wave. There will be far fewer individual insurers, doctors, hospitals, device makers, drug manufacturers, nursing homes and other health-care players to resist.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Many doctors and hospitals have decided that they cannot survive unless they achieve massive size—and fast.

There is little mystery how the government will exercise its power. Choices will be limited. Pathways to expensive specialist care such as advanced radiology and surgery will decline. Cutting-edge devices and medicines will come into the system much more slowly and be used much less frequently.

This is why simply defunding enforcement of the individual mandate and other upcoming directives will not be enough: Given all this consolidation, limits on treatment choices are already becoming hardwired into the system. Lawmakers must take concrete steps to stop and reverse this.

On the provider end, this means enacting tax and other economic shields for insurers and providers that choose not to succumb to the financial pressure encouraging consolidation. It means unwinding all of the rules—about data compilation, reporting and compliance requirements, and information technology—designed to increase overhead to the point that only massive and easily regulated provider organizations can survive.

Legislators will have to scrub the 2,700-page ObamaCare law line by line to remove all of the disincentives for medical practices, hospitals and others to remain smaller and independent.

On the consumer end, reform means re-establishing choice at all levels of the system. Lawmakers at a minimum should change the individual mandate so that people can choose what type of coverage they buy. To do this, legislation has to ensure that all consumers have access to a menu of options for varying types of coverage, and that they are free to purchase policies across state lines. There should also be tax breaks for people who purchase medical care not covered by their insurance, so there is reasonable chance of escaping government-imposed limits on treatment choices.

System-wide, collectivization will be dismantled only by limiting the power of government agencies to determine what care gets funded. That means new legislation to supersede Section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires herding everyone into "qualified plans" and forcing doctors (via fines, penalties and nonpayment) to follow care guidelines determined by the secretary of Health and Human Services.

ObamaCare is already doing great damage, even years before its individual mandate and other controls kick in. Its systematic undoing is an urgent necessity.

Dr. Krieger, a plastic surgeon, invests in health-care companies.

President Obama Speaks on the Turmoil in Libya: "This Violence Must Stop"

He was not tough enough, he pansied out.  This is not Mubarak, and Egypt.  These are Syrians being killed by their leader through proxy. I would tell that mid eastern terrorist to bug out to leave his people, to crawl quickly...because there is not a rock safe enough to hide you.  He is a scared rabbit, because his army is leaving him in droves, so he must bring in gun men to take care of business.  He is a bug to be squashed, and I pray that his people keep up the pressure and hunts him down like the dog he is .  wolf wolf wolf.................

Posted by Jesse Lee on February 23, 2011 at 05:36 PM EST

Speaking from the White House, the President says the violence in Libya is "outrageous" and "unacceptable," and that his Administration is looking at the "full range of options we have to respond to this crisis."  His full remarks below:

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Secretary Clinton and I just concluded a meeting that focused on the ongoing situation in Libya.  Over the last few days, my national security team has been working around the clock to monitor the situation there and to coordinate with our international partners about a way forward.

First, we are doing everything we can to protect American citizens.  That is my highest priority.  In Libya, we've urged our people to leave the country and the State Department is assisting those in need of support.  Meanwhile, I think all Americans should give thanks to the heroic work that's being done by our foreign service officers and the men and women serving in our embassies and consulates around the world.  They represent the very best of our country and its values.

Now, throughout this period of unrest and upheaval across the region the United States has maintained a set of core principles which guide our approach.  These principles apply to the situation in Libya.  As I said last week, we strongly condemn the use of violence in Libya. 

The American people extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of all who’ve been killed and injured.  The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya.  These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency.  This violence must stop.

The United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people.  That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny.  These are human rights.  They are not negotiable.  They must be respected in every country.  And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression.

In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus.  Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people. 

This same message, by the way, has been delivered by the European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and many individual nations.  North and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the rights of the Libyan people.

I’ve also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis.  This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners, or those that we’ll carry out through multilateral institutions.

Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people.  It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights. 

This is not simply a concern of the United States.  The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community.  To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya. 

I’ve also asked Secretary Clinton to travel to Geneva on Monday, where a number of foreign ministers will convene for a session of the Human Rights Council.  There she’ll hold consultations with her counterparts on events throughout the region and continue to ensure that we join with the international community to speak with one voice to the government and the people of Libya. 

And even as we are focused on the urgent situation in Libya, let me just say that our efforts continue to address the events taking place elsewhere, including how the international community can most effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia and in Egypt.

So let me be clear.  The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region.  This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power.  It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life. 

As one Libyan said, “We just want to be able to live like human beings.”  We just want to be able to live like human beings.  It is the most basic of aspirations that is driving this change.  And throughout this time of transition, the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.

Thank you very much.

House GOP Accuses Obama of Using DOMA as a Distraction

• By Jessica Brady
• Roll Call Staff
• 5:34 p.m.

Updated: 5:58 p.m.

House Republicans blasted President Barack Obama for deeming a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, calling Wednesday’s decision a political stunt and a distraction from fiscal issues.

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said in a statement.

Likewise, Laena Fallon, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), said in a statement, “The White House is more interested in rekindling hot button political issues to distract from the current debate over how to fund our government in the most fiscally responsible way.”

Attorney General Eric Holder notified lawmakers Wednesday that the Justice Department will no longer defend in court a provision of the 1996 law that directs the federal government to recognize only marriages between men and women.

But Holder noted that DOMA will still remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or a judge strikes it down. Although the administration is still obligated to enforce the law, “this administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court,” he said.

The National Organization for Marriage called on the House to intervene and defend DOMA.

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith filed an amicus brief last year in a Massachusetts case charging that the Justice Department was not properly defending DOMA. That case is currently pending appeal.

“The Justice Department has a responsibility to defend the laws passed by Congress regardless of the personal political views of the President or the Attorney General,” the Texas Republican said in a statement Wednesday.

“It is a transparent attempt to shirk the Department’s duty to defend the laws passed by Congress,” Smith added. “This is the real politicization of the Justice Department — when the personal views of the President override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.”

House Democrats cheered Obama’s decision. Reps. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) and Keith Ellison(Minn.), co-chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Wednesday’s announcement marked another victory for gay rights following last year’s enactment of a repeal of the military ban on openly gay service members. The law did not result in the immediate repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” but sets forth a process for doing so that requires Pentagon certification.

“As with the repeal of the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, this decision proves that when progressives organize and speak with a unified voice, we make America better and stronger,” they said in a statement.

They added, “Moments like this give us hope that one day, our government will fulfill America’s great promise of equality and stop discrimination against our citizens based on sexual orientation.”

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) circulated a letter to colleagues Wednesday to rally support for their legislation to repeal DOMA, saying the administration’s announcement brought new momentum to their cause. But Democrats were unsuccessful in passing the legislation last year, and they face a more difficult battle now that they are in the minority in the House and have a narrower majority in the Senate.

Nevertheless, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised to press on.

“Since its inception, the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act has long been viewed as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” she said in a statement. “The fight for marriage equality is far from over, and we will continue to work towards the day when all American families are treated with respect and viewed equally in the eyes of the law.”

Fox Licks Windows Clean

Order Fox Window Cleaning service today and a small fox will lick clean the lower quarter of your sliding glass door in a very short amount of time at no charge.

Fox Licks Windows Clean - watch more funny videos