Gay Patriot Header Image

Teaching People Not to be Victims Is Insensitive, Apparently

So, here’s what happened.

A Central California mayor’s remarks that bullying victims should toughen up and defend themselves has sparked anger among some city officials and gay rights advocates.

At a recent City Council meeting, Porterville Mayor Cameron Hamilton said he opposes bullying but thinks it is too often blamed for the world’s problems. Hamilton said some people need to “grow a pair.”

Of course, this didn’t sit well with the Party of Perpetual Grievance and Victimhood. And, naturally, the loudest whining came from the LGBT quarter.

Melissa McMurrey of Gay Porterville told KFSN-TV that she felt attacked by the mayor’s comments. She said bullies often target young gay people.

That’s where we are in Hyper-Feminized Obamerica… telling someone who feels bullied that they should stand up for themselves and be strong is considered an “attack.”

The very idea of teaching people to be strong and independent is anathema to the left. Victims are a key Democrat constituency, and children need to be indoctrinated from a young age not to be independent, but that the protective arms of the state will provide a ‘Safe Zone’ for them.

And, can we be honest about what the left’s obsession with “bullying” is really about? It’s about silencing opinions the left doesn’t want to hear. Just as Zero Tolerance policies have led to kids getting suspended and arrested for shooting finger guns or having a stray Tylenol tablet in their back-packs, Zero Tolerance bullying policies are intended to allow school officials (who tend to be hard-left fascist idiots) to shut down any speech or opinion that might hurt someone’s feelers by labeling it “bullying.”

So let me get this right:

The administration—whose latest foray into unobstructed, unlegislated, we’ve-got-this, go-it-aloneism was the fabulously ‘effed up roll-out of HealthCare.gov—is going to make 2014 the year of the Executive Branch takes on the world without the messiness of involving the People’s Branch of the federal government?

This’ll be something to see…

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

What ARE the aims of Obama’s foreign policy?

Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.”  The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened.  Hanson writes:

That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.

On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.

Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.

Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?

Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe.  Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.

Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:

Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.

Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.

Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.

All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?

No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.

Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.

While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter.  I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world.  At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings.  Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched.  That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one.  I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?

This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes.  Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals.  If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.

 

The Zimmerman Verdict and Obama

Over at PJMedia, Roger L. Simon has a piece with the catchy title “Obama Big Loser in Zimmerman Trial.”  Simon writes:

By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.

 It is also the work of a narcissist who thinks of himself first, of his image, not of black, white or any other kind of people. It’s no accident that race relations in our country have gone backwards during his stewardship.

It’s a clever premise, and in ideal world, it should be true, but in the world we live in, the one where Obama got re-elected, I suspect it doesn’t hurt Obama one bit.

These are just a few quick thoughts on my part, so they won’t be fully fleshed-out, but as I see it, Obama got most of what he wanted from the Zimmerman trial.   Zimmerman wasn’t convicted, but as far as Obama and Holder are concerned, that only would have been the icing on their toxic cake.

As suggested in this great article by Karen McQuillan at American Thinker, Obama and Holder are masters at using race and division to advance their agenda.  And when this incident occurred, Obama was showing some softening of support among black voters who were not faring well in the Obama economy.  McQuillan writes:

Once the president of the United States weighed in, Zimmerman had a target on his back.  An ounce of election advantage to our privileged, Ivy League president versus the ruination of a Hispanic man’s life — it was an easy choice for Obama.  Obama’s great appeal to voters in 2008 was his self-presentation as a black man without animus or grievance, eager to move the country beyond divisions of all sorts — black and white, red and blue.  In reality, Obama is obsessed with divisions — race, class, gender — and is expert at fueling war between us, to his political advantage.

