Obama Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?

After all the rhetoric Obama and his cronies spewed last week, they apparently seem to think the crisis is over since their attention is no longer focused on the spill.

According to Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post:

Has the president turned the corner on the oil drilling crisis? This week's schedule for President Obama suggests that the White House believes he has. After dominating the conversation in Washington all last week, the environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico does not appear front and center on the White House calendar. Not that the West Wing can afford to take their eye off the ball, as chief of staff Rahm Emanuel acknowledged yesterday during a rare Sunday morning television appearance. "What's important is, are we capping the well?," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on the network's "This Week" program. "Are we capturing the oil? Are we containing the clean-up? Are we filing the claims? Are we also cleaning up the mess? That's what's important." But the administration is clearly expecting -- maybe hoping -- that the intense public attention on the spill fades a bit, starting with this week, giving them a chance to turn to other subjects.

Wait a minute! We are entering Summer vacation time and a large segment of America's vacation region is being threatened by a massive oil spill and the White House actually believes that our attention can be directed elsewhere? This is just another attempt by Obama to cover-up his own incompetence at handling the situation.

Here is what Obama has planned as a diversion:

For the rest of the week, Obama and his aides hope they can focus on Afghanistan, health insurance reform, relations with Russia (whose president arrives for a visit on Thursday) and the global economy. Obama departs Thursday for Canada for the G-20 gathering of the world's largest economies. Ahead of the meeting, the president warned the group last week that members must redouble their prior commitments or risk allowing the global economy to sink once again. Tuesday's meeting with state health care commissioners is another chance for Obama to remind the public of the benefits he predicts will come from the massive overhaul of the nation's health-care system. And Tuesday night's White House celebration of gay and lesbian pride month should be an upbeat event for Obama. That constituency -- which has been angry about the slow pace of some changes -- is likely to be happier at this year's version of the annual event, as Congress is on the verge of ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Yes! God forbid that the worst environmental disaster in the Gulf take any time away from pandering to the radical agenda of gays and lesbians! Clearly listening to the complaints of the gay community is more important than solving the problem that is putting thousands of people in the Gulf region out of work and destroying the livelihood of thousands more!

Whatever complaints the Dems had about the way George W. Bush handled Katrina, Obama has proven to be at least twice as bad.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?
Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
June 21, 2010

Can Gays And Lesbians Drop Their "In Your Face" Politics Long Enough For Military Service?

That is the question that needs to be asked and answered before any serious debate can take place on this issue. Without answering this question, lifting the gay ban in the military will be opening the door to major unrest and frivolous complaints from gay and lesbian activists who may serve in the military.

The reason I say "frivolous" is because I saw quite a few complaints from feminists in the military that turned out to be bogus "gotchas." The really sad part about this is that the truth didn't come out until several careers had already been ruined.

Remember "Tailhook 91" and the bogus charges that Paula Coughlin made in 1991? How many careers were ruined before the truth about what really happened and how Coughlin was a willing participant came out? How much damage was done before someone realized that Coughlin admitted to her fellow Tailhookers that they had made her "see God?" How long did it take before the public was made aware of the fact that Coughlin had fingered people who weren't even at Tailhook?

Therein lies the problem. What happens if some gay or lesbian goes into the military and has a radical political agenda? How long before some false charge of "homophobia" is made and a fabricated scandal ensues which destroys one or more careers? What are the safeguards against this?

TAILHOOK 91 is a prime example of how one person making false accusations can have a major negative impact on the military and its combat effectiveness.

Lt. Col. Oliver North notes the following:

But the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn’t feeling the love. The President wouldn’t let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold. The payoff came in his State of the Union Address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

No, it is because of how they act and how they are trying to force their agenda on America whether it be through secret classes (i.e. telling children not to inform their parents) to school children or by pulling a Coughlin on the U.S. Military.

More:

Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has “serious concerns” about repealing the law in the midst of war. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness,” Casey testified. A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, who said, “This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.” Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, testified that he endorsed a “study” of the issue because “only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else’s.” He also resisted a “freeze” on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to “the families that support the force.” The straightest shooting of all was done by General James Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on February 24, he said, “Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective.” Then he reloaded. After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: “At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Just going forward on someone's political whim is not the way to do it. It is true that gays are allowed to serve in militaries like Great Britain and Isreal, but it is also true that in both cases, gays are counseled to keep it low profile.

Are U.S. gays and lesbians willing to do the same thing? Given the militancy of the gay and lesbian political movement, my first inclination is to answer "no." Anyone who has been forced to take a required "diversity" class from an employer knows why.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Fast
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Human Events
March 5, 2010

New Hate Crimes Law Could Politically Target People Who Object To Homosexuality

One thing you can count on from the libs is that their sense of reasoning only makes sense to themselves and no one else. I guess the most prominent example would be taxes. They believe that taxes should always be raised so that the government always has money, but they forget that the people who pay those taxes need the money more than the government does. They also forget that when tax money goes to Washington DC, a good chunk of it stays there to make politicians and bureaucrats a little richer and less than 60 cents on the dollar actually makes back out to those who paid the tax to begin with.

