Gay Patriot Header Image

Does Obama’s Gay Pandering Make Up for His Disastrous Presidency?

Posted by V the K at 9:12 pm - July 1, 2014.
Filed under: Obama and Gay Issues

Does Obama’s endless pandering and ego-stroking make up for his disastrous economy, his endless abuses of executive power that crack the very foundations of our democratic republic, his eight trillion dollars in accumulate debt, the havoc he is wrought on our health care system, the corruption and incompetence of his VA which has led to scores of veteran deaths, losing Iraq and unleashing ISIS, collapsing the southern border, the domestic spying, and all the other scandals in this horror show of a presidency?

In the past few days, in order to pander to gays, Obama has…

Does all this empty pandering really work for you guys? Does it make up for all the disastrous domestic and foreign policies? Does it really?

(more…)

Priorities

Posted by V the K at 2:38 pm - June 23, 2014.
Filed under: Obama and Gay Issues

The Middle East is on fire. The United States’ image abroad has so deteriorated that once-close allies are calling their alliance with the USA worthless. And central America is pointing a flood of underage refugees to the United States to swell our already overwhelming welfare roles.

But, don’t worry, John F. Kerry and Barack Obama have their eye on the ball.

“I am very proud of the progress that we are now making even in appointing LGBT ambassadors. I worked with the committee here at the State Department – with the D Committee, and I worked with the White House. And as a result, Ted Osius, sitting here, whom I’ve known a long time, and his family I know, will be the first openly LGBT officer nominated to serve as an ambassador in Asia. And on confirmation, he’s going to join five openly gay ambassadors who are now serving their country. I’m working hard to ensure that by the end of my tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors in our ranks as well.”

The country is in the very best of hands.

[Sort of Hat Tip to Peter H. Sort of]

Gay Marriage and Obamacare

The Administration that has done such a fantastic job with providing health care to America’s Veterans wishes to make sure gays and lesbians have that same quality of health care.

 

Obama Figures Out Another Way to Shake Down Gullible Gays for Money

Posted by V the K at 12:56 pm - June 18, 2014.
Filed under: Obama and Gay Issues

Obama’s Fascist Army* (OFA) is selling T-shirts so that LGBTQRWXZY people can demonstrate that love is all that matters… love for Obama, that is.

 Screen-shot-2014-06-17-at-5.48.52-PM (1)

(more…)

President Obama Throws the Low-Info Gay Voters a Bone

Posted by V the K at 5:52 pm - June 16, 2014.
Filed under: Obama and Gay Issues

So, President Obama has destroyed the economy. He has run up more debt than all previous presidents combined. The southern border has completely collapsed and is being flooded with illegal immigrants. A band of Islamists so extreme even Al Qaeda rejected them is running amok in Iraq and Syria. He just turned five of the worst terrorists in the world loose from GITMO. His IRS is harassing conservative opponents and then lying about it. New EPA regulations will destroy a quarter million jobs per year and send energy prices skyrocketing.

And some people think none of this matters because he signed is working on an essentially meaningless Executive Order telling Federal contractors not to discriminate against gay people, which none of them do anyway.

An empty gesture from an empty suit.

But it will excite the low-information voters and they will forgive all of his corruption and incompetence., because nothing matters but gay people’s feelings.

Update:  Angry Gay Lefty groups demand that the Executive Order cover religious non-profits doing charitable work as well.

“It is now vitally important for all of us to insist that this executive order, when eventually signed by the president, does not include religious exemptions that would permit taxpayer dollars to be spent on discrimination,” said a statement from Heather Cronk, the co-director of the GetEQUAL advocacy group.

No gay victory is complete until Christians (but not Muslims) are forced to bow before Big Angry Homo.

Mr. Obama’s Choom Supplier Beaten to Death by Intimate Male Companion

Posted by V the K at 1:50 pm - January 29, 2014.
Filed under: Obama and Gay Issues

This isn’t a recent thing, but it is quite sordid, isn’t it? His name was Raymond Boyer, known as “Gay Ray” to Mr. Obama back when he supplied Mr. Obama’s “Choom Gang” with marijuana. His list of clients included many at the exclusive private school where Mr. Obama “spent the last two years of high school in a daze.”

President Obama’s high school pot dealer who (sic) he thanked in his yearbook for the ‘good times’ was beaten to death by his lover after a series of fights over flatulence and drugs.

Ghastly business, that.

Mr. Boyer’s post high school experience has a certain resonance with the experience of Millennials unfortunate enough to have come of age under Mr. Obama’s economic policies.

Since getting high with Obama and his private school educated friends he lost his job as the manager of a local pizzeria and ended up on welfare living above a car repair shop.