Obama has used accusations of racism before, to rally his troops and attack his political opponents.  Opposition to ObamaCare?  Racist.  Opposition to big government?  Racist.  His core liberal supporters like this stuff, and the other voters give him a pass on this, as on everything.  The election analysts were predicting that even black turnout could dip in 2012.  Obama moved from racial slurs on opposition groups to attacking a particular individual citizen.  Zimmerman was sacrificed.

In other words, by weighing in on the Zimmerman case, Obama shored up support among his base and among the black activist class, and thereby helped pave the way to his re-election by those groups.  Not only did he help win support among those voting blocs, he further poisoned the well for race relations in this country, and he added still more fuel to the fire behind his anti-gun agenda.
Now you may think I’m being too clever by half by imputing those kinds of motives to Obama and Holder, but simply look at his statement about the verdict:
The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.
Now while on the surface it looks like he is calling for “calm,” and for respect for the rule of law, he’s doing so in the context of his (and Holder’s) earlier statements about race and “gun violence,” effectively giving one message to his supporters and sympathizers, and another message to everyone else.  It is classic leftist misdirection.
At the link above, there’s also a statement from Holder’s Justice Department saying that the FBI and federal prosecutors are weighing options for federal charges against Zimmerman.  Translation: this isn’t over, as long as Obama and Holder believe they can continue to profit from racial demagoguery.
In one of the comments on my last post, our regular commenter Heliotrope provided a skillful analysis of Al Sharpton’s statement about the verdict, relating it back to Alinsky’s rules.  Heliotrope observes:
Libtards lust for power in order to control the sheeple according to their current, faddish view of “correctness.” They are prideful and lash out with the politics of personal destruction against those who stand in their way. Their wrath is both verbalized and implanted by way of insidious actions meant to undermine their opposition. They have lying tongues. They scheme and devise wicked plots. They sow discord. They plant festering mischief. They twist the context to fit their version of the truth and justify their lies. They refuse to practice circumspection and correct their errors in any sense of obedience to promoting a better solution.
I’ve seen a lot of those behaviors in the reactions to the verdict I’ve been reading by various Obama supporters today.  There are lots of calls, a la Obama, for “calm reflection,” but, in the minds of the Obama supporters weighing in on this case, none of those reflections are to start from the premise that Angela Corey and the prosecutors in Florida had a weak case to begin with–and that they lost because they failed miserably in presenting the case in a way that made any of the charges stick.  None of those reflections are to start from the premise that perhaps Zimmerman had a right to have a weapon with him and to use it to fight back when he was knocked down and attacked.

Not proud of Obama’s shift on gay marriage

Yesterday, I wrote that I’d “have to agree to disagree” with Richard Grenell’s expression of “pride in the president’s patently political statement” announcing his shift on gay marriage.  Like two-thirds of Americans in a recent poll, I believe the Democrat flipped on gay marriage “mostly for political reasons“.  Not even one quarter of Americans surveyed thought he made the decision because he believed it to be the right thing.

Perhaps had he better articulated his support for gay marriage, making the case why expanding the definition of this ancient institution would be a good thing both for the individuals who elect its benefits as well as for the society which recognizes same-sex couples as married.

Given the president’s failure to adequately articulate the reasons for his sudden change of heart “evolution” and the survey cited above, his statement which may cause numerous gay activists (nearly all previously favorably disposed to the Democrat) to feel good about themselves, will do little to further state recognition of same-sex unions.

Perhaps had the president, instead of announcing his switch in an interview with a friendly reporter, made a speech, putting forward ideas in favor of marriage similar to those offered by Jonathan Rauch, I might take him more seriously.  But, given the alacrity of his campaign — and Democratic affiliates — to use his new position for political/fundraising purposes, it seems that his switch was more related to the needs of his campaign than to an appreciation of the social benefits of matrimony.

Still believe the president’s shift on same-sex marriage is sincere?

