Gay Conservatives Slam Obama
For Ignoring Islamic Terror Against Gays
For Ignoring Islamic Terror Against Gays
Where other gay groups in America dare to tread, GOProud barrels ahead at full steam.
In the wake of a series of murders of gay Iraqis in the stronghold of radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, a registered 527 for gay conservatives and their allies, issued the following statement.
“Instead of unilaterally surrendering the global war on terror, now is the time for the Obama administration to recommit to fighting global extremism. It is intolerable for the U.S. government to turn a blind eye to the type of human rights abuses occurring at the hands of Islamic extremists in Iraq and indeed throughout the Middle East. If the United States is to maintain its position of moral leadership in the world, then this administration must make it clear that basic human rights for all should be respected.
It is shameful that so many on the left have made excuses for the human rights abuses carried out by tyrannical extremist regimes from Cuba to Venezuela to Iran. It is time for the blame America first crowd to recognize the real threats to peace and freedom that exist across the globe.”
Where is the Human Rights Campaign on Islamic extremists & gays? And the NGLTF? Or even Log Cabin (Republicans) ? We all know the answer: *crickets chirping*
Here at GayPatriot and GOProud — we will not ignore the brutal gay purges being systematically carried out by Islamists around the globe.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Where is the
Human Rights Campaignfederally-focused, DC-based lobbying group onIslamic extremistsoverseas events & gays? And the N(ational)GLTF? Or even Log Cabin (Republicans) ? Why aren’t all of these US-focused institutions doing more about international events? Why isn’t the local police department carrying its weight in Afghanistan? Why can’t my city councilman deal with Bin Laden? Clearly, they hate America.Comment by torrentprime — April 18, 2009 @ 2:38 pm - April 18, 2009
If the US isn’t going to use it’s political-leverage to stop Afghanistan’s martial rape law from getting signed, what makes you think our government is going to object to the Iraqis lynching or stoning their own gays?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 18, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - April 18, 2009
Human rights can be awfully inconvenient. I remember conversing with someone about the abortion issue a couple of years ago. He was strongly pro-choice. I asked him if he supported a Chinese woman’s right to choose by opposing the One Couple, One Child policy that results in millions of forced abortions each year. He was in favor of China’s policy, proving the issue isn’t one of choice but of population control as part of his environmentalism. He was also against making human rights an issue with China because he worked in international trade (transportation).
Any time there are human rights abuses against anyone is cause for concern, but I hate to see outrage divided along the lines of identity politics. I of course agree that people shouldn’t be murdered for their homosexuality but I resist feeling obligated or particularly supportive of those who issue outrage because of their homosexuality, as if there is a special concern for those with whom is shared mere orientation. For myself, there is no ’special outrage’ reserved for gay victims — only outrage. I’d rather fight for human rights than gay rights and this is why I tend to think organizations designed for conservatives along lines identified as important to cultural leftists betray conservatism and are to be avoided. No offense.
Comment by Ignatius — April 18, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - April 18, 2009
To see GOProud speak out on an issue like this shows its potential to make a difference and distinguish itself from Log Cabin. I mean, this is not an issue the other gay groups will be addressing.
And that should help them attract atttention and support from rank-and-file gay conservative unhappy with Log Cabin’s more timid approach on terror.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — April 18, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - April 18, 2009
Ignatius
Organizations and “causes†like Bruce is referring to are simply strawman organizations with strawman arguments.
Unfortunately, their true “cause†is to somehow try to stick fingers in the eye of groups they don’t like. I don’t think it has anything to do with actually supporting human rights.
Which is too bad. If they got passed their pettiness They might get some actual support and do some good in the world.
Instead they focus on being children.
Comment by gillie — April 18, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - April 18, 2009
If this is an example of the kind of departure we can expect from the Log Cabin Republicans, it’s in the wrong direction. However, it isn’t unexpected – the trend for most conservative groups after the Democratic sweep has been to move more to the right and to become more shrilly partisan.
That’s not to say this isn’t an important issue. It is, however, a very specific issue, and one that’s encapsulated in the broader issue of Islamic extremism, which is also killing Christians, women, atheists, and others. You’ve got a complaint? Get in line, we all see injustices around the world that we frustratingly can’t get people to pay attention to. What’s more, the language of the press release isn’t as devoted to the actual issue as it should be, and instead uses most of its wordage to making ridiculous and senselessly inflammatory accusations that Obama and the left want to surrender to terrorists and excuse the murdering of gays.
