Gay Patriot Header Image

Why Won’t Obama “Redistribute” His Own Wealth…
To His Needy Family?

First we found out that Barack’s half-brother is living in squalor in Kenya.

Now we learn that Barack’s aunt and uncle are living in deplorable conditions in Boston.

Shouldn’t Barack practice what he preaches.. and redistribute some of he and Michelle’s wealth to his needy family?   Or is Michelle still paying off those damn student loans she whines about all the time?

[RELATED: ConfederateYankee proposes we should all “Adopt an Obama”]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): A reader of Hugh Hewitt’s blog asks a great question: “So let me get this straight. Millionaire Obama doesn’t use his wealth to help his poor illegal alien Aunt get out of public housing, but if I complain about Obama wanting to raise my taxes to ‘spread the wealth around’ I’m the selfish one?

Will Libertarian Ideas Decide Fate of Prop. 8?

While Dick Morris expects undecideds to break for McCain, I’ve been trying to figure out how they’ll break on Proposition 8.   I wonder if some who indicate they’re undecided have already made up their mind, but refuse to tell pollsters because they fear they won’t give the response, they expect, the pollster wants to hear.

That could mean “Yes” is a stronger position than the polls indicate.

Or, could those undecided voters do what I (and other Californians) do when they’re uncertain about ballot propositions, vote “No.”  Or, given the number of issues on this year’s ballot in the Golden State, will they not even get that far and not vote in that race?

In the end, Californians being who we are, I think it’ll boil down to a libertarian argument.  If undecideds see the initiative as preventing gay people from exercising their freedom, then they’ll vote against it.  If the see state recognition of gay marriage as forcing us to accept gay marriage, they’ll vote in favor.

Both sides played in this “libertarian” notion.  The first “Yes” ad using San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s words to say we’d get gay marriage “whether we liked it or not.”  The third “No” ad showed respect for opponents of gay marriage with this line, “Because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law.”

The “No” side would be in a better position had it built on that notion, showing a respect for those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, but, at the same time, don’t want to prevent same-sex couples from seeking state recognition of their unions.

That’s why I believe the “No” side would have been better served had it used freedom or liberty in its slogan, instead of equality.

Proponent of Propostion 8 Imitates the Left . . .

. . . compares opponents to Nazis.

I’ve seen some loopy things in this campaign, but this one really takes the cake. This proponent of Proposition 8 seems to compare himself to a German theologian who stood up to Hitler.

Not sure I follow his logic here, but then again, I don’t much get the left when they compare Bush to Hitler and Republicans to Nazis. If Bush were Hitler, wouldn’t they then be in concentration camps for criticizing him? If Republicans were Nazis, wouldn’t they be proposing laws preventing minority groups from participating in civil society while preparing them for isolation, deportation and execution?

Similarly, this guy doesn’t seem to face censure for standing up to whomever he’s standing up to.

If this toon is the face of Prop 8, well then the initiative should be easily defeated.

Barney Frank’s Partisan Prejudice

As I pondered Barney Frank’s accusation that John McCain was appealing to anti-gay prejudice when he brought up the Masachusetts Democrat’s recent proposals to raise taxes and slash defense spending, I was struck at how quick he was to smear Republicans.

Instead of taking issue with McCain’s arguments, perhaps defending the merits of his proposed tax increases or showing how a drastic cut in national defense wouldn’t impact national security, he immediately jumped to the conclusion that a Republican would only bring him up to play into anti-gay sentiments.

Does he believe his statements are not worthy of criticism?  Is he incapable of recognizing that conservatives might object to his ideas?  Why does he assume that a Republican who criticizes him does so because of prejudice?

I mean, he equates McCain’s criticism of him with “past Republican efforts to raise voter concerns about the prospect of congressmen Charles Rangel and John Conyers, who are black, becoming committee chairs.“  Um, Barney, both men come from the extreme left of your party, with the latter having “a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war” (before he chaired the House Judiciary Committee) with a host of left-wing conspiracy theorists.

It seems Barney harbors similar conspiracy theories about Republicans, given the assumptions he makes about us.  Call it his partisan prejudice.  It’s a sad day for America when a politician so prominent and so smart harbors such prejudices about the opposing party.  He ignores our ideas and assumes our animus.

Obama’s Pretense

Perhaps the one thing which caused me to change my once favorable opinion of Barack Obama was when I realized his notion of a “new kind of politics” was just a slogan, pretense masking an undistinguished record.  The more familiar I became with Obama’s ideas, the more apparent it became that he was pretty much a standard issue liberal.  See a social problem, look for a government solution.

He had no record of reaching across the partisan divide to forge a consensus on controversial issues, had never bucked his party leadership on such matters.  Heck, he hadn’t even stood up to bigots and extremists in his own life.

Two pieces I read in the past twenty-four hours confirm this image of Obama, offering the same kind of politics his party has offered for more than three-quarters of a century.  Jonah Goldberg contends the Democratic nominee “symbolizes a return to an older vision of the United States that was seen as the ‘wave of the future’ eight decades ago.”

In a more detailed piece, Roger Kimball finds “most depressing . . . is the extent to which [the whole Obama juggernaut] represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again.“  In listing the taxes Obama plans to raise, Kimball holds that “Obama plans to resuscitate the welfare policies of the Great Society, but by stealth.”

