Guest Blogger

As Many As 32% of Gay Americans May Be Morons and an Embarrassment to the Rest of Us

Filed By Guest Blogger | August 23, 2008 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, The Movement
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Presidential Race, Supreme Court

Editor's note: John R. Selig is a writer, photographer and activist who lives in Dallas, Texas with his husband Rodolfo (they married in Toronto, Canada in April 2004). John produces and hosts the "John Selig Outspoken" podcast featuring interviews with LGBT role models and opinion. John's photos, commentaries, and bio can be viewed on his personal website www.johnselig.com.

John_Balcony_1_Mar030208.jpgThis morning I received a media release from Witeck-Combs Communications concerning a recent poll conducted by Harris Interactive. The poll showed that 68% of the LGBT respondents support Barack Obama, 10% support John McCain, 3% supported Ralph Nader, 1 % supported Bob Barr and 15% haven't made up their minds yet. Senator Obama maintains only an eight-point lead over Senator McCain in the total mainstream sample, which is unchanged from the July numbers. The poll was conducted online between August 1st and 7th among 2,834 adults aged 18 and over, with 178 (or nearly 6.3%) indentified as gay lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

I am sorry folks, but if this poll is representative of our community, and 178 seems to be too small sample to me, 32% of the LGBT community are morons! John McCain is staunchly anti-gay and yet 10% of us support him... that makes lots of sense, especially if McCain gets into office and we have to survive a U.S. Supreme Court comprised of a majority of "Strict Constructionists" for the rest of many of our lives!

Here are the ages of the current members of the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens, 88 (liberal), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75 (Liberal), Antonin Scalia, 72 (Conservative), Anthony Kennedy, 71 (Moderate), Stephen Breyer, 69 (Liberal), David Souter, 68 (Liberal), Clarence Thomas, 60 (Conservative), Samuel Alito, 58 (Conservative) and John Roberts, 53 (Conservative). Remember, the retirement or death of a liberal justice and the appointment of just one more conservative means the anti-gay conservatives will control the court. Only one of the conservatives is over 70. What is the likelihood that the next president will replace at least one of the liberal justices in the next 4 1/2 years... 8 1/2 years? This could be the most important issue to vote for Barack Obama!

Ralph Nader can't win, so a vote for him is a vote for McCain. Bob Barr was the author of the Defense of Marriage Act (remember DOMA). Though Barr is now a Libertarian who is against a marriage constitutional amendment, he has never been a champion for equal rights for LGBT folks.

15% of us can't make up our minds yet? This isn't rocket science. Gay people tend to vote in higher percentages than the mainstream because we realize whomever is in office has a huge impact on our lives. For 15% of us not to be able figure out who is the best candidate yet, with all the press coverage of the candidates over the past 18 months, is beyond me.

A friend of mine points out that this choice isn't as easy as I make it out to be. After all, Barack Obama invited homophobe Donnie McClurkin to campaign with him in South Carolina last autumn. Senator Obama hasn't made a concerted effort to speak with the local gay press and he has repeatedly stated his support of civil unions but opposition to same-sex marriage.

Come on people! Is there really any question as to whether John McCain or Barack Obama will do the most for gay rights? McCain will run on and support the Republican Party platform, which is staunchly anti-gay. Barack Obama has shifted to the center to win but he knows that "separate but equal" isn't acceptable. Obama believes that he can't do more than support civil unions with all the federal rights of marriage before he gets into office. Barack Obama has a strong record of supporting gays throughout his entire political career.

Our responsibility as a community is to put more pressure on a Democratic Congress and President once they are in office. The battle won't be over if we win in November. If Barack Obama becomes president, gays will be in a position to make demands, be listened to, and hold Barack Obama and Congress to their promises. If we don't do so, we are at fault as much as the politicians are!

I don't like voting for or against a candidate because of their stance on one issue. But when it comes to voting- and a candidate is anti-gay- that's a deal breaker. I had family that died in the gas chambers in Germany because they didn't think a candidate would be as bad as his public statements against Jews had been. I refuse to settle for being a second-class citizen and neither should you! Furthermore, I can give you a boatload of reasons as to why Barack Obama will make a far better president than John McCain and why John McCain will be harmful besides their stances on sexual orientation issues.

In 2000, 25 % of gay people voted for George W. Bush and in 2004 Bush received 23% of the gay vote. I consider the LGBT people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 to be idiots except, perhaps, for the very wealthy who could buy their rights. Those people I find reprehensible for their lack of compassion for those less fortunate. Personally I believe that as a community we are failing if we can only convince 68% of our community to stand up for our civil rights. Yes, the final vote should be an improvement over 2000 and 2004 if the majority of the 15% undecided come to their senses and vote for Obama. A lot more than 68%, 73%, or even 75% of Jews would vote for their rights, and the same for African Americans, if a candidate publicly took stands against them the way John McCain and the Republican Party have against gays!

Don't be complacent during this campaign by assuming that Obama is going to win. 32% of gay people aren't backing Senator Obama and he only has an 8% lead over McCain in the August mainstream Harris Interactive Poll. Other polls have the two candidates closer. We haven't even hit the conventions and the Republican dirty tricks that are sure to come in September and October along with the voter suppression on Election Day.

Donate money, volunteer, talk to your friends and register people to vote. This may be the most important election of our lives and not just because of our sexual orientation. There is a laundry list of reasons that we need to get a Democrat into the White House and keep Senator McCain out.


Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I'm a gay Republican because there's more to life than being gay, and I care a whole lot about America and free enterprise. Those are bigger issues than what turns me on sexually.

Nobody's out to put us in a gas chamber. Hell, George Bush and Dick Cheney are to the LEFT of Bill Clinton on gay rights, as they both now support civil unions, and Clinton would not. That's how fast the culture is moving in our direction on gay issues. I never thought we'd have or even be discussing gay marriage in my lifetime, and I'm not yet 40.

The real hate comes from those like you, who hate people like me for holding independent thought rather than following the herd.

As a gay Republican, I get a lot more HATE from gays than from Republicans. Even from many social conservatives.

