R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Executive Director has not joined the heads of other D.C.-based gay organizations in praising the president for putting forward the same position yesterday as Dick Cheney offered twelve years ago:

Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.

Some gay leaders see this move for what it is, a “calculated announcement” following “his campaign’s ridiculous contortions.”  Kudos, Clarke for your solid statment. Something’s changed at Log Cabin.  Wonder why that could be.

Judging from my Facebook feed and anecdotal evidence from friends, many gay people today are celebrating their imminent procurement of the Brooklyn Bridge.  Expect them to soon increase their down payment toward that celebrated span.

This swoon, to borrow an expression from Jennifer Rubin, “will take up the political oxygen for a while.”  What exactly will this accomplish save to give gay Democrats, already eager to support Obama, a reason to really ’round the Democrat?  Will Obama do what he didn’t do when his party had majorities in both houses of Congress, work the phones and otherwise buttonhole legislators to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – as LBJ did in 1964 on behalf of the Civil Rights Act?

Why did he wait until after North Carolina voters passed Amendment One to issue his statement?  Today’s comments, quips Christopher R. Barron, Chief Strategist and Co-Founder of GOProud are ”cold comfort to the gay couples in North Carolina.”  Heck, he didn’t even cut a radio or TV ad opposing the ballot measure.

He even canceled a scheduled visit to the Tarheel State on primary day.

Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money.  A few weeks ago, Ed Morrissey noted that “Obama remains significantly off of his own 2008 pace of fundraising, and way under the Democratic donation performance of that cycle.”  And as Dan Eggen reports in the Washington Post:

Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.

It’s all about the money, friends.

Obama’s self-referential statement included no specifics about what he means to do. It, Philip Klein writes, “has no tangible policy impact — [Obama] still thinks the issue should be left to the states” — pretty much the same position Dick Cheney articulated in the Vice Presidential Debate twelve years ago. And I didn’t hear my gay friends singing hosannas then.

Some gay Democrats just need a token gesture to get all googly-eyed about a Democrat.  And the White House’s waffling words on gay marriage had caused much consternation among his gay supporters.  Simply put, the president moved to quiet a political firestorm in order to raise some much needed campaign cash. (more…)

Perhaps Barack Obama really did “evolve” on gay marriage. But, this poll on Yahoo! (no conservative platform that) suggests that those responding take a more, well, jaundiced view of the Democrat’s sudden change of heart:

As the above shot indicates, I’m one of those who think it was a cynical political decision — and that will be the subject of my next post.

FROM THE FACEBOOK COMMENTS: Chad writes:

Maybe he decided to come out in favor of SSM now because he knows it’s more popular than he is. Back in 2008, he probably had the same position he does now, but he probably thought he was politically better off showing nominal opposition then, and now, he needs to do something to shake things up since his reelection is so tenuous and he needs to make the election be something other than the economy.

Emphasis added. Heh.

Obama in 2004: ‘I Don’t Think Marriage Is a Civil Right’

OBAMA: “No. I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things–such as traditional marriage–that, I think, express a community’s concern and regard for a particular institution.”

Q: “So, marriage is not a civil right, as far as you’re concerned.”

OBAMA: “I don’t think marriage is a civil right, but I think that being able…”

Q: “Is it a human right?” 

OBAMA: “But I think that being able to transfer property is a civil right. I think not being…” 

Q: “Do you think marriage is a human right?”

OBAMA: “I think that not being able to, not being discriminated against is a civil right. I think making sure that we don’t engage in the sort of gay-bashing that, I think, has unfortunately dominated this campaign–not just here in Illinois, but across the country–I think, is unfortunate, and I think that that kind of mean-spirited attacks on homosexuals is something that the people of Illinois generally have rejected.”

Wow… quite the “Constitutional Scholar” that Obama is, eh?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

BREAKING FROM ABC NEWS:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

As I said on Twitter a few minutes ago…

First Obama co-opts the Bush policies in the War on Terror and now he co-opts Dick Cheney’s position on gay marriage.  Progress!

I bet his supporters fighting for months to defeat Amendment One in North Carolina are real impressed that he let them hang out to dry until after the vote.  Charming.

Now you may all discuss…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): This headline may help explain things, Gay Money In This Election Has Replaced Wall Street Money.

UP-UPDATE (also from Dan):  This is a cynical move from a position of political weakness.  Will elaborate later today as time allows.

