Obama Declares June National LGBT Pride Month
July 2, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
On June 1, 2009, the Obama Adminstration released a statement declaring the month of June to be henceforth a celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender pride. One might wonder why our Federal Government is endorsing a lifestyle that cannot contribute positively to society as a whole, rather than celebrating lasting marriage between a man and a woman, which is ultimately the only relationship with a profoundly good effect on children.
Frank Turek’s article, “Gay Marriage:Â Even Liberals Know It’s Bad,” addresses the issue of homosexual marriage specifically:
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt?  Children and the rest of society. Thatâs the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay âbigot.â He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bibleâs prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, âAcross history and cultures . . . marriageâs single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.â
How so?
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.
So what?
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. Thatâs a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that âshack upâ break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoesâillegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy…
Well, if marriage isnât about children, what institution is about children? Â Â And if weâre going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesnât endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. Thatâs why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with whatâs best for children and society. Â Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
Mr. Turek shows examples of countries that have legalized gay marriage in his article that have seen a breakdown in marriages altogether, in addition to a dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock and a disintegration of families. There is no possible benefit to society in endorsing something that can lead to the breakdown of families and depriving children of either a mother or a father and a stable home. Many studies show the variety of negative effects that children from broken homes suffer, and anything that could lead to its increase should not be endorsed in any way by the government.
White House: Don’t Pray Publicly, But Celebrate The GLBT Revolution
July 1, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
Earlier this year, President Obama failed to hold any event at the White House celebrating the National Day of Prayer, opting instead to simply issue a proclamation of the day. However, he took the initiative to declare the month of June “National GLBT Pride Month,” and on June 29th held an event at the White House to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the GLBT protests at Stonewall. His opening words to the appreciative crowd at this event were “Welcome to your White House”!
At every turn, the Obama administration is bending over backwards to show all the liberal activists his support, while casting aside the things that are important to conservatives, even to the point of subtly belittling them in his speech at the Stonewall Celebration event:
There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we’ve made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.
And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that’s important, and I’m glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. [Applause] For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts…
It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need — that we all share the capacity to love…
Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet.
That’s why I’ve spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences — in front of African-American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that’s what I’ll continue to do so. That’s how we’ll shift attitudes…
The truth is, when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you — or, for that matter, I — [laughter] — would be standing here today. [Applause] So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress — step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you.
President Obama seems bent on alienating the conservatives in the United States by his decisions and speeches. Celebrating the GLBT revolution rather than calling our nation to unite in prayer demonstrates an erosion of moral values that has reached historic levels of penetration into our society.
A Kid-Gloves Approach to Iran Still Stumbles
June 18, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International, Politics
President Obama has opted to take a very delicate, non-committal stance toward Iran and its elections, saying that he doesn’t want to alienate whichever section of the government comes into power in the face of some of the large diplomatic issues facing the region. He has not stood in support of the protesters looking for a fair election, but has seemed to step back to await the outcome. Even some of the main members of the Obama administration would like to see a stronger stance, including Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton. Here is an account of the position he has taken:
Senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.
Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics…
But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.
The administrationâs concern over how to calibrate the response to the protests in Iran reflects the competing goals Mr. Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on Americaâs national security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and Iranâs support for militant Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
For all President’s Obama’s tiptoeing around the issue of Iran’s elections, he has also made the mistake of a comment that almost seems to disregard the election’s importance, and could crucially affect the relationship between the United States and Iran later on:
[President Obama] said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.
âEither way,â Mr. Obama said, the United States is âgoing to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.â
The remark struck critics as off key and dismissive toward Mr. Moussavi, when he has become a symbol of freedom and democracy in Iran. âObamaâs posture has been very equivocal, without a clear message,â said Representative Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who is the House minority whip. âNow is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity.â
President Obama’s policy toward Iran seems to be weak, with some critical missteps and errors throughout. If the New York Times is right when it says, “the United States is in a more delicate position than other countries because of its enormous symbolism in Iran, where ‘Death to the United States’ is still chanted at Friday Prayer,” one might think the best foreign policy would be one of strength, rather than weakness.
Disapproval of Pelosi Growing
May 31, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has come under fire over the past few months for her knowledge of the waterboarding techniques used at Guantanamo Bay, and her subsequent handling of the outcry over the double standard within which she has been operating. Her consistently polarizing comments regarding the Republican party have served to put a significant divide between the two parties, as well, instead of encouraging the parties to work together towards common goals.
As time continues to move on, a growing number of people have become dissatisfied with Pelosi’s handling of her comments regarding the CIA, as well as her attitude and performance in the House of Representatives in general:
Despite the California Democrat’s insistence that she has no more to say about her May 14 assertion that in 2002 the Central Intelligence Agency misled her and Congress on torture policy, the political firestorm it created continues to smolder.