Show me where George Bush says he supports gay civil unions.

Thank you for this article,and wonder if the volumn could be turned to high.I also think it's interesting,with all of the data that John presents,that there are no comments thus far?Go figure,perhaps to early in the day? I also find it unbeleaveable that 15% are undecided.Hello,is there anybody in there?I read something the other day that,I guess, explains this.Light travels faster than sound.Thats why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Peace...spierce

Coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum as DB, I'm also a little shocked by this post. Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a moron or idiot?

You ask readers to not be complacent, but aren't you being complacent by voting for someone (Obama) who is not actually pro gay liberation, has voted to continue funding the war in Iraq, and has been moving further and further to the center since he clinched the nomination? Isn't a vote for Obama complacency in a two-party system?

I don't think it's fair to say that any queer person who doesn't vote for Obama is a moron. Even a vote for Obama is a vote against your interests.

You're kidding, right?

You talked about being complacent. I have another "c" word for you. Complicit. As in, if you fail to stop McCain from being elected president, you will be complicit in helping to oppress all manner of minorities and US citizens.

The only way to keep McCain from being elected is to vote for Obama. No third party candidate will outpoll either of them. Period. So if you vote for one, you are opting out of the electoral process. And that makes *you* a complacent citizen.

In the 2000 election, well known libertarian Bill Maher said that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, so he didn't care who was elected. You know what he says now? "I was an idiot. Of course there was a difference."

There is zero evidence that Obama is anti-gay; whereas there's all kind of evidence that McCain is, as well as anti-civil liberties and pro war.

You don't think Obama is pro-gay? Whatever. But I know McCain isn't. If you don't vote for Obama, you're helping to elect McCain. Period.

I don't agree with much in this post either. Sure, I'll be voting for Obama, but I don't think that means that anyone who doesn't (or, more specifically, hasn't said yet) is a moron. Nor do I think it's specifically helpful.

That 15% who don't know yet, well, instead of making fun of them behind their backs (I'm many people who follow a site like bilerico wouldn't already have an opinion on that), why don't we try to engage them? Going up to someone who hasn't decided and saying "Hey moron! Why haven't you picked teams? Are you stupid or something?" isn't going to help them out too much.

Maybe they just aren't political? Maybe they work a lot or can't follow the news or have families to take care of? What if they've given up in electoral politics (considering the system we have in America, I wouldn't blame them)? It's a tough group to engage, but I'm guessing they don't see themselves as morons.

Or maybe I'm just thinking too much. All I read is someone who thinks he's got everything figured out for everybody calling anyone who disagrees with him a moron. Maybe there isn't anything else.

Quoting Alex:
Going up to someone who hasn't decided and saying "Hey moron! Why haven't you picked teams? Are you stupid or something?" isn't going to help them out too much.
From what I have experienced in online forums, I would say that such an approach is remarkably effective in getting the other person to pick a side... just not your side.

I understand John's intent in setting off some fireworks in order to get folks attention. Doing so may have garnered his article more replies than a more neutral approach. I have enjoyed the discussion, but wonder how much stock we should put in a Harris Interactive poll with a sample size of 178 persons.

It's very clear that the title of this article grabbed some people's attention. For those people who are not persuaded yet to vote for Obama, let me suggest that they consider probably the most important thing that he will be involved in - unless the country implodes - and that is appointment Supreme Court justices.

It is essential that we have any new justices be left of center - and young - because the decisions that court makes will have an impact for 75 - 100 years. And the drift of the court is definitely not friendly to glbt people in the country. Even though I don't usually like suggesting a decision made upon one criterion, in this case, it just may be the "persuader."

"It's very clear that the title of this article grabbed some people's attention."

Actually, the first three times I read it, I couldn't understand how there could be 32% gay American Mormons. It just didn't make any sense!

John R. Selig | August 23, 2008 5:54 PM

I am pleased that my post has garnered attention and debate. I agree that my headline is strong and I chose it to make sure people read the post in much the same way I titled an Op-Ed that was published in the “Arizona Republic” on Easter Sunday in 1996. It read “As A Gay Parent I am Already Entitled to Special Rights.” My commentary went on to read that I had the special right to be fired from my job with no recourse, I had the special right to be denied an apartment, the special right to be denied custody of my son even if I was the better custodial parent… I didn’t want these special rights or any others.

People have the right to vote for whomever they wish. In fact, too few of us exercise that right with more people interested in voting for the winner on “American Idol” than for President of the United States. I agree that many Democrats have let us down. I remember David Mixner (who brought Bill Clinton to our community for support) telling me in 1992 that he had been a friend with Bill Clinton for several decades and that he felt that Bill Clinton would be good for our community. David added that he would never totally trust a straight politician and that it was our responsibility to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire once hw got into office. During Bill Clinton’s first year in office David, along with the Rev. Mel White and a bunch of other activists, chained himself to the White House Fence over Clinton’s “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell.” By the way, David Mixner has been an Obama supporter since John Edward dropped out of the race.

Barack Obama is a strong proponent of gay rights. Am I pleased with his stand on all of our issues? No. But then I wasn’t pleased with Rep. Barney Frank’s support for a non-inclusive ENDA (though I would vote for Barney Frank over a homophobic opponent such as John McCain any day). Barack Obama was the first Democratic candidate during the primaries to accept the invitation to the HRC/LOGO debate. Obama has been a strong proponent to pass ENDA, the Mathew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act. He favors getting rid of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Obama strongly opposes a marriage amendment. Although I fault him for not supporting same-sex marriage at the moment, he does support our getting all of the same right through civil unions. I know Obama realizes that is unworkable and the “separate but equal” is not acceptable. Obama is a politician and he believes that he cannot stick his neck out during the campaign. Once in office, as our country continues to move towards accepting same-sex marriage Obama will not block our progress and will eventually support us. If you look at the analysis of the questionnaires on LGBT issues from the Human Rights Campaign Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both were positive on ever issue except for same-sex marriage. Here is a link to the analysis of their questionnaires. http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/Questionnaire_ReportCard.pdf