I’ve read stories about gays being murdered across the Muslim world over the years and can’t really understand why you’d say that it’s an issue that’s being ignored. It seems to me that this issue might not be as important to you as ’slamming’ Obama over anything you can think of.
Comment by Levi — April 18, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - April 18, 2009
Any time there are human rights abuses against anyone is cause for concern, but I hate to see outrage divided along the lines of identity politics. I of course agree that people shouldn’t be murdered for their homosexuality but I resist feeling obligated or particularly supportive of those who issue outrage because of their homosexuality, as if there is a special concern for those with whom is shared mere orientation. For myself, there is no ’special outrage’ reserved for gay victims — only outrage. I’d rather fight for human rights than gay rights and this is why I tend to think organizations designed for conservatives along lines identified as important to cultural leftists betray conservatism and are to be avoided. No offense.
I agree with this sentiment, and would further add that devoting so much of the press release to making ridiculous, inflammatory, and cliched accusations that the left wants to surrender to terrorists and excuse the murdering of gays hinders the credibility of this group’s advocacy while exposing its very shrill and partisan streak. That’s been the direction that most conservative groups are trending, so it’s not unusual, but it is unfortunate.
Comment by Levi — April 18, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - April 18, 2009
gillie, I take Bruce at his word that his concern is genuine. GOProud’s formation was in response to the superfluous, flaccid, and even damaging record of LCR and while I understand a certain frustration, these are organizations I don’t tend to join. I agree that fueling a group based upon frustration with another or comparisons with others one feels aren’t living up to one’s own ideals is thin and will soon run dry.
The irony Bruce implies is that the very organizations whose formation is based upon the identity that proves fatal for so many are silent, i.e. culture or national identity is for them ‘live and let die’. My argument isn’t so much with pointing out the hypocrisy nor with his outrage (if one has accepted an obligation specific to homosexuals I consider invalid) but with its compartmentalization.
Comment by Ignatius — April 18, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - April 18, 2009
Levi, I agree that the statement is inflammatory and paints with an unnecessarily broad brush. It weakens the statement considerably and guarantees it won’t be taken seriously by those with whose behavior it takes issue. But I doubt they are its intended audience.
Comment by Ignatius — April 18, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - April 18, 2009
#1: Huh?
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 18, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - April 18, 2009
#1
Well gee, you’d think a group called the Human Rights Campaign would, maybe, give a rotten damn about human rights, wouldn’t you? Furthermore, all the international “human rights” groups have spent the last 8 years blaming America in general and Bush in particular for human rights abuses while ignoring such atrocities as genocide.
Maybe because for the past 8 years, liberals have done everything they could to surrender to the terrorists??? Maybe because they piss and moan about KSM having water splashed in his face while Americans were burned alive or decapitated on video?
Cry me a river, bitch.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 18, 2009 @ 7:04 pm - April 18, 2009
Perhaps someone on the left might comment on this blog post AND the article it links to? I think many (not all) lefties side with anything/anyone that hates the west – even if it might lead to their own destruction down the line.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDM4NzEwMmU0ZGU1MTJhNTA2ODIzYWNlODA2MDRkZWY=
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 18, 2009 @ 8:11 pm - April 18, 2009
Maybe because for the past 8 years, liberals have done everything they could to surrender to the terrorists??? Maybe because they piss and moan about KSM having water splashed in his face while Americans were burned alive or decapitated on video?
Cry me a river, bitch.
My, my. What in the holy hell are you talking about?
Comment by Levi — April 18, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - April 18, 2009
Perhaps someone on the left might comment on this blog post AND the article it links to? I think many (not all) lefties side with anything/anyone that hates the west – even if it might lead to their own destruction down the line.
None of that sounds even remotely descriptive of most liberals I know, read, watch, or listen to. This type of nonsense is deliberate conflation; anything less than ‘I support every action the United States has ever taken’ is interpreted by conservatives to mean that we’re trying to bring the system down, we want to coddle terrorists, we’re blissfully unaware of our own imminent destruction, etc. It’s not like this is some new allegation, either, so it’s as boring as it is baseless. You frame the question as such (many lefties side with anything that hates the west), and want me to waste keystrokes responding to such drivel? No thanks.
Comment by Levi — April 18, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - April 18, 2009
My, my. What in the holy hell are you talking about?
Oh, these couple of thousand people who all happened to be in the World Trade Centers on September 11, or this guy named Daniel Pearl. You probably never heard about it; I understand the Obama Party keeps that sort of thing quiet.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 18, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - April 18, 2009
#13: “None of that sounds even remotely descriptive of most liberals I know, read, watch, or listen to.”