Yesterday, when I announced my determination to slow down the pace of blogging this week, I had intended to post only a handful of pieces on gay issues, first to indication my opposition to North Carolina’s Amendment One, then to offer a followup on the Grenell Matter, noting how that latter showed not the anti-gay animus that some Democratic partisans and gay activists were determined to find in the GOP, but the party’s own awkwardness on gay issues (for more on that, just read the passage I quoted in this post from the Huffington Post‘s Jon Ward).

Where the presumptive Republican nominee has handled social conservative concerns about a gay staffer in a most awkward manner, his Democratic counterpart has shown incredible “cowardice,” as one blogger put it, in handling the issue of gay marriage.  Bruce blogged that Obama “stepped in it.”  Others have been even less forgiving.

The real problem is that Obama didn’t try to find some sort of compromise in the first two years of his term when he had overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.  Had he had some significant political savvy, he might, for example, have sat down with gay leaders and pointed to the passage of Prop 8 in California, saying that it wouldn’t be prudent to push forward on gay marriage per se, but would instead focus on civil unions (touting such legislation as the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517), a bill in the 111th Congress “which would grant domestic partners access to federal employee health care benefits“); he would have been wise to ask these leaders to identify key Republicans (e.g. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Susan Collins in the Senate) who would be willing to help spearhead such efforts.

The Democrat would then be able to point to efforts (likely successful) he had made to advance the cause of same-sex couples.  There might not be a public outcry over gay marriage had he had accomplished something in terms of federal recognition of same-sex civil unions, even if just for government employees. (more…)

Looks like I picked the wrong week for slow blogging:

UPDATE/EXPLANATION: As per the second post linked above, I had intended to blog at a slower pace this week than usual, but when I caught Jennifer Rubin’s post, I began to realize that the administration’s stance on gay marriage would come to dominate this week’s news cycle — much as the Grenell matter had dominated last week’s.

Indeed, this morning on Facebook, no fewer than five people had linked posts on the administration’s “cowardice“, as one conservative blogger put it, in the gay marriage debate — not to mention the posts I would chance upon the various conservative blogs I tend to scan every day.

As other blogs address this topic, it seems a gay conservative website should be on top of the issue.

Let me begin by reminding you of some important facts.  Democrat Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, with strong support from gay groups, including many supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage.

When he took office, the president’s party, the Democratic, enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  From July 7, 2009 until February 4, 2010, that majority was filibuster-proof, that is, Senate Democrats didn’t need a single Republican vote to invoke cloture; they could vote on any item they wanted to.  Said legislative Democrats never voted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or even to pass a federal civil unions bill.  They only got their act together to vote on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) after the election, but before the swearing in, of a Republican Congress in November 2010.

In short, Democrats in the 111th Congress had the chance to act on issues of concern to gay Americans, but failed to do so.

Now to the question.  Earlier today, Jennifer Rubin asked, “Are gay-marriage advocates being taken as fools?”

On “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joe Biden said he’d be “comfortable with gay marriage,” an odd formulation for an important matter of public policy. (This is truly liberalism’s triumph of good intentions over actions.)

. . .

This is becoming the proverbial Lucy and the football. One wonders how often pro-gay-marriage activists, like poor Charlie Brown, are going to fall for this stuff.

. . . .

First, forking over lots of money gives you access; threatening to cut it off gets you attention. The leverage is with the gay community, whose financial and electoral power is considerable. But as long as the campaign takes gay voters (like Jews, Hispanics and union members) for granted, there is no reason for President Obama to move on this before the election.

Maybe had HRC not been so quick to endorse Obama, they might have been able to extract some concessions from the Democrat.  It seems though that the heads of that and other gay groups would rather be loved by the Democrats than see legislation passed recognizing our relationships.

UPDATE:  Deborah Kerr reminds us (@ 2:35 below) how HRC treats Obama: (more…)

Glenn Reynolds reports, “BIDEN UNLEASHED: Goes against Obama and endorses gay marriage, Axelrod quick to back-pedal, hilarity ensues.”

RELATED:  Charlie Spiering contends that “Yes. Biden was off-script on gay marriage comments“.

Interesting that when President Obama addressed his party’s gay and lesbian auxiliary (the Human Rights Campaign) last night, he generated the most energetic reaction not for touting of his accomplishments, but for attacking Republicans:

The most electric reaction, however, came when Obama sharply criticized the GOP presidential candidates for staying silent when audience members at a debate booed a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the president of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that,” said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

“We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. We don’t believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient. We don’t believe in a small America. We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.”

It is sick what this Democrat is doing.  He didn’t need to attack Republicans.  He could have simply highlighted his accomplishments on issues of concern to the gay community, notably repeal of DADT (which even yours truly believes is a feather in his cap).