Hugh Hewitt’s observation this morning about possible “trouble in Obamaville” provides another data point suggesting otherwise.  “The president’s cash haul in April”, he observes “was down from that in March, and The Hill’s report has this note of anxiety within it:

The Obama campaign is making a concerted effort to boost the number of small donations, as its affiliated super-PACs have not been able to compete with the big donations from wealthy individuals contributing to super-PAC’s affiliated with presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

As I wrote last June, “Face it, gay Democrats, he’s just after you for your money

When they had a majority, House Democrats never voted on repealing DOMA, yet now they’re campaigning on Obama’s support of same-sex marriage

On its website, The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) bills itself as “the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House.”  And last night via a friend’s Facebook link, I learned that this outfit was garnering signatures in support of the president’s new stand on gay marriage:

That takes some cheek. Since a Republican Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, Democrats have controlled the House for four years, from January 3, 2007 until January 5, 2011.  Not once did then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hold a vote on repealing that legislation.  Not once did she hold a vote on giving benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.

These Democrats now praise Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, yet, when they had a chance to act on the issue they did nothing.

Something tells me that once the DCCC gets your name, they’re going to be hitting you up for campaign contributions.  Maybe this thing is all about fundraising after all.

Some Perspective:

So let’s see:

House Republicans have so far put forward and passed THREE specific plans waiting now to become law.

What follows are the full texts of ALL of the plans put forward and passed by Obama and the Senate Democrats: .

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Congress Moves At Speed of Light on DADT Repeal

**UPDATE – 10:18PM – House passes DADT repeal amendment – 234-194.  Newest Congressman Djou (R-HI), endorsed by GOProud, voted in favor of repeal.  GOP votes in favor were Cao, Djou, Biggert, Ros-Lehtinen, Paul.  26 Democrats voted against repeal.  The roll call of the vote will (eventually) appear at THIS LINK. (h/t – AllahPundit)

Damn!  As I said on Twitter…..

 … if the Congress would only secure our borders as quick as they are moving on #DADT.

…  imagine if Obama found the ability not to lie as quickly as Congress is moving on #DADT !!!

Just sayin…

Anyway, I’m glad this Clinton-era, legislated discrimination is on the pathway to repeal.  Earlier this afternoon, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to move toward repeal of DADT.

Senators took the first step toward allowing gays to serve openly in the military Thursday evening, with a panel voting 16-12 to approve an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would repeal the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

“Today’s action by the Senate Armed Services Committee is an important step to end this discriminatory policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) the panel’s chairman, who described debate on the amendment as “lively.”

The amendment was the most-watched part of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s mark up of its annual defense bill, which also passed Thursday evening.

The bill was soundly opposed by the Republicans on the committee and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who explained in a statement that he didn’t want to repeal the ban while the Pentagon is in the midst of reviewing how it should implement the change.

The White House and the Pentagon both approved a compromise contained in the amendment that allowed Congress to act, while granting the President, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal when they were satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by the shift in policy.

And now, suddenly Speaker Pelosi (who voted for the Clinton-signed DADT law originally) is hammering a vote through the House tonight with nearly no time for debate.  Tyranny rocks!  That Constitution is such an old, worn out thing — ain’t it, Nancy?

In all seriousness, I am pleased at this momentum — though there is much more to go before a repeal is complete.

But also in all seriousness — have you EVER seen Washington move this quickly on ANYTHING?  There must be a lot of Homolobbying going on behind closed doors!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Traveling In The New Era Of Obamacare

I’m beginning my first road trip for work under the Era of Obamacare this morning.  I start in Charlotte, head to Baltimore, then off again to spend the night and most of Wednesday in Pittsburgh.   And yes, as Dan mentions below, PatriotPartner and I are headed to Los Angeles on Thursday for a long weekend.

How will this new Era of Socialism Utopia treat me as I travel the TSA-mandated skies of America?  Will people be nicer now that they have a new bloated entitlement program that will bankrupt this and successive generations?  I haven’t seen it yet.  The TSA agents and US Airways ticket agents had the same scowl on their faces as they did last week.