One expects this sort of thing from Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, but it is a bit of a surprise coming from Mr. Obama’s direction.

‘Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted “Intercepted!”, and took an extra hit.

Now, that sounds more like the Mr. Obama we have come to know.

MSDNC Must Know Something About Those Man’s Country Rumors

MSDNC – the network that makes Leni Reifenstahl say “You guys are a little over the top” – declares Barack Obama the first gay president.

YouTube Preview Image

Eat it, James Buchanan! (Or was it Abe Lincoln that liberals claim was the first gay president despite… you know… having four kids?)

Update: Deranged MSDNC Quote of the Day, from Huffington Post correspondant/MSDNC Religion expert Frank Schaeffer. “I’ve changed because if this country will lynch a brilliant, civil, kind, humble, compassionate, moderate, articulate, black intellectual we’re lucky enough to have in the White House, we’ll lynch anyone.”

Meth is a hell of a drug.

I guess he’s the MSDNC religion expert because their religion is Obama-worship.

MOAR MSDNC Stuff: Angry Porcine life form Ed Schultz who describes himself as a proud tax-and-spend liberal — dodges taxes and doesn’t provide health insurance to his employees.  Rather typical of the left, isn’t it?

(more…)

Fun Obamacare ad hits college campuses

Generation Opportunity, “a free-thinking, liberty-loving, national organization of young people”, has set up OptOut.org to let young people know that they needn’t (and probably shouldn’t) sign up for Obamacare. Their current ad for young women:

YouTube Preview Image

(Male version, here.)

Now for the ‘media bias’ angle. I learned about this from Yahoo! which, naturally, has titled their article “Creepy Obamacare ad hits college campuses”.

In other words: Even after all the government-spying scandals, Big Government-run health care (that costs a young woman far more than she’ll get from it, despite the fine they’ll extort for her saying ‘no’) still doesn’t strike Yahoo! News as creepy. But ads against it, they’ll suggestively title as ‘creepy’.

FROM THE COMMENTS (thank you Kurt): Get ready for Obama(care) to ask detailed questions about your sex life. Umm…I thought that was only supposed to happen under the Religious Reich Theocracy that the Left always warns us against?

The president’s “reforms” aim to turn doctors into government agents, pressuring them financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary…

Doctors and hospitals who don’t comply with the federal government’s electronic-health-records requirements forgo incentive payments…

…the new requirements are turning it “into an interrogation, and the data will not be confidential.” Lack of confidentiality is what concerned the New York Civil Liberties Union in a 2012 report…

Privacy and confidentiality will just be for the rich:

The administration is ignoring [various] protests from privacy advocates. On Jan. 17, HHS announced patients who want to keep something out of their electronic record should pay cash.

“Thanks, Obama!”

Log Cabin: Only gay group with guts to oppose Hagel?

A few weeks ago, Bruce reported that at least one gay group was knuckling under to pressure from Washington Democrats to accept former Senator Chuck Hagel’s apology for anti-gay remarks he made in 1998.  Do wonder how readily this group would have been to accept a real Republican’s change of heart.

Today, President Obama announced that he intends to appoint Mr. Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Despite the eagerness of gay groups to approve of Mr. Obama’s appointment, “the target of the 1998 slur, leading gay philanthropist James Hormel, told” the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent last month that

. . . he never received an apology from Hagel himself, questioned the sincerity of the apology, and said the incident should still raise questions about whether Hagel is the right man to oversee the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell.

“I have not received an apology,” Hormel, who is a major figure in Democratic politics, told me. “I thought this so-called apology, which I haven’t received, but which was made public, had the air of being a defensive move on his part.” Hormel added that the apology appeared to have been given “only in service of his attempt to get the nomination.”

Well, while most gay groups seem more interested in pleasing Mr. Obama than in standing up for gay Americans, at least one gay organization is taking issue with the Hagel appointment.  Log Cabin

. . . called former senator Chuck Hagel’s (R) apology for his past statements on gay rights “too little, too late” in a full page ad in Monday’s Washington Post.

The ad appears the same day President Obama plans to announce Hagel as his nominee for defense secretary.

The Log Cabin Republicans announced their opposition to Hagel and ran a similar ad in the New York Times last month.

(Via Jennifer Rubin.)  Kudos, Clarke Log Cabin.

UPDATE: Just learned that Clarke Cooper is no longer head of Log Cabin, thus is not responsible for this release.

The Obama record on gay marriage: evolution without action

Today, many gay Americans will vote (or have already) enthusiastically for Barack Obama in large part because of his recent evolution on gay marriage.