So, it’s just you and Obama then? I suppose you’re the only one that believes the US owes the “global community” an abject apology and should be begging the rest of the world (including the Islamic Republics) for a “clean slate?”
Comment by Sean A — April 19, 2009 @ 12:05 am - April 19, 2009
Human rights is an important issue. I crosses all divides. If gay men in Iran are being murdered usually through hanging, then yes someone needs to speak out about this abuse. Amnesty International and other human rights groups that are normal the voice of the left have been very silent over these abuses.
They have also been silent about other issues such as allowing rape in marriage, and the marrying off of 8 year old children to men who are much older. This is something that occurs in a lot of nations including Bolivia. The idea of marrying off a child at such a tender age is totally repulsive.
As a straight person, I see that there is a need to speak out on behalf of those homosexuals who are being hounded by the thought police in Iran, and the same about the women who are bashed and abused because they show a bit of ankle flesh in Iran and other M.E. countries.
It is intolerable that the left refuse to acknowledge these abuses, and that they continue to promote these regimes with their rhetoric.
This should be an issue that crosses over the political spectrum. It is not just a gay rights issue. It is a human rights issue.
Comment by Aussie — April 19, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - April 19, 2009
This is not so much a comment on any of the above as a commentary on the way the left-leaning media censors opinions it does not want anyone to hear. I submitted the following three comments to a New York Times blog on Netanyahu’s decision to reject Obama’s dictate regarding “settlement activity” in Jerusalem (i.e., housing development in sovereign Israeli territory). The specifications of the blog require that comments be “on-point and not abusive” (). Not a single one of these was permitted to be published by the NYT censor, indicating that the overwhelmingly anti-Israel slant of the blog is a consciously crafted artifact on the part of the NYT censor so as to “create” public opinion.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html?sort=newest
This is typical of The New York Times and its “commitment” to free speech. The proportion of anti-Israel comments here is at least 10-to-1. However, one suspects that this is because the silent hand of the editor of this blog weeds out those that are favorable to Israel. Here are a few examples of what was not published because it was deemed other than “on-topic and not abusive.” I fail to see in what way it fell afoul of either criterion.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
3:17 pm
Right on, Bibi. Obama’s Islamist panderings are not to be supported by the self-destruction of Israel. If Obama wants to institute land for peace, let him give back northern Arizona to the Navaho and start from there. This utter amateur of a President, who now tries to cover up his lack of a domestic policy with jet-setting junkets at taxpayer expense to such strategically crucial areas as Ghana and who placed the United States at risk by insulting Putin on his own turf by refusing to have dinner with him and forcing Putin to make it a breakfast meeting, is gradually imploding as the emptiness of his policies is coming to roost. He was elected primarily because of the stock market and housing crash. A large but secondary factor was the lackluster and even worrisome caliber of the opposition Republican team. Oprah and the impressionable recklessness of the American glued-to-television voter was obviously a third factor. But as for his merits, they are as evanescent and empty as he is. This narcissist par excellence actually believes that he brings some sort of \”political capital\” to the table and can impose a peace on the Middle East–which is proof positive of his absolute ignorance of the Middle East and the history and loyalties of its various peoples. If peace is ever to come to this war-scarred region, it will not be soon and it certainly will not be by virtue of Obama in a region where the Arabs still think of all blacks as slaves. Good work in standing up to this clown, Bibi. Gamla, Masada, and Jerusalem shall not fall again, whatever this Kansan-Kauai buffoon may think.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
4:02 pm
Israel would like nothing better than for the U.S. to stop its foreign \”aid,\” which in the final analysis is a whip with which to keep other countries in line. Israel is an exporter of military equipment and technology and does not require American military aid, which ultimately goes back into the United States to pay for American military contractors who build armaments that the Israelis are quite adept at building themselves. The foreign aid program of any country is always a tool of internal policy, not a work of charity. Foreign aid creates control; it is for exactly this reason that the United States conducts military exercises with countries from across the globe: so as to have a say in the way their military establishments operate and to exert a lever that will allow American armaments manufacturers to have an external market. The fact that the readership here does not comprehend this shows the shallowness of its political and economic understanding. The bottom line is that Israel is not going to commit suicide to give Obama a photo op on the White House steps. The history of the Middle East and the fierceness of ethnic and religious affiliations go deep for both Iaraelis and Arabs, for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and for the various other nationalities from Copts to Turks to Persians who live in this region. The rest of the world works on principles a bit deeper than the sound-bite level of American television or of a President who got into office on the strength of a talk-show host.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
