Gay Groups Silent as Obama Ignores Plight of Gays Under Islam
Welcome Instapundit Readers!!
Last Thursday, Bruce reported that, in his celebrated address to the Muslim world in Cairo, President Obama ignored the plight of gays living under Islam. Speculating that no national gay organizations would take the Democratic President to task for this failure, I offered to make a $25 contribution to any that did so by Monday (yesterday) morning.
Looks like I won’t have to contribute to any left-wing gay organization. None did.
These groups are so predictable. And this time, their apologists can’t say that this isn’t within the groups’ bailiwick as they (the apologists) do when we fault the gay groups for ignoring the plight of gays under Islam. Those apologists tell us that this is an international issue, not within their purview as advocates for gay rights within our borders. But, President Obama is an American leader.
The American President chose to address the Islamic world. Gays are being persecuted an executed, on a regular basis in many Islamic countries. The President ignored the plight.
They fail to praise a Republican former Vice President when he offers a more “progressive” view on gay marriage than does the Democrtic President of the United States. They fail to criticize that Democrat President when he ignores the plight of our fellows persecuted in Islamic lands.
While some gay activists clearly are not lickspittles, ready and wiling to take on even a Democratic President, it appears the leadership of the major gay and lesbian organizations are slavish supporters of Demorats, constantly bowing and kowtowing to their elected leaders. While that (R) after a politician’s name renders him immune from their praise, that (D) is like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, rendering him immune from criticism.
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Maybe if they blew themselves up on a bus in Jerusalem? Perhaps then the liberals would give a rat’s ass. Otherwise, it’s just not fashionable to care about anything other than their martinis and whom they’re going home with.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 4:59 am - June 9, 2009
‘But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.’
Yeah, its not a big fanfare, but homosexual lifestyles fall underneath that category. if you’re mad at obama for being diplomatic instead of combative in his language, then so be it.
Comment by lazarus — June 9, 2009 @ 5:18 am - June 9, 2009
lazarus, how does that help gay people?
It’s amazing how you excuse his failures. Did he ask Muslim nations to treat all citizens with dignity. Note the passage above is entirely descriptive, not admonitory. He’s not encouraging Muslim nations to do anything.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 9, 2009 @ 6:07 am - June 9, 2009
First off, amazing job linking every gay rights activist in the world to a cover-up for getting insurgents off the hook. Grade A stuff.
Way to state the obvious. American politics is riddled with childish loyalism, ohnoes! I’m here for the real gem though. Granted chocolate Jesus is still just a shitty politician, and his blinding last minute self-serving centrism leaves anyone on any side of the spectrum longing for more, he did at least attempt to take a stand for the humane treatment of homos worldwide. Which is more than any neo-con president would have attempted, despite the incessant penchant of so-called conservatives to want to frequently and furiously rape every nation below the equator in a frenzy of interventionist national interest. FOR FREEDOM, and what have you. Although I hurd ya’ll dun take too kindly to them there quasi-globalist United Nations proclamations.
Not that I’m accusing you of being in favor of foreign interventionism, but I get the feeling your flirtatious yet poorly constructed Dem-bashing is an outgrowth of your spiritual debt to the GOP. Which is fine, fingering the Middle East into oblivion is a grand old pastime after all. Although to be honest, your talking points are not very impressive and require that the average gay man or woman put aside the gawdy yet pseudo-inclusive awfulness of the Dems in favor of Repubs, who have found many an issue in curbing their intrinsic disgust toward the civil treatment of queers as humans, let alone as constituents (spouted most recently by leaders within the party’s religious wing, which honestly, hands the fiscal wing its ass constantly and furiously. LaBarbera and Robertson would rather be caught warmly embracing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than extend the philosophical borders of the Big Tent to include treatment of your movement as equals). Hyperboles aside, your asking potential gay conservatives to make a nearly retarded leap of faith in trying to accept the GOP’s current platform, especially through the guise of human rights conditions in the Middle East. Laughable. Oh wow, Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage. That’s totally incomprehensible seeing as how he has no familial ties to anyone who would even remotely shape his views on this.
Don’t get me wrong though, Democrats are hardly innocent and have proven to be less of the jihadists that America had been mislead into thinking they were by fine ideologues such as yourself, and more of the same coin of the dogmatic geopolitical Republican failure of the previous administration. Nothing too bash-worthy there, if not utterly disappointing.
You do serious libertarian gays a disfavor by putting up such third tier banter.
Comment by ThatGayLolservative — June 9, 2009 @ 6:27 am - June 9, 2009
Dan, I agree with you 100% on this. This is another area that Obama is lacking. But perhaps you know this. Has Bush made a statement regarding the lack of human rights in the Islamic world, and more specifically, the persecution of gays? Something that is admonitory, and not descriptive, as you say. Seriously, I am not aware of it. If so, then this is something that I would want to credit Bush for it. Or perhaps this is something that has been lacking with all our presidents.