Now, let’s contrast Barack Obama’s support to John McCain who believes that we should not be allowed to marry (he would support a constitutional amendment to stop us from doing so), McCain believes that gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military, gays should not be allowed to adopt children, there is no need to give gays “special rights” by passing ENDA or the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes bill. McCain’s record shows support of a discriminatory AIDS policy a la Jessie Helms to cut off funding of prevention aimed at the gay community. Most importantly, John McCain has promised to appoint ultra-conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. McCain recently was asked about what kind of justices he would appoint and he replied that he wouldn’t appoint justices like (and he proceeded to name all of the justices whom have supported LGBT rights. Here is a link the HRC’s report on the record of john McCain on GLBT issues. http://www.hrc.org/equality08/264.htm

No there are many reasons why I believe that it is imperative that we elect Barack Obama as our next president that have nothing to do with the LGBT community that range from his handling of our economy, to energy policy, to environmentalism, to education, to health care, to ending this absurd war in Iraq, to restoring America’s reputation from the laughing stock that it is under Bush and will remain under McCain. John McCain’s voting record has been strongly supportive of George W. Bush, certainly one of the worst presidents in this nation’s history. If McCain can’t remember the number of homes he and his wife have, how can he possibly grasp the impact of his policies on the average American? I could do an entire post on why Obama is good and McCain will be a disaster that doesn’t even mention the word gay.

I don’t think that African Americans would even consider voting for a bigot or Jews would consider voting for an anti-Semite (Count the number of Black faces you see at the Republican Convention in Minneapolis). John McCain is anti-gay. The Republican Party’s platform is staunchly anti-gay. If McCain gets into office we can kiss any advances in our rights goodbye with an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court for many years. At least 10% of gays are considering voting for him. Does that appear to be a sane decision?

If Barack Obama gets into office our rights won’t materialize overnight. We will have to fight hard for every one of them. We will need to be in Obama’s face and in the face of members of the both houses of Congress, which will hopefully have a stronger Democratic majority. We have a history of throwing our support behind Democrats. We need to make certain that Democrats don’t think our continued support is assured. We need to press them to deliver. Getting Obama into the White House is only the first step, not the end of our fight. But at least Obama will listen and so will Congress; it is our job to force them to act.

If McCain gets into office, he won’t listen, he won’t care and our movement towards equality will be set back a good 20 years. I am sorry if my column’s headline offended anybody. Personally I believe that anybody who purposely votes to set our fight for equality back twenty years isn’t firing on all cylinders.

As I said in my first comment, acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights have advanced at *lightening speed*.

Historically speaking, it's absolutely remarkable. And inexorable.

Republicans cannot stop it (and many are embracing it). Democrats cannot speed it up.

It's a cultural/generational thing and it's beyond politics.

We've won. And inexorably gay marriage will spread across America.

Guess what? Republicans can stop it. Reversal of Lawrence with re-criminalisation would set us back decades. For those LGBT's not insulated by wealth and priviledge, and yes, I am one of those so insulated, being cashiered for simply being gay is a very real concern.

Being concerned about gay rights is not simply voting based upon who you sleep with, though the Republicans, in bed with industry do it routinely. It is about a future for all LGBTY's that we are now painfully aware that the LCR's could not care less about, the kind of people whose elitist attitudes gave eight years of the disasterous epoch of George Bush and the unhinging of the stability of American currency.

I am a banking attorney, for another week. I have larger responsibilities beyond my own comfort, my own place amongst the elite, my own portfolio.

The LCR's lost that perspective the very first time that they voted for Bush and engraved their self-seeking disdain for the rest of the LGBT community when they pulled the lever the second time.

The LCR's remind me ever so much of Gertrude Stein praising Hitler and assuming that her connections and wealth would keep her safe. For the love of all that is holy, you've crawled into bed with people who want to see you prosecuted for felonies, denied job protections, denied equal citizenship.

And you have the crass nerve to try and justify it.

Robert Ganshorn | August 24, 2008 1:01 AM

DB, you are right about a great deal. There is more to life than just being Gay. I too care a lot about America and Free Enterprise.

We all should think about full issues and make reasoned choices when we vote and the Democratic candidate will not be right for everyone.

Now that I have said that, here is why I am voting for Obama. Beyond all the reasons like the Supreme Court and Gay Rights there is the greater consideration of what the America we love is becoming. We have become a nation that acts through fear, greed, ignorance of the world, and domestic and foreign hatred.

More important to me than even Gay Rights are a fully national health care system that includes all.

Here is why you should like that. It will be a boon to every corporation that has had to provide health care coverage to attract and keep high quality workers while it helps protect the health of all Americans from the next disease pandemic which would have a further cost to industry. More importantly our industries would be more competitive domestically and on the world markets if our corporations were freed of this burden.

For the individual it will mean that they will not be subject to losing their home and all savings just to keep a child alive or themselves alive. 45 million people have no insurance and it is a disgrace we cannot abide any longer. Now I don't know if this fits in to your concept of "compassionate conservatism" but it does fit in to mine. It should also fit into your concept of national safety and security as it does mine.

We have allowed ourselves to fear the world rather than engage with it. We have sought to isolate ourselves in our thought and privilege as Americans and attempt to hold on to what is "ours" at the expense of those we take it from. America will be just fine economically for as long as you or I live and well beyond if we learn to stop marginalizing people.

Please understand, I am not suggesting that you are greedy, fearful or personally exploit anyone, but nations do. Our leadership which has sold us "guns and butter" (drill, drill, drill, bomb, bomb bomb)rather than solutions reminds me vividly of what happened to our country during Vietnam. An election process based upon who is thinnest, most photogenic or who is witty is not a solution to the obvious open wounds we have and will not educate a child or provide inclusion to the excluded.

We began this direction in our republic 110 years ago with the Spanish American War and have continued growing our military presence in the world ever since. Bring the troops home, shrink our military footprint around the globe, expect other countries (to whom we have been providing security for good or ill) to set their own priorities. Those countries will like us better for it and America can get back to business rather than looking for it's next enemy. In case you have not noticed the people who don't like us in the world have a victory every time a crippled senior citizen has to take his shoes off at the airport.

