Gay Patriot Header Image

House Speaker Calls Barney Frank, “Congresswoman”

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:29 pm - March 26, 2009.
Filed under: Congress (111th),Pelosi Watch

Sean Hannity had the clip (I’ll post it if I can find it online). I doubt HRC will be asking for an apology. I wonder what Nancy Pelosi’s gay constituents will say about this.

Can you imagine the media firestorm if a Republican had called a gay Congressman, “Congresswoman”?

Obama Chief of Staff Tied to Key Player in Financial Meltdown

After President Clinton named Rahm Emanuel to the board of Freddie Mac in 2000, the current White House Chief of Staff sat on a board of directors deemed “so pliant” by Armando Falcon Jr,. , head of a federal oversight agency for the government-sponsored mortgage giant,

that Freddie Mac’s managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac’s industry reputation as “Steady Freddie,” a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac’s stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.

The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.“  Not just that, “Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government’s guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating.”

As Freddie Mac crumbled, putting taxpayers on the hook for $44 billion, not to mention the losses suffered by stockholders, Emanuel pocketed a hefty sum, making “at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000.”

In short, Emanuel “benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation’s current economic mess.”

It would be nice to know if the aide to the president now trying to find a means to fix the mess created in large part by mismanagement at the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, including Freddie, had done anything to alert the board to the accounting gimmickry of the management, or if he helped further its demise by endorsing their schemes, but

The Obama administration rejected a Tribune [the paper breaking the story] request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director.

So much for the Administration’s much vaunted promise of transparency.


Wonder What John Aravosis Has to Say About This

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:52 pm - March 26, 2009.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Media Bias

Podesta Plant at White House Presser: “a partisan, ideologically-driven individual from an organization that is aggressively promoting the Obama agenda was granted media credentials for the White House.”

(H/t:  Reader Peter Hughes)

New Hampshire House Approves Gay Marriage Bill

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:31 pm - March 26, 2009.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

The state House on Thursday voted narrowly to make New Hampshire” the third state to recgonize same-sex marriages.

Instead of hyperventilating like HRC, I’ll just echo what I said two days ago when the Senate in the Granite State’s New England neighbor passed a similar measure:  “This is how states should address the issue, through the elected legislature, on the initiative of its members.

Why Not A Pay Cut for Federal Employees?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:02 pm - March 26, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Blogging,Random Thoughts

Among Michelle Malkin‘s Buzzworthy posts today, she includes a link to this one at Sweetness & Light, NY Times To Cut Pay 5%, Lay Off Workers.  The post reminded me of the number of friends and acquaintances whose employers have cut their pay due to tough economic times.

Now, I’m wondering, given the record-setting deficits facing the federal government, whether or not the Administration has proposed cutting the pay of federal workers as a means to save a few bucks.  I mean, it doesn’t seem fair that their salaries remain constant while many of those who pay them have smaller paychecks.

Just wonderin’, you know.

Barney Frank Defends his Name-Calling

Say there were a prominent Republican Congressman, a committee chairman to boot, and he went on a tear about a certain Supreme Court Justice, calling him anti-Christian because of his opinions on the separation of church and state.  When he was faulted for his inflammatory rhetoric, he dug in and repeated the slur.   The media would have a field day with this guy, calling him an extremist, possibly a conspiracy-monger.  We would read regular editorials in the New York Times denouncing him.

Well, we’ve got something similar with a leading Democrat.  Ol’ Barney Frank just can’t let go of his assertion that Justice Antonin Scalia is a “homophobe.”  Now, the unhappy Congressman has taken to the pages of the Huffington Post to defend his slur.  And only conservatives are calling him on his meanness.

And get this, in attacking the level-headed Justice, Barney calls his opinions “angry” and “virulent.”  My, my, Barney, you sound like a blogger having fun with his adversaries rather than a Congressman addressing a Justice of the Supreme Court.  (Yet, there is no spirit of sport in the tone of your post.)

My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity.

Actually, when you read the opinions, you don’t find the anger Barney so eagerly wants to find.  Now, I don’t agree with Scalia’s opinion in Lawrence which which the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts excerpts, but I do find a well-thought out opinion.  Wrong in my view, but well argued.

Indeed, much of what Scalia says is beyond dispute for those who have bothered to study the treatment of gay people in society over the generations.  We may not like the historical record, but it’s there.

Barney even chooses to excerpt an passage from Scalia’s dissent in Romer v. Evans to show the Justice is a “homophobe” when a simple reading of the text shows the exact opposite:

Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even “animus” toward such conduct.

Yeah, I would rather he had not compared homosexual conduct to murder, but he makes clear that he believes it wrong to hate people just because they’re gay.  It’s the conduct that that he believes the constitution allows states to punish.