Comment by Pat — June 9, 2009 @ 8:00 am - June 9, 2009
Would it matter if Bush has? Cheney has made statements supporting gay marriage and gets no credit for it because of that pesky (R) after his name, so why even ask about Bush? The only reason to do so is that you’re trying to make some kind of “well they did it too” equivalency, which is nonsense on the face of it. Bush never campaigned on promises to repeal DADT or work towards gay marriage rights; Obama did. Once in office he promptly and hypocritcally backed away from those promises so as not to lose job approval rating points. Obama can get away with it though because that (D) is a sure-fire vaccine against criticism from “mainstream” gay groups. That’s the point that was made in the post.
Comment by Andcar — June 9, 2009 @ 8:13 am - June 9, 2009
Would it matter if Bush has? Cheney has made statements supporting gay marriage and gets no credit for it because of that pesky (R) after his name, so why even ask about Bush? The only reason to do so is that you’re trying to make some kind of “well they did it too” equivalency, which is nonsense on the face of it. Bush never campaigned on promises to repeal DADT or work towards gay marriage rights; Obama did. Once in office he promptly and hypocritcally backed away from those promises so as not to lose job approval rating points. Obama can get away with it though because that (D) is a sure-fire vaccine against criticism from “mainstream” gay groups. That’s the point that was made in the post.
Comment by Andcar — June 9, 2009 @ 8:17 am - June 9, 2009
Over and over, for about, oh, seven years. Not specifically mentioning gays, I will admit.
Pat – Bush never marketed himself as a kind of gay messiah. Though he had bad ideas on about gay marriage, he could be surprisingly gay-supportive in other ways, like his tripling AIDS spending. In foreign policy he said, paraphrasing, Everybody yearns for freedom – America needs to be on the side of that impulse. True, he didn’t mention gays as such. He and our brave military did, however, carry out the general thought with deeds, liberating 50 million Muslims from two of the world’s worst regimes. Many on the Left have tried to obscure that by calling it something else, but they can’t change facts.
Now Obama comes along. Obama *is* supposed to be the first Gay President, or some such messiah. In foreign policy he has just said, paraphrasing, Everybody yearns for freedom – and I apologize for Bush and our military making it happen. It’s wrong for America to encourage democracy or fight for human freedom. We’ll tell you that we like it but please Mr. Dictator, Mr. Islamist, please pretty please would you like us?
With Bush, what you saw was what you got. Bush was much more honest.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 9:40 am - June 9, 2009
DISSENT IS GOOD
Comment by ThatGayCensorship — June 9, 2009 @ 10:38 am - June 9, 2009
From a Bush speech in 2003:
Also in 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8… Just about every State of the Union or foreign policy or security speech that Bush gave after 9-11. Example from CNN in 2006:
From the LA Times in 2008:
It was consistent, pervasive, for years, and backed by deeds. Links to follow in a separate comment (because the spamfilter might block them).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 10:45 am - June 9, 2009
Not a very good set of links – only what I could find very quickly, I have to go work here! I KNOW there is lots more out there:
http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2003/1110globalgovernance_daalder.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/19/bush.un/index.html
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_oxblog_archive.html#106816554993268636
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bush14jan14,1,2406747.story
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/10.06.05.html – Text of Bush speech in 2005 at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 10:48 am - June 9, 2009
Yeah, the spamfilter got it. Stay tuned.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 10:48 am - June 9, 2009
I dunno. Maybe if they would pay into the Solmonese Retirement Fund (cleverly disguised as the HRC), Iranian gays might at least benefit from a half-assed form e-mail.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 11:19 am - June 9, 2009
Over and over, for about, oh, seven years. Not specifically mentioning gays, I will admit.
ILC, thanks. I vaguely recall Bush making such statements, but did not remember the specifics, and like you I didn’t recall anything specific regarding gay persons. And I don’t recall if Bush made any of these statements when he met with King Abdullah or visiting other mideast nations. I’ll wait and see what Obama says, for example, at his first address at the UN, but I’m not holding my breath.
Pat – Bush never marketed himself as a kind of gay messiah. Though he had bad ideas on about gay marriage, he could be surprisingly gay-supportive in other ways, like his tripling AIDS spending.
That’s true. And I figure that Bush is horrified about what is happening to gay persons in the Islamic world, e.g., hanging of teens.
Now Obama comes along. Obama *is* supposed to be the first Gay President, or some such messiah.
I guess many had already anointed Obama as the first “Gay President,” but not me. I’ll consider that when I see action from Obama. Even if he pushes his campaign promises but fails, I’ll give him credit. So far, nothing.
Comment by Pat — June 9, 2009 @ 2:27 pm - June 9, 2009
lazarus, alas that I did not have a clever rebuttal to your comment last night,but I was tired, having just written three posts in a short space of time.
Reading through the comments, I realize I should simply have said, so now I expect you to praise Bush for standing up for gay rights since he used similar rhetoric in talking about his hopes for democracy in the Muslim world.