It is telling that Obama felt it incumbent upon himself to attack, attempting to hold Republican presidential candidates responsible for the boorish behavior of at most three (but likely just one) rude and disrespectful louts.  And it is telling that this mean-spirited attack generated the “most electric reaction” at an HRC event.

The only candidate who would be expected to condemn the boor would be the man to whom the gay soldier’s question was addressed.  And that man, Rick Santorum, albeit belatedly (though he claims not to have heard the boos during the debate*) did condemn the boors who bood the soldier.

To suggest that the Republican candidates do not stand up for the men and women in uniform is demagoguery plain and simple. The president should abolish for suggesting as much (while hinting at their “smallness“). (more…)

Just eight days before the default deadline, the president has finally endorsed a plan to raise the debt limit, signing on to “debt-ceiling proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that would cut federal deficits by $2.7 trillion and increase the federal borrowing limit through 2012.”

House Speaker John Boehner, however, finds that the plan is “full of gimmicks” and “fails to change” the federal “spending structure” nor does it “deal with entitlements.” Now that both sides have plans, will the president blame Republicans for intransigence if they fail to support it? House Republicans have already compromised, with leading members of the GOP caucus denouncing his latest plan.

It seems that for this president compromise means agreeing with him.

Will the president tonight lash out at Republicans for failing to walk in lock-step with him (and call that failure “intransigence”) or will he commend them for putting forward several plans to raise the debt limit while cutting spending?  His recent history of public statements on the debt crisis suggests the former.  As Peter Wehner wrote about the Democrat’s most recent such statement:

It’s been clear to some of us for a while that Barack Obama is a man of uncommon self-admiration, quite thin-skinned, and increasingly consumed by his grievances. Obama has masked these traits pretty well so far, but on Friday his mask slipped more than it ever has.

Via Instapundit.

Will the president focus on the good will efforts of individuals on both sides of the political aisle to solve the debt crisis or will he make it appear that he is the only adult in the room (and thus show he is anything but)?

Obama Supports Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act:

President Obama is throwing his support behind the Respect for Marriage Act – the bill to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage even for couples married under state law.

Why didn’t he make any effort to repeal DOMA earlier in his term. Just asking.

*or similar legislation

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

The title at the left-leaning Huffington Post says it all, Obama, At LGBT Fundraiser, Gets A Pass For Punting On Same-Sex Marriage.  But, of course he does, it’s that all-purpose (D) after his name, the (D) that makes a political candidate immune to criticism from and subject to adoration by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other gay activists to whom being loved by the Democrats means achieving your most sought-after goal, even if said lover only pays lip service to his affection.

Sure, he said yesterday “at a Manhattan fundraiser. . . geared specifically to the gay community” (the “Gala With the Gay Community”) that he believes “gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,” but what has he done to make that a reality?  Did HRC head Joe Solmonese ask his BFF why the Democrat failed to press Congress to act on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act when his party held an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate?  And when they held that legislative majority, his Democrats didn’t even bring repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) up for a vote, crossing their fingers and hoping unelected federal judges do what they were afraid to do.

Even though he was in the Empire State, where at this very moment, the legislature is considering state recognition of same-sex marriage, the HRC-endorsed Democrat “did not personally endorse the pending New York bill — which is nearing passage in the statehouse — or same-sex marriage itself.”  And still HRC head Joe Solmonese and company just couldn’t keep themselves from swooning.

Face it, guys, Obama just wants your money, like the cute boy who sweet talks you at the bar while ordering a $20 cocktail, then reaches for his wallet, only to feign shock when he just can’t find it.  “Maybe you can help me look for it,” he says as he puts his hand on your knee and looks into your eyes, but once he’s taken a few sips from the pricey drink you’ve bought him, he manages to slip away.  (more…)

Perhaps, we might be able to get to the bottom of the Barack Obama’s changing stance on gay marriage if some leading gay rights’ activists were more interested in advocating for gay people than in agitating for Democratic politicians:

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR OWN LYING EYES? Senior White House aide: 1996 Obama gay marriage questionnaire is a fake, even though Obama signed it. Presumably the White House is demanding release of the original long-form questionnaire.

While HRC is silent, gay bloggers and blogreses are asking questions.  At Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen feels like she’s “watching a denial from the Obama Administration of Barack Obama’s 1996 position on marriage equality in the face of documentation that makes the denial appear to be a lie. It looks to me to be an attempt at a history rewrite“:

I can’t imagine that this isn’t going to cause problems between the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and the Obama Administration, and it will require someone more senior to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in an attempt to straighten this out.