It is fine and honorable to object to the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice.  It’s quite another thing to engage in name-calling.  But, Barney Frank has made name-calling his practice when dealing with conservatives and conservative ideas he doesn’t like.

I suggest he tone down his rhetoric.  But, he knows that the media lets him get away with conduct for which it would excoriate a conservative.

UPDATE:  Tom Maguire agrees:

I don’t find support for Frank’s assertion that Scalia believes homosexuality “deserves” to be treated with disapproval; I find a stern reminder that the public deserves courts that wait until legislatures legislate before creating new rights.

Oh, well – Frank is not interested in a frank exchange of views.  His goal is to shut down debate by branding everyone on the other side as a homophobe.

Exactly.  Exactly.  Barney’s goal is to shut down debate.

Steve Schmidt Plots Strategy for GOP on Gays

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Blade, Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, “urged Republicans to steer clear of divisive social issues if they are to remain viable candidates

I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage. . . . The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.

Exactly.  He has a lot more to say on the issues (so read the whole thing), but I wish to focus on this, one of the things our party needs to do to win back its majority–avoid making social issues the focus.  It’s why, I believe, we should put the focus on the taxes, spending and national security.  If we do address social issues, say we believe they should be resolved by elected legislatures not appointed judges.

The most important thing is to avoid even the appearance that our leadership has made social issues their defining ideology.

Personally, I wish more Republicans would do as Utah’s GOP Governor John Huntsman (perhaps following the lead of his Nutmeg State counterpart) has done (as Schmidt points out) and come out in favor of state recognition of same-sex civil unions.

(H/t GayPatriot Reader Mr. Moderate)

Daniel Hannan for President of the USA

If only it were possible. (hat tip: Loyal Friend and GP Reader Dan M.)

Where are OUR Daniel Hannans here in our Republic? Who will speak out about Obama bankrupting America? And would our news media even pay attention?

Senseless questions in a depressing time.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Democrats Proposing “Wrong Cure” for Financial Mess

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:45 am - March 26, 2009.
Filed under: Economy

In wondering why the Administration wants more power to “regulate financial institutions,” Jennifer Rubin offers a rhetorical summary of the Democrats and the financial mess:

This really goes to the heart of the entire critique by Democrats and much of the media —  that our present difficulties are the fault of “deregulation.” Based on this faulty diagnosis the cure they propose — more regulation — is, not surprisingly, the wrong one.  It was a government entity — the Fed — that left the credit punch bowl at the party too long. It was a government entity — Congress — that passed fair housing laws compelling lenders to make loans to the credit-unworthy. It was government sponsored entities — Freddie Mac and Fannies Mae — that went hog wild on sub-prime mortgages. It was Congress again that refused to reel in Freddie and Fannie. And it has been a series of churning, expensive, and laborious machinations by the Fed and Treasury which are causing us to funnel trillions into institutions while micromanaging and ultimately harassing their management.

As she reminds us yet again of the Democrats blaming “deregulation” I decided to check my post where I asked readers who bought that “‘deregulation theory’ of the meltdown to identify the specific legislation [then-President George W.] Bush signed deregulating the financial industry and the specific policies he and his Administration enacted.

None had.

When are the Grownups Coming Home?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:18 am - March 26, 2009.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Obama Watch

Whenever I watch Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on TV or learn that yet another Administration nominee has withdrawn his name from consideration, it seems I’m not watching the actual government of the United States, but a group of high school students playacting.

These guys just don’t seem serious about the business of governance.  I mean, sometimes it seems like “amateur hour” at the White House.

We face an economic crisis which started in the financial markets.  And the president repeatedly reminds us about the crisis while blaming his predecessor for its scope, yet he still hasn’t tapped individuals to fill top jobs in the Treasury Department, the federal department primarily for handling the financial markets.  The Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, “the blue-ribbon panel” the president appointed “to help him dig America out of its economic crisis. . . has yet to hold an official public meeting.

He rushes passages of a multi-hundred trillion dollar “stimulus” package with a provision allowing from AIG executives to take bonuses, yet gets all huffy puffy when it comes that they did just that.  He refuses to take responsibility for that provision, just as he blames the deficits he “inherited” on his predecessor as if he were not part of the congressional majority which voted for the previous two bloated budgets.

And as for that “stimulus,” well, one day he signs the budget boondoggle, then the next week hosts a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit.”  One day, he signs a spending bill laden with earmarks and then decries earmarks the next day.  He promises to cut the deficit in half while spending at a rate sure to double it.

It doesn’t seem like we have to endure 46 more months of this, that the real president will soon be coming home and we’ll get an Administration which actually attends to the business of government.