The latest GOP effort includes a television ad titled “Explanation: Impossible,” as well as 32-second recorded phone calls with a woman telling listeners she had an “important voter alert” about how the local congressman “voted to block an investigation” into Pelosi’s May 14 comments.
Republicans note that the day after Pelosi made her statement about the CIA , Leon Panetta , the agency director and a former Democratic congressman from California , said CIA officials told her the truth.
The next week, however, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives soundly rejected a Republican-led effort to create a bipartisan committee to investigate Pelosi’s statements. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio , the House GOP leader, wants Pelosi to either document her claims or to apologize…
“For any negative ad to work, it has to have a kernel of truth, and this one does,” said Adam Hoffman , professor of political science at Salisbury University in Maryland , in a district where the TV ad is running…
Republicans see Pelosi as increasingly vulnerable. A May 19 Gallup poll that found of the 22 percent of Americans paying close attention to the matter, 63 percent disapproved of how she’s handled it, while 30 percent approved.
And a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey taken May 14-17 found 39 percent approved of how she’s handling her job as speaker, while 48 percent disapproved.
“Pelosi (is) largely losing the public relations game, as she gets a significantly more negative review for her handling of the matter than do the other major players in the controversy, including the CIA ,” said Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones .
However, he added, “Americans are much more critical of Pelosi’s handling of the matter than they are of the broader group of the Democrats in Congress she leads as speaker of the House.”
Pelosi’s respect and political standing stands in jeopardy due to her aggressive comments and duplicity, with the refusal of allowing herself to be evaluated for truth and integrity.
How’s Our Potential Justice’s Temper?
May 30, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has been said to be aggressive and bordering on rude at times in the courtroom. The temperment of a judge can say a lot about her character and the way she may conduct herself in the courtroom in relationship to the issues and working with other judges on the panel of the Supreme Court.
Here is part of a story that raises concerns about her brusque characteristics:
Sotomayor earned considerable praise among the lawyers quoted in the almanac. However, she also elicited critiques that range from “she can be a terror on the bench” and “she is temperamental and excitable” to “she can be a bit of a bully” and “she can get harsh at oral argument.”
All told, her temperament drew a dozen highly critical comments. Another appellate judge who was considered for the Supreme Court opening, Diane Wood of the Chicago -based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals , has uniformly positive almanac reviews concerning judicial temperament.
Lawyers who have worked with her have stated that many of the comments she has made that have led to her temper being scrutinized have been to keep them on task, and she often requires extra preparation on the part of the attorneys. While a single judge in her own court, there would be more freedom to exercise her temperament, but as part of a panel of judges, requiring everything and everyone to meet with her individual expectations may be less possible, and much less desirable. Especially as a judge, it is very important not to act in a way that will be intimidating to others, considering the magnitude of any ruling by the Supreme Court.
The comment that Sotomayor made during a speech that has many people concerned that she may be a racist, for instance, seemed to be bringing more emotion and personal judgment to issues that come before the court than should have been there. Even certain Democratic advisors are recommending that the White House or Sotomayor herself address this issue head on:
Some Democrats and political analysts are urging the White House to shift course and concede that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made an error when she suggested in 2001 that Hispanic women would make better judges than white men.
âShe misspoke,â said Lanny Davis, a White House lawyer and spokesman for President Bill Clinton. âEvery day that goes by that they donât say she misspoke and she used the wrong words … they just feed it and give it life …â
Said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane: âIn this day and age, six or seven or eight weeks is a long time to go without addressing an issue that can potentially take on a life of its own and evolve and grow.â
Lehane… said allowing talk show hosts, blogs and cable shows to continue to fulminate about Sotomayorâs Berkeley comments was risky…
The controversy is swirling around this comment from Sotomayor during a 2001 speech to a University of California, Berkeley conference on law and diversity: âI would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnât lived that life…â
âJudge Sotomayor would be wise not to tap dance around this. Donât just âclarifyâ the statement, take it back,â University of Virginia politics professor Larry Sabato wrote in a posting at POLITICOâs Arena. âExplain that she simply meant to say that we are all a product of our unique backgrounds and experiences and that those backgrounds and experiences inform our decisions. But no oneâs gender or ethnic background inherently leads to superior decisions. It would be refreshing to hear a Supreme Court nominee say, âIâm not perfect. I made a mistake here.ââ
Davis said it makes little sense to allow the comment to linger until late July, which is the earliest likely time for confirmation hearings to begin.
All these are concerns that conservatives as well as liberals would do well to consider.