Once again, gay and lesbian bloggers (and blogresses), working on a shoestring, are doing the work the national gay organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, fancy offices and expense accounts refuse to do.

Does seem Obama arrives at his positions on gay issues, not on their merits, but on their politically expediency.

It seems he supported state recognition of same-sex marriage in his first campaign, yet subsequently never marched in any gay pride parade — or otherwise participated in such celebrations.  You’d think national gay groups would be asking questions, especially given the president’s aggressive solicitation of gay money and votes.

Kudos to the gay leftie bloggers unwilling to serve as lickspittles to a Democratic president with whom they are, by and large, ideologically in sync.  Would it we could say the same thing for the national gay groups.  But, for them it seems, fealty to the Democratic Party — and its standard bearers — remains the highest bond.

I had this thought while watching the Gay Pride parade this past Sunday in West Hollywood and catching sight of the first Obama 2012 sticker:  why were so many of our fellow gays so gung-ho about Obama in 2008, even to the point of regularly deriding Hillary despite his absence then of a record on gay issues.  The Democrat had, in his campaign, shared a platform with an anti-gay singer.  And to my knowledge, hadn’t done much of anything for gay people when in the Illinois — or United States — Senate.

The Illinois legislature didn’t pass a “non-discrimination” law until January 2005, the very month Barack Obama began his service in another legislature.  In his eight years in the Illinois Senate did the Democrat work to advance this legislation, legislation near and dear to the hearts of gay activists?  Did he press his colleagues on same-sex civil unions?

Not just that, as I noted on Tuesday, “Mrs. Clinton participated in gay Pride parades in New York.  Obama never participated in such celebrations in Chicago.”  (Thanks to the folks at Hillbuzz for keeping track of this failure to participate.)

Yeah, I realize this in 2011 and I’m asking a question about 2008, but I’m still wondering why so many gay activists preferred Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton that year when they had little (if any) evidence that he was a champion of their causes.

NB:  Added the parenthetical (some) to the title to make my point clearer.  Thanks, readers, for helping me realize that title leant itself to misinterpretation.

GIven the political tilt of this town (Los Angeles), particularly its gay residents, I was pleasantly surprised at Pride this past weekend to see so few Obama 2012 stickers.   Joe Solmonese may be bowing and scraping to the Democratic incumbent, but many of our gay peers (on the left) don’t seem too enthusiastic for President Obama.

Maybe it’s beginning to dawn on them that Hillary Clinton would have been a far more aggressive champion of causes near and dear to the hearts of gay activists than Obama has been.  At least Mrs. Clinton participated in gay Pride parades in New York.  Obama never participated in such celebrations in Chicago.  (Ask me again why so many gay bloggers preferred the then-junior Senator from Illinois to his then-New York counterpart.)

It’s not just left-of-center gays who aren’t all that excited about reelecting the incumbent.  The president couldn’t fill a 2,200 hundred seat concert hall in Miami for a recent fundraiser (only 980 partisans bought tickets, with some seats going for just $44, leading Ed Morrissey to observes that in the county where Obama enjoyed his largest margin in the Sunshine State, this is “a clear signal that Obama won’t get anywhere near the kind of enthusiasm he inspired in 2008, and without that, he’s very vulnerable indeed.“

Despite the adulation that President Obama enjoys in most gay circles, he has refused to address the persecution of our fellows around the world.  It is particularly striking that while he has delivered two speeches in the past four days on the Middle East, citing in his speech this past Thursday at the State Department, our promotion of “political reform and human rights in the region“, he did not mention the plight of homosexuals suffering under Islamicist oppression.

Nor had he mentioned their suffering in his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo.

Perhaps, it’s because on gay issues, he takes his cues from the gay left, all too many who fear losing their sense of solidarity with the broader “progressive” movement for whom alliance with some of America’s enemies is paramount.  All too often they lose sight of the individuals who suffer under the rule of anti-American regimes.

Over at Commentary Contentions, Jonathan S. Tobin wonders at “David Kaufman’s bizarre and confused article in Time magazine that focuses on ‘pink washing’—the term used by leftists to describe the discussion of Israel’s stance on gay rights.” Kaufman, Tobin finds, is concerned that some cite Israel’s exemplary record on gays as a “cover to stop people from denouncing Israel for its alleged abuse of the Palestinians”:

The reason why Israel’s gay rights record is relevant to the broader discussion about the conflict in the Middle East is not a matter of mere public relations. The point here is one of understanding the difference between an open society and a culture rooted in fundamentalist Islam and irredentist nationalism, which sees all minorities as objects of hate. The drive to isolate and eradicate the one non-Muslim majority country in the Middle East is rooted in the intolerance that is at the core of the culture of Israel’s foes. The equal rights enjoyed by gays in Israel and the oppression and violence they face in Palestinian society as well as in much of the Arab world is a perfect example of the difference between liberal democracy and intolerant Islam.