Obama’s promise is all pretense.  It’s not a new kind of politics, but the same old liberalism.  The only difference is that when FDR tried these ideas back in the 1930s, he didn’t know they would exacerbate the Great Depression.  Now, we have a record of their failure, but that’s not deterring Obama from wanting to try them again.

Obama Voted Present on Reverend Wright’s Bigotry

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:28 pm - October 30, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Obama Watch

In the course of this campaign, my opinion of Barack Obama has eroded.  Once impressed with the charismatic Senator, the more I learned about him, the less confident I became of his abilities to unite this nation and lead our government.

My confidence in the Democratic presidential hopeful began to slip when I read his then-celebrated (now all but forgotten) speech on race.  He was then tryingt to contain the political damage caused by the revelation of his pastor’s hateful sermons.  As I put it at the time, he dodged the real issue, failing to “explain why he never challenged his pastor for his crazy comments.”

Of course those comments were more than crazy.  They were mean-spirited and evidenced a prejudice against white people and the nation which protected his right to utter such bile.

Now, I don’t share the mindset the Stonewall Democrats; I don’t believe a parishioner necessarily agrees with his preacher on every subject.  I don’t think Obama has the same angry animosity against white people as does the Reverend Wright or holds to the same lunatic conpiracy theories.

But, Barack Obama has styled himself a new kind of politician, one who can unite the nation.  Wouldn’t such a man, a leader who promotes change, have the guts to stand up to a man with whom he was close and challenge his bigotry and question his narrow world view?

That Obama chose to remain silent says a lot about the man.  He chose not to make waves.  He voted present on Reverend Wright’s bigotry.

For twenty years, when he sat in that church, Barack Obama had the chance to make a tough decision by challenging a man he admired. He had an opportunity to do the right thing, to take a stand against bigotry.  He took a pass on that one.  Is that the kind of guy we want as president?  One who dodges decision-making?  A man who sits silently by when a friend, a trusted advisor, spews malice toward many.

Do Palin-hating conservatives understand the grassroots?

The Jewish Athena (Jennifer Rubin) just penned, er, pixeled (?) a most excellent post on Sarah Palin, looking at the divisions within conservative circles over the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.  Rubin divides us into “Players”and “Kibitzers,” with the players (political activists) loving the Alaska Governor while the kibitzers (intellectuals) revile her.

It’s an interesting breakdown which makes sense even if it isn’t perfect.  I mean, I see myself as more a kibitzer than a player and I’m pretty enthusiastic about the Alaska Governor.  The distinction makes a lot more sense when Rubin fleshes it out, so make sure to read the whole thing.

What really struck me about the post was Rubin’s critique of the “kibitzers,” those

. . . who don’t hold office or run campaigns or much bother with real voters. They write books, tell us what is wrong with conservatism, and scold the poor slobs who run campaigns. They lack any visceral sense of actual conservative voters. Their bent is decidedly academic and their approach to politics is sterile.

That pretty much nails it. They don’t understand the imperative to inspire voters. When they see Reagan, they see primarily his intellectual bent. They miss the importance of Hollywood to his success, his understanding of appealing to an audience. And they forget the years he spent traveling the country working for General Electric, meeting with, talking to, listening to the company’s employees.

Reagan knew he had to reach out to these people. Having spent sixteen years in politics in a state where personal contact matters more than uplifting rhetoric, Sarah Palin has learned the same thing. Now, as I’ve said before, she just needs to complete her conservative education.

And then she might sway some of her conservative skeptics, with another Athena likely becoming the first to admit her error in underestimating Palin’s promise.

GayPatriot LA Election Watching Party

Given the success of our outing to see An American Carol earlier this month, some of those who attended expressed interest in a GayPatriot election night watching party here in the City of Angels.

Please e-mail me if you’d like to join us and have a place in mind for the shindig.

Is it just my imagination . . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:00 am - October 30, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Obama Watch

. . . or does Obama spokesman Bill Burton spend more time bashing FoxNews than defending his candidate?

While he says his guy is out there talking about the issues, he only seems to offer one specific policy Obama supports, his “tax cut” for 95% of Americans (when as many as 44% currently pay no income tax).

(Via HotAir.)

Is Breaking Promises the Change We Need?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:12 am - October 30, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Obama Watch

I did not watch the Obama infomercial last night.  The mere thought of it raised my hackles.  The Democrat paid for it with broken promises and possibly even broken laws.

As I worked on my piece on his opportunism yesterday, I became increasingly aware how duplicitous this man has been and how the media has covered for him. They have barely touched the story of his broken promise and all but failed to consider his fund-raising irregularities.

When he promised to accept public financing and challenged Republicans to do the same, Obama may have truly meant to keep his word.  But, given how quickly he changed his mind and how flimsy his rationale, it appears that word’s not worth very much.

Can we trust a man who readily reneges on a promise he repeated on multiple occasions?

Now, I don’t know if Obama broke any laws in raising his record-setting haul, but the evidence we’ve accumulated so far clearly indicates an investigation is in order.  His campaign confirmed that it “is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity.

Ed Morrissey believes the only reason the campaign “deliberately turned off the systems that would have guarded against the kind of fraudulent donations that have accrued millions to their coffers” was “to facilitate fraud.”  (Emphasis in original.)

We don’t know if donors took advantage of the lax online security to donate more than the legal limit.  We don’t know if foreigners, barred by law from contributing to presidential campaigns, supported the Democrat’s campaign.  Heck, the Obama campaign may not even know, but they did do a number of things which made such crimes possible.  And difficult to trace.