"Historically speaking, it's absolutely remarkable. And inexorable."

Nothing's inexorable. You know about all of the Jews who didn't escape Nazi Germany because it was inconceivable to them that their friends and neighbors would turn against them? They considered themselves Berliners. They were decorated for their service to Germany in The Great War.

"Republicans cannot stop it (and many are embracing it). Democrats cannot speed it up."

Historically speaking, the Republicans have stopped it. And they will continue to try to stop it. And if they gain enough power, they can and will change the make up of the Supreme Court. And that will change US law for generations.

And if they fail to stop it, they can surely slow it down, make it more painful, and endanger the health, welfare, livelihood, and lives of countless Americans. If you doubt that, I will enumerate how. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination how.

Democrats *can* speed it up by passing progressive laws that the president will sign. And they can make it less painful by not enacting obstacles which make it more difficult to achieve equality.

If it's more important to you that you keep the Republican tax policies that favor the most affluent Americans, I might think that's selfish, but that's your perogative. Just don't try to pretend that it isn't at the cost of our civil rights.

And BTW, being gay is a lot more than who you sleep with. It's about keeping your job, your apartment, your life, and your partner's well being, among other things. Don't believe me? Look back at what happened to gay people (or people of color, or the disabled) - historically speaking, before the enactment of anti-discrimination laws.

John, I won't be voting at all in November. And I do not consider myself to be a moron. In fact, I'd say that I'm pretty educated. I was already hedging on whether or not I would vote for Obama before he announced his running mate. But now that I see he's chosen Biden, I'm definitely out. Let's not forget this is a man who made racist statements about Obama early on in the primary season. And now we're supposed to just forget all that?

I'm an anarchist. I've voted in local elections, because I think that I do have the potential to make a difference at a local level. The people on my school board and city water commission are making important decisions that do affect my daily life. In Arizona, we will be voting on an initiative in November to raise taxes for expanded public transit. As a bus rider myself, I will make it to the polls to support that. Public transit in Arizona is woefully behind the times! And I will vote against the anti-marriage bill, even though same-sex marriage is already illegal in Arizona, and even though I don't believe in marriage.

But voting on a national level? Well, the only reason I voted in the primary is because I wanted to support a woman running for office. I'm a big fan of the suffragists, even though I agree with Emma Goldman that these women ultimately were putting their efforts into the wrong arena. When I do vote, it's to honor their struggle. Nothing more, nothing less. Goldman said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." And in the era of the Patriot Act and decreasing civil liberties, it ought to tell you something that they still let us vote.

So thanks for your patronizing rant about how 32% of us are morons. But I'm even less likely to vote at all now that I've read your old guy rant than I was before. Many thanks for sealing that deal.

I very strongly agree with Serena on this one.I believe my vote carries much more strength at the local level than at the national level.Who you choose to elect as Judges and politicians,what laws you choose to have in your State or community all effect National politics.People who are elected at the State level graduate to the national level at some point and so do some of the laws.It is my hope that sometime in the future Janet Napolitano will move up to National politics as I think she has been a great governor for Arizona and would do the same for America.Watching local political leaders is a good indicator of what to expect from them as they progress upwards and if they aren't doing a good job get them out of office.

"Who you choose to elect as Judges and politicians,what laws you choose to have in your State or community all effect National politics."

Actually, federal law trumps local law.

"People who are elected at the State level graduate to the national level at some point and so do some of the laws."

But if you only vote on the local level, than you can't help those people get elected nationally.

"It is my hope that sometime in the future Janet Napolitano will move up to National politics as I think she has been a great governor for Arizona and would do the same for America."

I'd be stunned if that happened. Gay people don't generally run for national office.

"John, I won't be voting at all in November. And I do not consider myself to be a moron. In fact, I'd say that I'm pretty educated."

Actually, "moron" refers to intelligence, not education.

"I was already hedging on whether or not I would vote for Obama before he announced his running mate. But now that I see he's chosen Biden, I'm definitely out."

Biden's philosophy on issues and politics is almost identical to Obama's. If you are pro-choice and pro-GLBT rights, there's no reason that your vote should change.

"Let's not forget this is a man who made racist statements about Obama early on in the primary season."

That's complete bullshit. He was trying to compliment Obama, not smear him. He misspoke and said clean instead of cleancut. If we've gotten so hung up on language that we're willing to pillary someone with an exemplary civil rights record and whose walked the walk in how he's lived his life, we're going to find our side a very lonely place.

At the time he said it, Obama said he didn't take offense, and he knew what Biden meant. It seems kind of presumptuous for other people to continue to take umbrage when the object of the statement didn't, even at the time of when it was said.

"And now we're supposed to just forget all that?"

Well, yes. Obviously Obama has. Why should your sensitivities be given higher consideration than his?

"I'm an anarchist. I've voted in local elections, because I think that I do have the potential to make a difference at a local level."

Well, you aren't a very good anarchist. Aside from participating in your government by voting, you're doing so on a level which is considered the most oppresive to anarchists. It's the local government which employs the police, paves your roads, makes you get a permit to put a sewer in, etc. Those are the very last elections an anarchist would want anything to do with.

"The people on my school board and city water commission are making important decisions that do affect my daily life."

So is the president. His decisions will shape your rights, those of the next three generations, and war and peace. Unless you kid goes to public school, the school board can't really touch that.

"In Arizona, we will be voting on an initiative in November to raise taxes for expanded public transit. As a bus rider myself, I will make it to the polls to support that. Public transit in Arizona is woefully behind the times! And I will vote against the anti-marriage bill, even though same-sex marriage is already illegal in Arizona, and even though I don't believe in marriage."

So in reality, the only election you *aren't* voting in is the presidential, and *that's* the one you're making the exception for. Not the other way around.

"But voting on a national level? Well, the only reason I voted in the primary is because I wanted to support a woman running for office."

So you did vote in the presidential election. So being an anarchist really has nothing to do with it.

"I'm a big fan of the suffragists, even though I agree with Emma Goldman that these women ultimately were putting their efforts into the wrong arena."