This evolution, however, has not translated into action.  He has yet to put forward a legislation to recognize same-sex marriages — or even same-sex civil unions.  Nor has he pressed Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  He hasn’t even sat down with congressional leaders to map out a strategy.

He never reached out personally to Republicans open (or potentially open) to backing gay marriage to ask for their help in realizing federal recognizing of same-sex unions.  Just as it was with gay marriage, so was it with immigration reform.  Four years ago, he promised Hispanic voters that he would pass immigration reform in his first year in office.

And except for a few perfunctory meetings, he never tried to forge a compromise with legislators from both parties.  He just didn’t make any effort to realize his promises.

The bottom line here is to repeat what we said last month.  Barack Obama’s evolution on gay marriage was for nothing; if he’s reelected he has said, he won’t do anything to push for federal recognition of same-sex marriages.  Or even civil unions.

As it is with gay marriage in 2012, it was with immigration reform in 2008:   Barack Obama was pandering in order to secure the votes and campaign cash of an important constituency.

HRC’s has nothing to say about Obama’s backtracking on marriage
. . .or Kyle Wood’s beating

Yesterday, as we reported here, President Barack Obama whom HRC endorsed back in May 2011, long before the Republican primaries were even underway, “President Obama told MTV viewers that when it comes to same-sex marriage, it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.

This morning, I checked HRC’s web-site to see what the gay rights’ outfit had to say about Mr. Obama’s statement.  I could find nothing in their press releases.  A search on their home page for “obama mtv marriage” (without quotation marks) yielded nothing.

I also wondered what they had to say about the brutal beating of gay Republican, Kyle Wood.  Wood, as you recall, had been beaten after his car had been vandalized with mean-spirited insults, including the word, “faggot.”

Here are the results of my search:

HRC, Two Days of Silence on this assault, Will You Speak Up? (more…)

Evolution for nothing

Obama Tells MTV He Won’t Push Gay Marriage In Second Term

Seems we were right, this was all just a fundraising gimmick.

Another symbolic gesture to scare up gay votes* for Democrats

Yahoo! is currently headlining a story that the “Democratic Party has added new language endorsing gay marriage in its platform draft, the Washington Blade reports.”

Predictably, liberal gay friends on Facebook are cooing over the report.  All the hullabaloo over this story obscures one points which most gay Democrats don’t desire to discuss:  when Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress in the first two years of the Obama administration, neither President Barack Obama nor the Democratic leaders of either house made any serious effort to move forward on federal recognition of same-sex civil unions.  They didn’t even reach out to Republicans open to such recognition to try to craft a bipartisan approach.

With signs that the House will remain Republican after the current elections — and with increasing signs that the Senate will flip as well — this new platform language is meaningless.  The real question is why national gay organizations would rather demonize the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (or a chicken chain) than reach out to Republicans.

(More on this as time allows.)

* (more…)

Will gay activists never tire of asking for more government action?

How Many Laws”, I asked in October 2010, “Do We Need To Achieve ‘Full Equality’?”

That question crossed my mind again yesterday when I read Paul Bedard’s post in the Washington Examiner:

President Obama’s campaign website lists 41 achievements on behalf of gay voters–a White House record–making him the hero of the community. But for some that’s not enough as he is about to find out during a star-studded Miami fundraiser Tuesday featuring singer Marc Anthony.

As donors gather at the Jackie Gleason Theater three blocks from the oceanfront to fete the president at a Latinos for Obama event, vocal members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community plan to protest for an executive order barring workplace discrimination, the last major gay initiative awaiting action by the president.

No matter how much society changes, it will always pose certain challenges to be different, even the most tolerant environments.

Government will never be able to solve all (or even most of) our problems.  Indeed, more often than not, state solutions exacerbate problems they were designed to rectify.

Let us continue to push for federal recognition of our unions and then once we’ve secured those privileges, look out for our fellows and turn to private associations for social improvement.

Will Obama “do the work” for gay Americans?

Last week, as even the folks on MSNBC found Obama’s speech on the economy fell flat, many on the right wondered at the effectiveness of Obama’s rhetoric.  As James Taranto put it Friday in Best of the Web:

What’s a bit astonishing is that Obama and his advisers still seem to believe that he has the capacity to work magic with a speech. . . . But has he ever actually done so?

He made a good first impression with his uplifting 2004 Democratic National Convention speech. Since then, what? His “race” speech drew extravagant praise at the time, and it succeeded in diverting attention from his association with his hate-mongering “spiritual mentor,” Jeremiah Wright. But no one remembers what he said in it. We liked his Tucson memorial speech last year, but apart from that the Obama presidency has been a long series of supposedly crucial speeches that amount to nothing.