Well, the libs still don't have any common sense, especially when it comes to writing legislation that promotes the agenda of one of their special interest groups. In this case, it is the gay and lesbian lobby. The new Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), H.R. 1913, is one such case where the special interest group is considered more important than Joe and Jane Average American.

Jillian Bandes gives us some insight on this in her latest column from Town Hall:

One of the most pressing concerns is that the bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), could target acts of violence that were carried out for reasons unrelated to sexual preference. Brian Walsh, senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said HCPA did not require any proof that a crime was committed because of a person’s sexual identity, so prosecution could be willy-nilly. The “amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group,” he said.

In other words, a gay or lesbian could be the target of a completely random crime and this law would be used to inflict heavier prosecution and punishment than if the victim were a straight Christian. Now, that doesn't mean that I think such crimes should go unpunished, but it does mean that I think there should be a fair application of the law across the spectrum.

Even many Democrats are wary of what this bill could portend for the future. Read what Rep. Lamar Smith (D-TX) has to say:

“Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (D-Tex.), ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. Smith also said HCPA could target those who opposed gay marriage and forms of unconventional sexual expression. “Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations, and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill,” said Smith.

And that brings us to the true crux of this bill. It is an attempt by the gay and lesbian lobby to stamp out speech that isn't favorable or complimentary to the gay and lesbian lifestyle. If one were to say they opposed homosexuality on moral grounds, this legislation could be used as an excuse to charge such a person with a "Hate Crime" simply for giving their own personal opinion. George Orwell couldn't have come up with a better scenario of real-world thought police.

How can I say something that many on the left would deem as far-fetched? Read on:

Republican staff pointed to an amendment that Democrats rejected during the discussion of the bill, which would have prohibited prosecution of those who simply spoke about sexual identity issues. Because of this exclusion, the prohibition against prosecuting speech had no teeth.

That amendment was killed specifically at the behest of the gay and lesbian lobby. There is no other logical reason for tossing that amendment out.

But this will be the first bill that reaches into a church to censor the content of the service.

“It’s going to cause at a critical moment in American history a chilling effect on the pulpit where we cannot preach about biblical morality and sexuality,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.

(Photo: Bishop Harry Jackson)

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Hate Crimes Law May Have Loopholes
Jillian Bandes
TownHall.com
April 30, 2009

Homosexual Agenda Threatens First Amendment Freedom Of Speech

There were a whole bunch of news items in the past two years about how the homosexual and lesbian lobby was trying to push through legislation that would make it a hate crime if any Christian or other churches offered any critique of the homosexual lifestyle choice. There were also an equal number of people who were concerned that such legislation threatened First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Then there were a number of naysayers who said that such opposition was nothing more than poltical paranoia.

Well, the situation has gone from paranoia to reality. Crystal Dixon, former associate vice-president of human resources at the University of Toledo was fired because she engaged in her First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech which was further enhanced by the Toledo Free Press exercising the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. You see, Ms. Dixon, as a private citizen, wrote an editorial letter to the Toledo Free Press and was subsequently fired for doing so.

Here is the story and what her letter was about. According to the Bulletin of Philadelphia:

Crystal Dixon, a high-ranking black official at the University of Toledo, was fired in May by the university because she wrote a newspaper commentary expressing her personal Christian views regarding homosexuality. Ms. Dixon was responding to an opinion article written by Michael Miller, the editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press titled, "Gay Rights and Wrongs." In her private editorial, Ms. Dixon objected to the comparison of "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of blacks. "I absolutely respected Mr. Miller's right to express his opinion while at the same time, I disagreed with several of the points that he made," said Ms. Dixon on her Web site. "One of the freedoms that makes this country great and makes newspapers great is the privilege of exchanging different points of view via public print communications."

And Ms. Dixon has every right to express her opposition to the camparison of the gay lobby to civil rights activists.

Read on:

"As a black woman ... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims,' " she wrote in the article. "Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended." Following the article's appearance, Ms. Dixon was placed on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation. On May 8, she was dismissed from her job.

"Dismissed from her job." For what? Being a Christian with a conscience? Exercising First Amendment freedoms?

This case is making something very clear. Radical leftist groups like the gay and lesbian lobby have no concern whatsoever for anyone else's rights; only their own. They do not care if people like Crystal Dixon are trampled down and spat upon. They seek to limit other people's freedoms under the guise of enhancing their own.