So you're more of a contrarian than an anarchist. Why would you admire the fight for something you don't value? Unless you do value it, and are only calling yourself an anarchist without following its philosophy?

"When I do vote, it's to honor their struggle. Nothing more, nothing less. Goldman said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." "

That's a great line, and very funny. But you know what? If people *fail* to vote, *that's* when we are in danger of them taking it away from us.

"And in the era of the Patriot Act and decreasing civil liberties, it ought to tell you something that they still let us vote."

Anyone who fails to vote, or votes for the people who support the Patriot act has forfeited the right to complain about it. Given the number of people who have fought and died to get the right to vote, it seems very disrespectful to throw yours away.

"So thanks for your patronizing rant about how 32% of us are morons. But I'm even less likely to vote at all now that I've read your old guy rant than I was before."

Well, it wasn't my rant, and it's probably a subject of debate if I'm an old man, but if you're so easily swayed, your convictions might need some fine tuning.

" Many thanks for sealing that deal."

What'll happen next? You'll hold your breath until you turn blue? That'll teach 'em.

The original post made the statement that it is moronic to vote for McCain because it is voting against one's queer interests. I claimed above that a vote for Obama is not actually voting for queer interests, either. Rory's comment, I believe, is directed toward me, that voting for a candidate besides Obama is complicit in oppression.

The problem with this whole idea that you must vote for Obama or you are complicit in oppression is that even a vote for Obama is complicit in oppression. If we think about what's probably most important for helping most Americans (as a first step), I would argue it's universal health care and getting away from the corporate insurance model. Obama does not support this. Obama's platform is, overall, pretty centrist. A vote for Obama is a vote for continuing the status quo, though by no means as awful as Bush or McCain.

A vote for Obama is a vote for continued oppression of various folks. For example, I highly doubt that free trade will be replaced by fair trade, which will continue unfair labor practices that exploit third world labor. An Obama presidency will probably not lead to a restructuring of education so that it's not funded by property taxes, which leaves the poorest communities with the poorest schools. The fact is, the argument that voting for someone other than Obama is complicit in oppression is fallacious because even a vote for Obama is complicit in oppression.

To the claim that there is zero evidence that Obama is anti-gay: If he were truly "pro-gay" (a term that could actually have a variety of meanings), in my opinion, he'd say, let's do away with marriage completely. It shouldn't be a state institution. People should be able to designate who will share custody of their children, who will visit them in the hospital, who will have custody of their children, no matter what their orientation or marital status. "Gay marriage" isn't even pro-gay because it ignores the fact that family health insurance is a middle class privilege, and that it doesn't extend to poor working gay couples, whether married or not. It also ignores polyamorous families, If Obama were pro-gay, he wouldn't hide behind his religious beliefs and define a marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. He wouldn't sound eerily like McCain.

And I'm not saying there is no difference between Obama an McCain. There is a difference. But there are also other candidates who would make more of a difference if elected. Will they be elected? Probably not. Is it my fault that millions of Americans ignore candidates who are not Democrats or Republicans? No.

So we should talk about practice and ethics. I'm often told that it's not practical to vote for a third party candidate. But at the root of the word practical is the word practice, and so we should ask, what should we be doing in practice? My belief is that we should be voting based on our values, our vision of policy, and our ethics. I don't believe that Obama represents me in any of these facets. More than McCain? Sure. But not more than other candidates.

If, as the argument goes, that it is voters for third party candidates who are responsible for Bush's election, and who would be responsible if McCain is elected, then it is even more so the responsibility of Clinton voters for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for DOMA, for NAFTA, and for welfare reform that left millions of women struggling even more to make ends meet. If Obama is elected, i'd rather not be responsible for the following 4 to 8 more years of neoliberal policy that will come out of his office. I'd rather say, I voted for someone who I thought would do a better job.

(and great comment, Serena!)

Amen, Michael. My sentiments exactly!

John R. Selig | August 24, 2008 1:37 PM

Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world. Rarely does any politician's views sync with mine. The few who do are likely to stand about as much of a chance of getting elected that winning the Powerball Lottery. So often we are stuck in the position of having to vote for the lessor of two evils.

I can list things about Obama and the Democrats that I have problems with but my list n McCain and the Republicans is far longer (and theirs is more dangerous to most Americans, the the LGBT community and to me and my husband on a personal level.

Every time that Obama brings up God and his religion I cringe. I believe that ones religion (or lack there of) is a personal matter. A politician's policies that should be discussed will be shaped by their own world view which is influenced by their religion. but to talk religion to me is as out of place as to talk about their favorite sex practices (notice I said sex practices not orientation or identity). If a politician cares to share their religion there is some use to that and the same about sexual orientation. But I don't need to know what their favorite position is just as I don't need to have them cite scripture to me during a stump speech.

I have a friend who is a fellow atheist who won't vote for Obama because of Onama being one of the first Democrats who is trying to go after some more left leaning Evangelical Christians by talking religion. I wish Obama wouldn't do so. But if John McCain gets into office we will see a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by Religious Christians and we are likely to see some or all of the following abortion outlawed, birth control limited, mandatory school prayer (and the Prayers won't be from Jewish, Moslem, Wiccan or liberal Christain Bibles). So my friend's decision is likely to come hurt him in the end if his vote could have kept McCain out of office.

DB states: "Republicans cannot stop it (and many are embracing it). Democrats cannot speed it up. It's a cultural/generational thing and it's beyond politics. We've won. And inexorably gay marriage will spread across America." My response, if only what you aid were so. I reply by citing the famous 1905 quote from philosopher George Santayana, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Rory made some excellent points about Jews in Germany. Did you know that Germany had the highest intermarriage rate between Jews and Christians amongst all of European countries when Hitler came to power? Jews and Moslems were treated well in Spain for hundreds of years when Ferdinand and Isabel came to power and cast them as a threat to Christianity and cast them out of spain and started the famous Inquisition. Many in Europe, who have seen a great more history than us, are incredulous in their observations of America's shift t the right under Bush and that Americans are letting it happen and doing nothing about it. The erosion of our civil rights under Bush has been shocking from the Patriot Act to immunity to the Telcos. Those who were arrested in protests years ago who received misdemeanors are now being given now get felonies.