Thanks, readers, esp. ILC, for inspiring that thought.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 9, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - June 9, 2009
I’ve said it before, I will say it again: Gays are to the Democrats what gunowners are to the GOP.
Taken for granted, that is.
The respective parties want each respective groups’ votes, organizational skills, volunteering, and most of all money.
But, neither party is going to actually do anything for “their” group. Democrats aren’t really going to do much of anything for gays and the GOP isn’t really going to do much of anything for gunowners.
So, once the election is over the parties want these particular supporters to shut the fuck up and get back in the closet for two to four more years.
Comment by Letalis Maximus, Esq. — June 9, 2009 @ 10:40 pm - June 9, 2009
They’re left wing groups that claim to be special interest groups… Even gay marriage is mostly* just a wedge issue. Conservatives can’t support it for a variety of issues… democrats know it… so they push it to ‘prove’ they’re bigots…
* of course, there are some good reasons to support it to so some people with postive motives do.
Comment by Thomass — June 9, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - June 9, 2009
Remember when the Hormel Chili guy bought an ambassadorship with his contributions to the clinton campaign and democrat party.
Well he didn’t actually get confirmed by the Republican controlled senate. But anyhow he said before his confirmation took place that he was going to use his position as ambassordor to promote gay rights. He didn’t say if he was going to promote gay rights in Belgium, where he was to ambassador, or all over the world nor did he say why he thought it was the position of a US ambassador to promote civil rights for any particular group. If a particular group in the country he ambassador to was being mistreated the US administration could direct that ambassador to register a complaint with that country but if there wasn’t anything out of the ordinary as far as any particular group in that country speaking out would be just using your position as a soap box for your particular interest.
At the time I thought that the Republicans should’ve proposed that they would confirm only if he was to be named ambassador to a Arab country in the Middle East.
But back on subject. Those “gay rights” groups are leftwing, anti-American groups who happen to be gay. And their use of gay rights is a tool they use to bash America or any pro-USA entity. That’s why they bash Republicans over the issue of gay rights and not democrats.
Comment by zefal — June 10, 2009 @ 12:16 am - June 10, 2009
I think that we all know that Obama and the left have little interest in human rights when it doesn’t score political points against the right. We waterboard 3 guys and it is the end of the world, and Obama goes to countries who torture everyday and says not his place to lecture.
—
As a straight Catholic Republican who actually who has finally come down to the belief that gay marriage is not the issue conservatives think it is, i.e. not the end of the world, I find myself more in opposition to the “gay agenda” because it is a lefty agenda than a gay one.
—
The gays let Obama skate on the Islamic world at their own risk…. We all know Axelrod is doing the math, and gays are only valued for their money…
Comment by Hongkong mark — June 10, 2009 @ 3:42 am - June 10, 2009
The (self appointed) gay spokesmen and women are probably still conferring with the women’s right’s advocates on their strongly worded statement. Give them time – the feminists have been grappling with how to respond to Islamic misogyny for over eight years.
I’m sure we’ll be hearing from the any day now…
Comment by Steve Skubinna — June 10, 2009 @ 7:39 am - June 10, 2009
I find myself more in opposition to the “gay agenda” because it is a lefty agenda than a gay one.
I don’t know about that Hongkong Mark. If you’re right, then the left is doing a terrible job pushing for it.
Comment by Pat — June 10, 2009 @ 8:15 am - June 10, 2009
Pat,
I think it is a Democrat agenda to push it only when it can be used to beat political opponents over the head with a club.
Not saying the Republicans don’t try. They just have less issues and suck at it more.
Comment by The Livewire — June 10, 2009 @ 8:28 am - June 10, 2009
“the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”
Note that he doesn’t even support these things for Americans. Why would he support them in another country? Just more meaningless words from the O.
Comment by rt — June 10, 2009 @ 8:28 am - June 10, 2009
Yes he didn’t challenge Islam on gay rights.
He also didn’t challenge Islam on their ethnic cleansing or the discrimination against and persecution of Christians and Hindus or Female Genital Mutilation or honor killings or the ‘death to apostate’ meme or a few other things. He did smack them for Holocaust denial – whoop whoop.
Comment by mhw — June 10, 2009 @ 8:40 am - June 10, 2009
They’re not homo’s. They’re Demo’s.
Comment by Paul A'Barge — June 10, 2009 @ 10:19 am - June 10, 2009
[…] issue with critiques that Bruce and I leveled against President Obama for his silence on the plight of gays living under Islam in his […]
Pingback by GayPatriot » GayPatriot Critic Defends W’s Advocacy for Gays in Islamic Lands — June 10, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - June 10, 2009
[…] the obvious truths: the Muslim world is just about the worst place to be for anyone who’s gay or female (and as usual, the left, even the feminist and glbt left, gives him a completely free […]
Pingback by Our President Gets Confused Sometimes « Tai-Chi Policy — June 11, 2009 @ 9:43 am - June 11, 2009