Gays and lesbians are not looking for rights. They have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as the rest of us. They are looking for privilige and they want to obtain that privilige by limiting the freedoms of others. If Ms. Dixon loses this fight, how long will it be before someone writing a criticism of the gay and lesbian lifestyle choice is thrown in jail for some perceived "hate crime?" It won't be long at all, and we will have the first major deterioration of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

University Of Toledo Sued For Firing Christian Official
John P. Connolly
The Bulletin
December 2, 2008

And you can access Crystal Dixon's website on-line here:

Crystal Dixon

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution to Crystal Dixon's legal fund, you may send contributions to:

Grace In Action
Crystal Dixon Defense Fund
2902 Auburn Avenue
Toledo, OH 43606

Violent Mob Of Gays And Lesbians Attack Elderly Christian Woman

The next time someone accuses me of hate speech against gays and lesbians, I am going to remind them of how a violent mob of gays and lesbians attacked Phyillis Burgess, slapped a cross out of her hand and began stomping on it as they surrounded her.



How hateful is that? These people want us to accept them as civilized members of society and they go on a barbaric rampage like this? Why shouldn't this be considered a "hate-crime?" Clearly, they did this out of hate for Christians.

You can access the video on-line here:

Violent Mob Of Gays And Lesbians Attack Elderly Woman
YouTube.com

Why do people in the Democratic party and on the left in general claim to embrace "tolerance" when they act so intolerant towards those with differing views?

And what would have been the response from the Mass Media outlets if it had been a gay or lesbian attacked by a mob of Christians? Certainly not the silence they are giving to this story.

You can read an on-line report about this situation here:

Video Shows Gay 'Marriage' Backers Terrorizing Cross-Carrying Elderly Woman And Reporter
Kathleen Gilbert
LifeSiteNews.com
November 10, 2008

School Clams Up On 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given To Kindergartners

Here is the latest effort made by gays and lesbians to gain access to our children. A kindergarten teacher, yes, a kindergarten teacher handed out pledge cards to her students and had them put signatures on them. What were the cards? Look here:



From Fox News:

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners. The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners. Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights. Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken. "We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.

But it is looking like the libs on the school board are going to try and brush this whole thing under the rug:

Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.

Gays and lesbians have been trying for years to undermine parental rights in the United States and they are becoming more and more blatent about it. As parents, we have the right (and duty) to say what is appropriate or inappropriate for our children, but the gay and lesbian politcal machine has been working overtime to undermine that right and make leftist teachers the final arbiter in such lessons.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

School Clams Up On 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given To Kindergartners
Michelle Maskaly
FoxNews.com
November 1, 2008

Barack Obama's Questionable Fundraising And The Gay Lifestyle Being Forced On Massachusetts Children

There is so much to be concerned about over Barack Obama that it boggles the mind how Old Media deliberately tries to ignore the situation. Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko. Obama's relationship with the New Socialist Party. None of that ever made it to the front pages of the New York Tiems nor the Washington Post and none of it was ever the lead story for any of the major networks.

Now, we have another concern. Where is barack Obama getting all of this campaign cash from?

Michael Isikoff at Newsweek sheds some light on this. He notes that the Obama campaign recieved donations from people named "Good Will" and "Doodad pro."

In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name. "Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)

That looks exactly like the corrupt, Chicago-style politics that Barack Obama was mentored in by people like Bill Ayers.

The silence of the major networks on this issue is deafening. Can you imagine the hubbub if it were John McCain getting donations like this? It would be the lead story for weeks.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama’s ‘Good Will’ Hunting
Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
October 4, 2008

---

And the assault on our children grows worse every day. In Massachusetts, a Federal Court ruled that it is okay for Kindergarten teachers to indoctrinate six-year-olds on how to be gay and the Court said that parents do not have the right to opt their children out of it. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.

From World Net Daily:

The U.S. Supreme Court without comment has refused to intervene in a case prompted by the actions of officials at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., who not only were teaching homosexuality to young children, but specifically refused to allow Christian parents to opt their children out of the indoctrination. ... The dispute grabbed headlines when Parker, on April 27, 2005, "was arrested and thrown in jail by school officials over his insistence on being notified regarding his son in kindergarten being taught about homosexual relationships by adults," Mass Resistance reported. Another family was alarmed by a similar situation a short time later as the school not only continued its indoctrination, but "became more hostile to the Parkers, and local liberals and homosexual activists did their best to harass the family," Mass Resistance reported. In fact, the school, led by Supt. Paul Ash, then stated in school publications they would not "compromise" on any points regarding the homosexual agenda.

Clearly, this is another attempt by gays and lesbians to get access to little children. If you are concerned parent, you should get to know this case very well. Otherwise, some gay or lesbian will be making attempts to get to know your son or daughter behind your back.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Decision To Teach Kids To Be 'Gay' Allowed To Stand
Bob Unruh
World Net Daily
October 8, 2008