The Republicans have stopped LGBT folks from gaining civil rights, every step of the way. They have been behind the marriage acts nationally in in the states along with the constitutional amendments (shame on Democrats for not standing up more firmly against their efforts). They have blocked hate crime laws, employment non-discrimination laws etc. Again the Democrats have been nowhere as bad. Again, the lesser of two evils.

Personally, I wish that our country had more than two parties. Unfortunately a large portion of our electorate doesn't even know the difference between the two parties. Only 2/5 of Americans can name the three branches of our federal government and only 1/5 can tell you how many U.S. Senators there are. I suggest reading Rick Shenkman's new book, "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter." I featured a lengthy interview with him on my last podcast. We are in sorry shape folks.

Serena, it is certainly your right not to vote. However, I make it a practice not to pay attention to comments or complaints from people who didn't vote because they were unwilling to stand up and be counted even if it was voting for the lessor of two evils, voting for a third party candidate or writing in another name. My grandfather once forgot to vote in a school bond election in my home town and it failed by one vote. He would have voted in favor. My mother made his life and ever living hel and I believe my mom was right in doing so. Had 500 or less more people voted for Al Gore in 2000, Bush would have not been president. I'll debate with somebody who votes against my candidate; I don't bother talking politics or policy with those who don't.

I can't believe that many gays honestly believe that our future in terms of civil rights will be better with John McCain in the White House than Barack Obama. Just the impact from ultra-conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court alone is reason enough to vote against McCain. Again, I could pose the same question on many different issues but I will stick to LGBT ones for the sake of this column.

I do appreciate the amount of discussion my column provoked. Discussion is good. Would I have written this type of column for an LGBT newspaper? Of course not. It is far to provocative and far too strongly worded. But I assume that regular readers of The Bilerico Project are LGBT activists and opinion leaders. I wanted to get you fired up. Too many of use have assumed (and in my opinion wrongly) that Barack Obama has the election in the bag and that he will win easily. He will not. The election will be close. It may be the most important election in our lives and those of us who want a Democrat in the White House must do all that we can to make it happen.

I am getting ready to participate in the prosecution of a head of state whose crimes were the proximate outcome of his being a religious Christian. His Christianity was rabid, conservative and he perceived God's laws to be above man's laws.

He ordered the deaths of 38,000 people, and that is a minimal figure and carried out that plan in an area about a quarter of the size of West Virginia.

A year ago, lobbying by religious groups, specifically the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, made the following offenses punishable by five years hard labour in Nigeria:
A gathering of two or more sgay or Lesbians
Possession of G/L themed books, movies or pamphlets
Membership in G/L organisations
Same-sex relationships outside of Sharia zones is now punishable by 15 years hard labour.

You do not think that one more conservative religious Christian on the USSC would give these same Churches and their evangelical allies the strength to strip out any LGBT rights that they can claim by obtaining writs certiori to get their cases heard before the USSC?
Alito and Scalia are on the record publically wanting to do so...and say as much in speeches to family groups at regular intervals.

Log Cabin Republicans are also concerned about economic issues?
Good God, this has been a print and spend party for the last eight years. There is a developing currency faminine, a credit faminine, and an overvalued currency in the US, a sure recipe for economic disaster if these policies continue. The LCR and other wealthy republicans only hope for salvation is holding foreign currencies or huge amounts of US correncies gained by the reckless Bush Tax Breaks, or by another FDR...
Good luck on that, by the way...

I'm an LGBT American who's voting for Obama and I have one quibble: I'm not gay, I'm a straight trans woman. Referring to me as a "gay American" unintentionally reinforces the idea that I'm just a special kind of gay man. Using "queer" instead of "gay" this context would be a better choice.

Randy L Johnson | August 24, 2008 11:31 PM

Log Cabin Republicans, as a national organization, has reportedly not endorsed John McCain as he does not have a record of support for our community. How is it possible that the gay community can in such large numbers support a candidate who clearly wants nothing to do with us?

Log Cabin argues that there are more and bigger issues than gay marriage. The issues of the economy and the role of America in the world both argue for a change in Washington. The gay community has to stand up for itself with its vote for President; it must also stand up for the needed change that will improve the lives of all Americans.

After what Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the GOP-controlled Congress that we've had since 1980 have done to this country over the past 28 years, they should never again be elected at any level.

In particular, where GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the GOP corporatist satraps are concerned, they should be tried on charges of treason. John McCain is the same as Bush, just angrier and less intelligent - and that's saying something.

Our country has survived many things, but i am not sanguine about its likelihood of surviving another 8 years of crooked corporatist GOP dictatorship, and that's before we get to GLBT rights, where there is, again, not a bit of comparison. Why does the LCR even exist?

"John McCain is the same as Bush, just angrier and less intelligent - and that's saying something."

Hey! Thems fightin' words!! Who you callin' less intelligent than our president?!

Ralph Nader can't win, so a vote for him is a vote for McCain..

I am really tired of dealing with third party and independent candidates in such a simplified way. Yes, that kind of statement can be backed up but that kind of framing treats the person like they're just supporting a third party candidate to be contrary and don't have any interest or knowledge of the issues.

The Nader supporters I knew in 2000 were frustrated with all the triangulating of the Clinton years feeling that Clinton and Gore let too many liberal issues take a step backwards... you know, the kind of thing DB uses to disingenuously claim that the Republicans are just as good to LGBT voters. If Gore ever responded to those voters with a "I can be your president too" remark, it didn't get far because all I ever saw was "Don't you see that Bush will be worse?" which is true but translates into the kind of "We're all you've got" attitude that's let to the current state of the Democrats in Congress who seem largely disinterested in being an oppositional party.

Bob Barr was the author of the Defense of Marriage Act (remember DOMA). Though Barr is now a Libertarian who is against a marriage constitutional amendment, he has never been a champion for equal rights for LGBT folks.