Mr. Obama so trusts in the power of his own ratory that he seems to believe a speech will do the work of governing for him.  Well, he didn’t quite give a speech when he, as Tammy Bruce put it, became the first “gay for pay” president.  On that occasion, all he did was express his support of gay marriage.  His words, on that occasion, did indeed have a powerful effect, helping the Democrat rake in more cash from partisans eager to have a reason to love him.

Instead of hyperventilating when he says the thing they want him to say, shouldn’t they be asking that he do something?  This past week he made a speech on the economy.  Now, is he going to sit down with congressional leaders in order to hammer out a package that could pass muster with a divided Congress?

Similarly, what are his plans to push legislation recognizing same-sex relationships at the federal level?  And why aren’t those signing hosannas to him asking questions about those plans?

Or holding him to account for failing to act when his party enjoyed strong majorities in Congress?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  “Wouldn’t a better title to your blog,” asks davinci, “be ‘Will Obama Do the Work for All Americans?’”

No, Barack Obama is not a pragmatist, particularly on gay issues

I know very little about Gordon D. Fox, the Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives.  And that little I have read of the man indicates that in the debate over gay marriage, he is one of the few, to borrow (and build upon) an expression, adult politicians in the room.

Although the Democrat, who happens to be gay, supports state recognition of same-sex marriage, he had a back-up plan when he could not get enough votes (on gay marriage legislation) in a chamber where, according to ballotpedia, his party controls 65 of the 75 seats:

Rhode Island’s House speaker has given up on passing legislation extending marriage rights to gay couples this year, because he says there is no realistic chance for passage of the bill in the Senate.

Gordon Fox says he will recommend that the House doesn’t move forward with a vote on the marriage equality bill during this legislative session, and instead will support a civil unions’ bill that gives legal rights to same-sex couples in the Ocean State.

In short, when he couldn’t get the votes on gay marriage, he adopted a different tack — and today the Ocean State recognizes same-sex civil unions.  For some, this may not be the ideal, but for gay couples, it’s a lot better than it was before Fox’s sensible compromise.

Which brings me to Barack Obama.  Last night, when returning him from an Outfest event, I caught this from a lesbian Facebook friend, who had recently attended what appears to be the Democrat’s 150th fundraiser* where she was one of many gay and lesbian Angelenos giving the president an “enthusiastic welcome” in Beverly Hills:  “He is eloquent and charming, but also a very pragmatic realist.”

A “very pragmatic realist”?  Oh, really?   (more…)

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.

Krauthammer on the Obama gay marriage straddle

Notwithstanding a comically fawning press” writes Charles Krauthammer this morning about the president’s sudden switch on gay marriage, “Obama knows he has boxed himself in.”

In his op-ed, the sage pundit talks about two arguments for gay marriage, Argument A, empathy, and Argument B, rights, and the president’s muddled position as he tries to straddle the two, first the former when he first announced his new position, then “five days later” moving on  “to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of  ‘expand[ing] rights‘ and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights”:

Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.

It’s Krauthammer.  Read the whole thing.

NB:  Am working on a post to address the argument that even if Obama is not sincere about his switch on gay marriage, it’s good to have the president speak out on the topic.  In this post, I will note the several arguments, gay marriage advocates make for expanding the definition of this ancient institution and address why Obama’s approach is so unsatisfying.

Although I often agree with Krauthammer and share his views about Obama trying to straddle the issue here, I believe there are more than just two types of arguments for gay marriage.

The gay fortnight

On two successive days last week, I posted about wanting to blog at a slower pace and focus on other things.  I have not yet had time to find that focus.

As per the second post, however, I really did the wrong week for slow blogging.  Since heading up to the Bay Area at the end of last month and determining to focus on other things, it has very much been the gay fortnight, first with a man (unfortunately) highly regarded in the gay community delivering a mean-spirited diatribe against Christians.  This was not that man’s first foray into nasty rhetoric — or juvenile antics (and he’s no longer in secondary school).

Then came the Grenell matter where the Romney campaign awkwardly handled a situation which appeared to have become delicate.  I will have a bit more to say on this, hopefully later this afternoon, but that post (on the awkward way the Romney campaign handled the matter) got delayed by the president’s (successful) ploy to raise campaign cash from the gay community.

If the president’s shift on gay marriage were sincere, wouldn’t he have made a stronger case for expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, telling his fellow citizens why he believes this expansion to be a good thing for the individual couples — and for society at large?

Will try to keep up a steady blogging pace, but do hope you understand if I slow it down a bit for a few days.

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