Read the whole thing.

If the president is such an ally of gay people, why is he so unwilling to hold up Israel as an exemplar of how a nation in the Middle East should treat gay people?  And to encourage its Arab nations to follow that example?

(H/t:  ThatGayConservative.)

Our friends at GOProud remind us that Jim Messina, the man President Obama tapped to head his reelection campaign produced a gay-bashing ad in 2002 against Montana Republican US Senate hopeful Mike Taylor:

The ad was roundly condemned by gay rights groups as anti-gay.

The ad can be seen here.

According to an article in The Nation, Messina “touted the ad as the way to do politics in the West.”

“The fact that Obama would select a campaign manager who practices the lowest kind of character assassination politics is outrageous on its own – the fact that he would then turn to the gay community and bankroll this kind of campaign is beyond the pale,” said GOProud Board Chairman Christopher R. Barron.

Despite Messina’s notorious reputation for the Montana ad not a single national gay group has spoken out about this hire by Obama until now.

Seems for those gay groups, all’s fair when advancing a Democratic candidate.

The folks at Servicemembers United, a group “which represents gay and lesbian troops and veterans” repotst “that the White House had barred civilian representatives of gay and lesbian military families from” a White House event spearheaded by First Lady Michelle Obama and Second Lady Jill Biden honoring military families:

“It is rather unfortunate that both East Wing and West Wing staff have refused to allow a representative of gay military families to even be in the room at an event that is supposed to honor their commitment and sacrifice,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.

Kristina Schake, Communications Director for the First Lady, explained the decision this way in an email to CBS News.

“The President has been crystal clear that the Administration is moving forward with the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ quickly and efficiently,” she said. “However, it still remains the law. The White House, including the First Lady and Dr. Biden, look forward to working with the families of gay and lesbian service members after certification occurs and repeal goes into effect.”

Nicholson, from Servicemembers United, complained in his statement that “[t]he First Lady’s office has used the continued enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as an excuse to exclude us, even though they know that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations.”

I’m sure other gay organizations will be rushing to criticize the White House for not including this group.

Comes interesting news this week that an internal Democratic poll shows strong support for President Obama among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Of note, this poll was done before the repeal of DADT last month.

Some serious concerns about the interpretation of this poll. First of all, the poll was released only to the Huffington Post blog and only “on the condition that the full survey not be published.” Whenever a) the internals of a poll are not released and b) the results are sent only to a partisan publication for dissemination, it’s clear an agenda is being advanced by the numbers, that might not be borne out by the actual findings.

What’s more, in such an instance, plenty of questions arise: 64% either “approved” or “strongly approved”. So was that 10% “strongly” and 54% simply approving? Perhaps that’s splitting hairs, but it’s still significant. That the original results aren’t released suggests the depth of support might not be as impressive as its breadth. Another question: Where are these folks? There are no comparable approve/disapprove numbers from the same poll to indicate this demographic is any more supportive of Obama than the population (from which the respondents were separated as being “LGBT”) overall. Point being, poll gays and lesbians in San Francisco, you’ll likely find the same level of overwhelming support for Teh One as you would from that city’s overall population. Bottom line, this poll leaves many more questions than answers, if you’re willing to ask them.

But one great thing it does is offer up once again the opportunity to discuss the following thesis:

As more “gay” issues are settled by democratic means (as opposed to court mandates and decrees), and are therefore taken off the table, do you suppose gays and lesbians will begin to concern themselves with more important issues like the economy and national defense when it comes to picking their representatives? When HRC, Equality Matters and the slew of other left-wing advocacy groups don’t have things like DADT, ENDA, and marriage to flail about, do you think gays and lesbians will start to vote on more universal issues, and therefore gravitate more toward those who share American values of small government, low taxes, individual liberty, and a strong national defense?

To expand on the point to which Dan alludes directly below, the caricature of conservatives being ogres who simply hate gays and want to keep us all down and “would send us all to an island if they had their way” may be useful in this (and previous) day and age when some are still so animated about certain “rights”. But take away those “struggles”, and who would you vote for?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)