What makes Bob Barr so much more special that there's a reason not to vote on him based on his history instead of a vote for Bob Barr being a vote for McCain? I mean if every LGBT vote not for Obama is taking one away, doesn't the argument against Barr end the same place it does with Nader?

John R. Selig | August 25, 2008 5:56 AM

It does Lyle. This could be the most important election of our lives. If John McCain gets into power and is able to appoint one or more ultra-conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court moving this country ever more towards becoming a theocracy. Then of course there is McCain's strong voting record in support of Bush, arguably the worst president in our nation's history (and certainly one of the worst). McCain loves to bully so we will most likely have even more wars to increase our already out of control deficit garnering more hate against us around the world and increased terrorism because of it and of course further tax cuts for the wealthy.

Bob Barr's support is part of the 32% I used to capture readers' attention. A vote for Barr is a vote for McCain. I am no lover of Bob Barr! But even if I were, it would be a dangerous vote right now.

I know. I know. America really would be better off with a strong 3rd party. At the moment are country is hemorrhaging and needs life support. McCain is gangrene and now isn't the time, in my not so humble opinion to "make a statement." Once we move the country back from the theocrats then, if the Democrats don't fix things it is definitely time to do some serious third-party organizing.

shadow_asylum | August 25, 2008 7:10 AM

I don't like John McCain -- really don't like him….. But I won’t be voting for Obama and here’s why:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." - Barack Obama

OBAMA'S COMMUNIST MENTOR

Excerpts from this link: http://boortz.com/nuze/200802/02202008.html#commie

Yesterday on the show, I asked the listeners to tell me what Barack Obama has actually accomplished. Not much, it seems. So now let's move on to a different idea ... Barack Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. You've heard me mention many times that Barack Obama had an affinity to communist professors in his day. Well now it's time to get down to the nitty-gritty details of what exactly that means.

If you read the linked story you'll find that Frank Marshall Davis was a publicly identified member of the Communist Party USA. Davis, a black writer, was accused of being involved in several communist-front organizations by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to Davis repeatedly as just "Frank" ... assumingly because Obama is not a stupid man and did not want to show the world that his mentor is a card-carrying Communist. So what does Obama tell us about Frank? Well Frank was a poet who visited his family in Hawaii. Frank was, according to Obama, "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..." Frank was "his old Black Power dashiki self" who gave Obama advice on his career and his college education.

The link to article mentioned in the first paragraph: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/


ELECTION 2008
Obama worked with terrorist
Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence

Posted: February 24, 2008
5:44 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Some excerpts from the article:

JERUSALEM ? The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
_______
Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.
_______
Obama served on the board with Ayers, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released on Sept. 11, 2001

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.

A $200 campaign contribution is listed on April 2, 2001 by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two taught appeared speaking together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"


Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008

Some excerpts from the article:

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
______
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

(More taxes, just what we all need……….)


Obama On Immigration:

Immigration raids are ineffective. (Feb 2008)

Health plan: not enough resources for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)

Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. (Dec 2007)

Don't deputize Americans to turn in illegal immigrants. (Dec 2007)

OK to provide government services in Spanish. (Dec 2007)

Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)

Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

OBAMA
By: Ronald Kessler

Some excerpts from the article:

Michelle Obama: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,”

Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is.

To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.

Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
______
Those who think two of the closest people to Obama could publicly make anti-America statements unless Obama himself felt that way, are fooling themselves. To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
______
And what has been wrong with America up to now?

That it gave Michelle the opportunity to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School? That it gave Barack Obama the chance to attend Harvard and Harvard Law School and become a U.S. senator making more than $1 million a year from book royalties?

Was it that America stopped Nazi Germany from continuing to murder millions of Jews? That America has provided Africa and other countries with $15 billion to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV and that another $30 billion is on the way? That 46 percent of all Americans classified by the Census Bureau as poor own their own homes, 76 percent of them have air conditioning, and 75 percent of them have at least one car? Or that America allows us to express our views freely without fear of being put in jail, as is the case in Russia?

A lawyer, Michelle Obama is perfectly capable of expressing herself precisely. In fact, she spoke from a written speech


And let’s remember his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. & Father Michael Pfleger, Obama’s Spiritual advisors:

Wright:

From: Obama's Ties To Church Examined (AP)

Some excerpts from the article:

(AP) A then 26-year-old Barack Obama walked down the aisle of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, knelt beneath a cross suspended from its rafters and, as he later explained it, committed himself to God after years as a religious skeptic.

In those early days at the self-described "unashamedly black" church, the future Democratic presidential candidate was moved to tears by a sermon from its activist pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whom he has portrayed as his spiritual mentor.
_____
But in an interview with PBS's "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" recorded just before Obama's February announcement, Wright said he warned the senator that their association could pose political problems, partly because of his history of supporting Palestinian causes.

Wright also told The New York Times in an interview published March 6: "When his (Obama's) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."
_____

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

In a fiery sermon in April 2003, Wright said: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.

“No! No No!

“God damn America … for killing innocent people.

“God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.

“God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

In DVD copies of his sermons available for purchase, Wright can also be seen questioning America’s role in the spreading of the HIV virus that leads to AIDS. In another speech, made in the days after 9/11, he suggested that American foreign policy invited the terror attacks.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

The pastor also said: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
_____
But Obama’s longtime relationship with Wright is continuing to spark controversy.

“This is not just someone that Barack Obama has a casual relationship with,” said Tom Bevan, executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com. He noted that Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, and Wright’s words were the inspiration for the title of Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
_____
During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

Father Michael Pfleger:

Pfleger, who until recently was featured on the Obama campaign website as a spiritual endorser, was back at Obama’s Trinity United Church this weekend mocking Hillary Clinton’s “white entitlement.” It’s one thing to ridicule Hillary’s sense of political and ideological entitlement as part of the Clinton dynasty. But the demagogic emphasis on her race from this hate preacher on the pulpit is quite another thing. You really have to see his performance to believe it.
_____

On May 29th a Catholic Priest from Chicago’s St. Sabina Church joined a rally in front of a gun shop and called for the owner of the shop and all pro-gun legislators to be “snuffed out”, yet, the media is strangely silent on the “Father’s” extreme comments — words one would think would be explosive enough to get media coverage. Father Michael Pfleger, known the city over for his overt political activism, made the obscene comments while demonstrating with Jesse Jackson and his Organization Operation Push in front of Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, a Chicago suburb.

Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina’s Church, went way over the top this week. During a protest against Chuck’s Gun Shop, Father Pfleger twice threatened to “snuff out” the shop’s owner and threatened the same fate for legislators who oppose his position on gun control.

“We’re gonna find you and snuff you out,” Fleger said about the gun shop owner, likening the man to a “rat.” He later repeated his threat to “snuff out” the owner.

“We’re gonna snuff out legislators who are voting [garbled] against our gun laws and we’re coming for you because we are not going to sit idly.”

And that he, “vowed that the rally was just the beginning and that civil disobedience was possible.”


And, sadly, that's just the highlights.


There's more to life than being gay......

If you believe that any president any time soon is going to give us every single right that everyone else has, you are truly deluded. If a president did that, they would piss off too many people to get re-elected. And then the homophobic heteros and all the religious zealots that believe we’re all evil to begin with, along with everyone else that hates us, are just going to do their damnedest to get those rights taken away.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | August 25, 2008 10:20 AM

Shadow, yours is a testimony to speed typing and partial truths stretched to the outer limits. Promise me you won't vote for anyone please.

shadow_asylum | August 26, 2008 7:14 AM

Robert,

Well, if you’d care to point out the partial truths I’d like to know about them. When I saw this posted elsewhere a while back, I actually did some research on the stuff instead of automatically calling it “partial truths stretched to the outer limits”.


The first quote I posted came straight from Obama, fact.


About his COMMUNIST MENTOR, Obama talks about him in the book that he wrote – “Dreams from My Father” If you have a problem with that, talk to Obama, it’s his book. Fact


Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, fact.

At the Woods Fund he worked with William C. Ayers, fact.

William C. Ayers, a confessed domestic terrorist, has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972, fact.

Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama, is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group, fact.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002, fact.

Go here and look at the Woods Fund PDF’s from 2001 & 2002:
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=WOOD146


Obama’s Global Tax Proposal, fact. Last I heard it was currently under consideration in Congress. (In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.) Go look up proposal for yourself.

Obama on Immigration, fact: public record stuff, go look it up.


Michelle Obama: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” fact. It was all over the news. And she read it from a written speech.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. & Father Michael Pfleger – all fact, all public knowledge.

Maybe if you used Google to look this stuff up yourself instead of slamming on me, you wouldn't look like just another drone with their head in the sand

And for the record, I’ll vote for whomever I feel like voting for – as a matter of fact, I’ll be sure to be the first one there to place my vote (maybe you’re the one who shouldn’t vote?). I actually research the candidates and won’t vote for one of them just because he gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling without actually saying anything at all (or accomplishing anything). Actions speak louder than words……..

May want to watch these, too:

Dennis Miller on Obama:

www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=1779125&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049

A couple college kids for Obama:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=1713616&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749

Might as well tack this on:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080728/issues.html?.v=1

Investor's Business Daily

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
Monday July 28, 6:55 pm ET

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code -- socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" -- a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" -- "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

"Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

"Free" college tuition.

"Universal national service" (a la Havana).

"Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

"Free" job training (even for criminals).

"Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

"Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

More subsidized public housing.

A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters -- first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department -- from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path -- and those who guided it -- leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii -- and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 -- a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" -- was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" -- on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply -- as well as teach -- Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" -- terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" ... the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.

(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them -- at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

shadow_asylum | August 26, 2008 8:10 AM

Thought this would be good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXXr9oLd9S4


Oh, the truth hurts sooooo much……….


And let’s stomp on the First Amendment (we don’t need it any more, do we?):


news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_ayers_ad_3

Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

DENVER - Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.

Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

It's the type of going-for-the-jugular approach to politics many Democrats complain that Kerry lacked and that Republicans exploit.

Obama's target is an ad by the conservative American Issues Project, a nonprofit group that questions Obama's ties to Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground organization that took credit for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.

The lone financier of the anti-Obama ad, Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, was also one of the main funders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who targeted Kerry. Simmons, a McCain fundraiser, contributed nearly $2.9 million to the American Issues Project, according to documents filed by the group with the Federal Election Commission.

Fox News and CNN have declined to air the anti-Obama ad. But by Monday afternoon, the ad had run about 150 times in local markets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan, according to Evan Tracey, head of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an ad tracking firm.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama supporters have inundated stations that are airing the ad, many of them owned by Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails. He called the ad false, despicable and outrageous.

"Other stations that follow Sinclair's lead should expect a similar response from people who don't want the political discourse cheapened with these false, negative attacks," Vietor said.

Sinclair offices were closed late Monday and officials there could not be immediately contacted.

"It seems they protest a bit too much," American Issues Project spokesman Christian Pinkston said. "They're going all of these routes — through threats, intimation — to try to thwart the First Amendment here because they don't have an argument on merit."

Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama also was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

Obama has denounced Ayers' past activities.

"Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, 'Respectable' and 'Mainstream,'" the group's ad states. "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

In a letter to station managers, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer wrote: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."

Bauer also wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney, noting that the ad is a "knowing and willful attempt to evade the strictures of federal election law."

The campaign's aggressive tactics could draw more attention to a subject the campaign wants to go away. On Tuesday, the University of Illinois at Chicago will make available records of Obama's service on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The group was set up to improve the city's schools. The documents could shed further light on whether Obama and Ayers had a relationship.

The American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. It is permitted by law to air a political ad provided that the majority of its spending is nonpolitical. It cannot accept money from corporations and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission. Pinkston said the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirements. It filed a report identifying Simmons as its sole donor for the ad last week.

In the Obama campaign's own response ad, an announcer states: "With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the 60s, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers. McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers' crimes, committed when Obama was just 8 years old."

The McCain campaign cannot coordinate efforts with outside groups. But the campaign took advantage of being the target of the response ad.

"The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about Senator Obama's judgment than any TV ad ever could," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.