Gay Patriot Header Image

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?


Fun Obamacare ad hits college campuses

Generation Opportunity, “a free-thinking, liberty-loving, national organization of young people”, has set up 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

Will Obama’s stand on gay marriage hurt him this fall?

Please note that I include this post in random thoughts because I am not entirely sure how answer to the question I pose in the title.  Until last night, I thought that Obama’s recent shift on gay marriage wouldn’t make any difference in the fall, save to increase his fundraising. Then, I got a link to this video last night in my e-mail, watched it and wondered:

Victor Davis Hanson’s read on the president’s supposed shift also caused me to question my initial interpretation:

The flip-flop on gay marriage, of course, did not win Obama a single vote, just plenty of one-percenters’ money. More injurious to his cause was his idiotic refrain about his “evolving” views. No one believed that yarn: fifteen years ago he was for gay marriage when it was smart politically for him to be so, and then he revolved to “no” when it was not. All that happened this week was that clueless Joe Biden jumped the gun. Obama with a wink and nod had privately assured rich gays, as he had Putin, that after his reelection he would give them what was wanted, but could not quite yet, given his need to hoodwink the clingers to get reelected. I think most voters understood that con as emblematic of this presidency.

Via Instapundit.  Where it hurts the most is not the merits of the issue, but that people will see the re-positioning as patently political.  Not just that, he looks out of touch, having announced his shift the day after North Carolina voters overwhelmingly rejected state recognition of same-sex marriage.  It’s almost as if he were thumbing his nose at the citizens in a state that he won in 2008–and is trying to hold again this year.

Now, I wish that gay marriage were not, to borrow Mitt Romney’s expression, “a hot political issue dividing our nation.”  And wish support of state recognition of same-sex unions would not hurt a candidate at the polls.  And maybe, under normal circumstances, it wouldn’t. (more…)

Will Obama’s gay marriage pander hurt him politically?

Interesting how today, both gay conservatives and leftists see through President Obama’s pander yesterday on gay marriage, coming as it did following a week when the Democrats was facing questions for his stand on gay marriage.

The president may claim that Vice President Biden’s recent comments on gay marriage forced the timing of the announcement, but the real question is why he didn’t announce his change of heart when it could have made a difference, especially given, as Ed Morrissey reports that, in his interview yesterday, Obama claimed “he’d made up his mind to change his position some time ago“:

And for all of those who cheered this flip-flop, here’s a question: wouldn’t it have been more effective in North Carolina had Obama made this announcement before Amendment One went to the polls?  According to Obama himself, he’d already changed position on same-sex marriage.  An announcement last week or the week before that, with a personal plea to African-American voters, might have made a difference.  Instead, Obama hid, the White House fibbed, and Amendment One won easily in a state that Obama carried in 2008.  Regardless of whatever else this might be called, leadership isn’t among the terms that come to mind.

Ad the Yahoo! online survey indicates, it does seem most people see through the president’s pandering move, with more than two-thirds of respondents saying they see his policy shift as based on campaign politics.

This may help rally the base and generate some more campaign cash, but could well end up being a net negative for the president, not on the merits of the issue, but on his approach.  Expect more people to realize Obama is just another politician for whom political calculation matters more than principle.

UPDATE:   Seems Obama consulted his political advisors to reach the decision he announced yesterday: (more…)

Gay marriage more popular than Obama

Maybe Obama’s shift on gay marriage was about more than money.  On our Facebook page, our reader Chad wondered if President Obama “decided to come out in favor of SSM now because he knows it’s more popular than he is.”  He’s got a point.

Today’s Gallup tracking point shows the president’s approval has edged up to 48:

And the latest Gallup poll shows 50% of Americans think gay marriages should be recognized as valid by the law: (more…)

Obama hauls in campaign cash from trusting gays

Barack Obama knows how to play gay Democrats like a fiddle.  They’re just so eager to embrace the Democratic Party that one shout out, one wink, one nod is all it takes for them to think he loves them.  They’re so smitten with the captain of the football team that he knows all he needs do to earn their affection is to make it appear that they might have a chance with him.

But, as I wrote nearly a year ago, face it, guys and gals, “he’s just after you for your money.”

Over at the Washington Free Beacon, the staff take note of an interesting coincidence:

President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less [sic] than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights. . . .

Left-wing blogger Greg Sargent reported on Monday that “leading gay and progressive donors” were angry with Obama over his increasingly convoluted position on gay rights and same-sex marriage, and were refusing to donate any more money to Priorities USA, the pro-Obama Super PAC.

Emphasis added.  And sure enough, just after he blows a kiss in their direction, gay Democrats are back to swooning.  According to Zeke Miller on BuzzFeed, “in the first 90 minutes after the news broke Wednesday, the campaign received $1 million in spontaneous contributions” (via Joshuapundit).

And all this for a kiss.  And there’s still no ring in sight.  No indication what the president’s change of heart will change in the legislative/policy sphere.

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.