4:51 pm
I am waiting for a single person here to tell me why “settlement” activity is contrary to peace. The territory under the Palestine Mandate and confirmed in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres was specifically designated for “close Jewish settlement.” Churchill in 1922 limited that provision to Palestine west of the Jordan River, where Jerusalem (and all of Israel and what is now the Palestinian Authority) clearly lies. So the supposed “illegality” is in fact a fiction proclaimed by those ignorant of the legality of the provisions under which Palestine was carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of World War I. The United States, thanks July 19th, 2009 4:51 pm I am waiting for a single person here to tell me why “settlement” activity is contrary to peace. The territory under the Palestine Mandate and confirmed in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres was specifically designated for “close Jewish settlement.” Churchill in 1922 limited that provision to Palestine west of the Jordan River, where Jerusalem (and all of Israel and what is now the Palestinian Authority) clearly lies. So the supposed “illegality” is in fact a fiction proclaimed by those ignorant of the legality of the provisions under which Palestine was carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of World War I. The United States, thanks perhaps to its evangelist and millennarian religious past, is very adept at dictating morality to others, which is promptly reinterprets in a different way for itself. What is the inherent justification for white European settlement on “Indian land” by people with no historical connection to the American continent that trumps Jewish settlement on land that not only was designated for such settlement under international law but also has a historical connection with the people doing the settling? Why the historical amnesia of the fact that the Arabian language is spoken by millions of people who are not Arabs–from Egypt to Iraq to Syria to Morocco–solely because it was spread by brutality, religious compulsion, and rapacious conquest, a process which to this day continues by proxy in Darfur, an amnesia that expresses itself in utter silence at the murder of women in “honor killings” by Muslim families, in executions of gay men, and in the barbaric amputation of the limbs of convicted thieves? Sanctimony, one of the historical gifts bestowed upon this continent by the British, reigns supreme. That being so, it is not Israel’s obligation to commit territorial harakiri to satisfy the smug hypocrisy of a country that has made itself a vassal of China and Arabia and which likes to paint itself in flattering tones to conceal the fact that it is a country very much in decline. If Obama’s bullying pushes Israel to embrace Russia, which is already happening, it will be just one more country lost to the United States because of incompetence and misdirection at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
5:31 pm
Whatever the value of the opinions expressed here, the one thing that is clear is that The New York Times is utterly unscrupulous in the way it “moderates” this and other blogs. The proportion of anti-Israel invective witnessed here reminds one of the results of the recent Iranian election, in which the hated Ahmadinejad supposedly won a “landslide” victory by 2-to-1 over Moussavi. The Times censors the opinions it does not want to hear, knowing as it does that the CIA and the State Department monitor these blogs to influence the direction of national policy. The proportions of anti- to pro-Israel comments are not what The Times censor wishes to give the impression of. Kudos from Robespierre, Goebbels, and Stalin on your excellent thought control.
Comment by Bruce — July 19, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - July 19, 2009
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html?sort=newest
This is typical of The New York Times and its “commitment” to free speech. The proportion of anti-Israel comments here is at least 10-to-1. However, one suspects that this is because the silent hand of the editor of this blog weeds out those that are favorable to Israel. Here is an example of what was not published because it was deemed other than “on-topic and not abusive.” I fail to see in what way it fell afoul of either criterion.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
3:17 pm
Right on, Bibi. Obama’s Islamist panderings are not to be supported by the self-destruction of Israel. If Obama wants to institute land for peace, let him give back northern Arizona to the Navaho and start from there. This utter amateur of a President, who now tries to cover up his lack of a domestic policy with jet-setting junkets at taxpayer expense to such strategically crucial areas as Ghana and who placed the United States at risk by insulting Putin on his own turf by refusing to have dinner with him and forcing Putin to make it a breakfast meeting, is gradually imploding as the emptiness of his policies is coming to roost. He was elected primarily because of the stock market and housing crash. A large but secondary factor was the lackluster and even worrisome caliber of the opposition Republican team. Oprah and the impressionable recklessness of the American glued-to-television voter was obviously a third factor. But as for his merits, they are as evanescent and empty as he is. This narcissist par excellence actually believes that he brings some sort of \”political capital\” to the table and can impose a peace on the Middle East–which is proof positive of his absolute ignorance of the Middle East and the history and loyalties of its various peoples. If peace is ever to come to this war-scarred region, it will not be soon and it certainly will not be by virtue of Obama in a region where the Arabs still think of all blacks as slaves. Good work in standing up to this clown, Bibi. Gamla, Masada, and Jerusalem shall not fall again, whatever this Kansan-Kauai buffoon may think.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