But haven’t they heard that we are in the Era of Sunshine, Unicorns and Lollipops?  I mean first Obama raised his hands and single-handedly stopped the 15 foot Chilean Tsunami from ravaging Hawai’i.  He did tell us the seas would fall after he was elected!

And now everyone is walking around with the statisfaction that we all have healthcare coverage.  Nevermind that our taxes will go up significantly.  Nevermind that the cost of healthcare will continue to rise.  Nevermind that the premiums that the middle class pays for their health insurance will also go up.  And nevermind that those who are covered by Domestic Partner benefits will be the first to be dropped when the Individual Mandate is enforced.

Nah, what is really important is that the Obama Presidency was saved!

Funny, the Americans walking around the Charlotte, NC airport this morning look as worried and stressed and anxious as they did last week.

I guess it really isn’t funny at all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Obama Slinks To Fox News To Save Presidency

What a tool.

In an “extended, exclusive” interview tomorrow [Obama] will sit down with Special Report anchor Bret Baier to make his health care reform pitch to the FNC audience. What a long, strange trip it’s been.

The interview will air in full at 6pmET tomorrow and will take place earlier in the afternoon. “We welcome the opportunity to sit down with the President and try to get some specifics on the health care legislation,” said Baier in making the announcement right after NoonET today on Fox News.

The history between the White House and Fox News has been a shaky one. In September he went to every major news outlet except Fox for an interview. That started things, and with FNC essentially winning the war it came to a head in late October with a meeting between Robert Gibbs and Michael Clemente.

So Fox is a just a bunch of right-wing extremists watched by right-wing extremist teabaggers… until Obama is on the ropes.

What. A. Tool.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Call Me Cynical, But…

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:18 pm - March 3, 2010.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Wow, I should have come up with this category long ago.

Here, this time we have an example of what a cynic might call payola. The details?

Today we hear that President Obama, in trying to persuade ten Democrats (who seem to care more about silly things like the Constitution, their constituents’ wishes, and the solvency of the United States than they do about the president’s socialist agenda) who voted against the Stalinization plan for the US health care industry last fall to change their sides, will be hosting them at the White House tonight. Well that makes sense. Heck, even for the Super Bowl, he hosted a whole one Republican at the White House. Anyway, though…

But what’s this?!

One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother, Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Now, if you weren’t watching closely enough, you might think that perhaps the president is trying cynically to buy the elder Matheson’s vote in the House by throwing a bone to his little brother in the form of a 10th Circuit Court nomination.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Call Me Cynical, But…

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 6:44 pm - March 1, 2010.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

I think I’ll start a new category for that, in fact. For a guy who came to office running not against his opponent, and only somewhat against his would-be predecessor, but rather against “cynicism”, the current president has done a lot to raise eyebrows that he dost protesteth too much.

The latest is a new statement out from his economic advisor, Lawrence Summers about the pending jobless figures for the previous month due out this Friday, as it is every first Friday of the month. No doubt, these numbers will be (all together now) “unexpectedly high”, as they’ve been “unexpectedly high” for the past oh, thirteen months, for some reason. (I wonder, by the way, how decimating the economy with onerous taxes, threats of government take-overs, demonization of our strongest and most admired industries while attempting to federalize 1/5 of our economy would lead anybody to “expect” anything but higher unemployment…but then again, I’m not a wise economist. Hell, I’m not even a doltish sheep-like member of the old-school media. So what would I know?)

Anyway, Summers on CNBC today said that because it was snowy, “it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends.” Uh huh.

And there was an earthquake in Chile, so that’s clearly going to affect our unemployment. Not to mention, that guy who died on the luge…. You know how that can have such a negative impact on the US employment rate.

If you weren’t watching closely enough, you might think that perhaps Summers is trying to cynically make excuses for his boss’s asinine policies and destructive proposals. But then again, that’d be a cynical way to look at it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)