4:02 pm
Israel would like nothing better than for the U.S. to stop its foreign \”aid,\” which in the final analysis is a whip with which to keep other countries in line. Israel is an exporter of military equipment and technology and does not require American military aid, which ultimately goes back into the United States to pay for American military contractors who build armaments that the Israelis are quite adept at building themselves. The foreign aid program of any country is always a tool of internal policy, not a work of charity. Foreign aid creates control; it is for exactly this reason that the United States conducts military exercises with countries from across the globe: so as to have a say in the way their military establishments operate and to exert a lever that will allow American armaments manufacturers to have an external market. The fact that the readership here does not comprehend this shows the shallowness of its political and economic understanding. The bottom line is that Israel is not going to commit suicide to give Obama a photo op on the White House steps. The history of the Middle East and the fierceness of ethnic and religious affiliations go deep for both Iaraelis and Arabs, for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and for the various other nationalities from Copts to Turks to Persians who live in this region. The rest of the world works on principles a bit deeper than the sound-bite level of American television or of a President who got into office on the strength of a talk-show host.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
4:51 pm
I am waiting for a single person here to tell me why “settlement” activity is contrary to peace. The territory under the Palestine Mandate and confirmed in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres was specifically designated for “close Jewish settlement.” Churchill in 1922 limited that provision to Palestine west of the Jordan River, where Jerusalem (and all of Israel and what is now the Palestinian Authority) clearly lies. So the supposed “illegality” is in fact a fiction proclaimed by those ignorant of the legality of the provisions under which Palestine was carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of World War I. The United States, thanks July 19th, 2009 4:51 pm I am waiting for a single person here to tell me why “settlement” activity is contrary to peace. The territory under the Palestine Mandate and confirmed in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres was specifically designated for “close Jewish settlement.” Churchill in 1922 limited that provision to Palestine west of the Jordan River, where Jerusalem (and all of Israel and what is now the Palestinian Authority) clearly lies. So the supposed “illegality” is in fact a fiction proclaimed by those ignorant of the legality of the provisions under which Palestine was carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of World War I. The United States, thanks perhaps to its evangelist and millennarian religious past, is very adept at dictating morality to others, which is promptly reinterprets in a different way for itself. What is the inherent justification for white European settlement on “Indian land” by people with no historical connection to the American continent that trumps Jewish settlement on land that not only was designated for such settlement under international law but also has a historical connection with the people doing the settling? Why the historical amnesia of the fact that the Arabian language is spoken by millions of people who are not Arabs–from Egypt to Iraq to Syria to Morocco–solely because it was spread by brutality, religious compulsion, and rapacious conquest, a process which to this day continues by proxy in Darfur, an amnesia that expresses itself in utter silence at the murder of women in “honor killings” by Muslim families, in executions of gay men, and in the barbaric amputation of the limbs of convicted thieves? Sanctimony, one of the historical gifts bestowed upon this continent by the British, reigns supreme. That being so, it is not Israel’s obligation to commit territorial harakiri to satisfy the smug hypocrisy of a country that has made itself a vassal of China and Arabia and which likes to paint itself in flattering tones to conceal the fact that it is a country very much in decline. If Obama’s bullying pushes Israel to embrace Russia, which is already happening, it will be just one more country lost to the United States because of incompetence and misdirection at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
memorialjack
New York
July 19th, 2009
5:31 pm
Whatever the value of the opinions expressed here, the one thing that is clear is that The New York Times is utterly unscrupulous in the way it “moderates” this and other blogs. The proportion of anti-Israel invective witnessed here reminds one of the results of the recent Iranian election, in which the hated Ahmadinejad supposedly won a “landslide” victory by 2-to-1 over Moussavi. The Times censors the opinions it does not want to hear, knowing as it does that the CIA and the State Department monitor these blogs to influence the direction of national policy. The proportions of anti- to pro-Israel comments are not what The Times censor wishes to give the impression of. Kudos from Robespierre, Goebbels, and Stalin on your excellent thought control.
Comment by Bruce — July 19, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - July 19, 2009
Whay do you expect from an Islamomarxist?
Comment by jnormansayles — February 21, 2010 @ 11:10 pm - February 21, 2010