Why Did Obama Come Out Of The Closet?

Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage yesterday after his hand was “forced” by his gaffe prone VP, Joe Biden. Over the weekend Biden expressed support for gay marriage and the media frenzy began until Obama was “forced” to address the issue.

Obama claims his opinion on the issue has evolved and that discussions with gay people, his wife and children helped him evolve on the issue. While it might be true that he spoke with them about the issue it had nothing to do with evolving.

Obama has always supported gay marriage. Actually, he has said he does and that he doesn’t and that he does. It all depended on the time and the audience. Rather than evolving it would be more accurate to say Obama’s opinion has been revolving because he keeps going round and round on it.

Obama has always supported gay marriage. He just has not always voiced that support.

In fact, the announcement of this evolution is something that has been ongoing as he and his aides discussed whether he should announce it or not before the election (more flexibility after) and if before, when would be the best time politically? Obama wanted the announcement to provide the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak.

In just 90 minutes after his announcement he received a million dollars in donation from the gay activists. Of course, the obligatory fundraising email went out last night.

Obama is an opportunist. He planned on “evolving” all along but wanted to wait until after the election. He is in a tough fight so he wanted to get the gay community and his liberal base back in the fight. The African American community is strongly against gay marriage but Obama has little to worry about as many will vote Democrat no matter what and many who don’t vote or like his positions will go out and vote for him just because he is black. That is a fact that many blacks have already made public. There are some who question whether Obama will get that support though.

Obama risks losing more of the Independent voters who are not in favor of gay marriage. Obama risks losing those in the majority of states that have already rejected gay marriage.

This is all a political stunt. Obama has always believed in gay marriage. He knows that gay issues (like marriage) are part of the tactics used to brainwash a nation and make it Communist.

He wants this to happen but he wanted to wait until after the election and he would have had Biden not opened his mouth.

Obama, always the politician, has left himself some wiggle room. He announced that he is in favor of gay marriage BUT that he supports the concept of states deciding the issue.

He can pander to his base for votes and cash while making the blatantly obvious point that this IS a state’s rights issue.

Then again so was abortion before the federal government involved itself.

Obama would love nothing more than for a court to decide that gay marriage is a federal issue and conjure up a right out of thin air like it did with abortion. He would love for a court to say that all states have to honor the marriage of a gay couple that was legally performed in a state that allows it. It would be his way of using the backdoor (pun intended) to get gay marriage in all states.

Funny, Obama would oppose any legislation that would allow a concealed carry permit to be recognized in all states.

For now though, he will have to be content to state his support of an issue that he cannot possibly affect because, as he said, it is an issue that is up to each state.

Pandering at its finest.

And the gays will swallow this hook, line, and sinker…

The Washington Post has a good editorial.

As for me, I don’t have anything against gay people. I have an issue with the attempt to redefine marriage. And let us remember, there is no right to marry…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Left Only Tolerant Of Those On The Plantation

The liberal Democrat party in America claims to be tolerant. It has rewritten history to ignore or change the fact that the Democrats supported slavery and were anti civil rights. The left has brainwashed generations of minorities into believing that only the liberal establishment loves them, cares for them, and will help them.

Until the day after Election Day. Then, those minorities get some “goodies” to placate them and they are pushed into the background and regaled with stories about how wonderful liberals have always been to the minorities. We love you women, you blacks, you Hispanics, and you gays. We are there for you now vote for us and shut up.

The left keeps harping on how tolerant it is but the reality is that the left is only tolerant of those who stay on the plantation.

The left loves blacks unless the blacks are conservatives. Then the real racism rears its ugly head and the racial slurs begin. Women, the liberals love you and will defend you unless you are conservative and then no liberal organization INCLUDING NOW will defend you. Gays, we love you and want you to have everything you want unless you happen to be a conservative. Then you are a turncoat who needs to be assaulted. Gay conservatives can be assaulted and will not be held up as examples of intolerant bullying like a Matthew Shepard was.

Intolerant liberals do not believe they can ever be guilty of racism, hate crimes or intolerance because they claim not to be. They claim it so it must be true.

A gay TV star named Taylor Garrett can tell us all about intolerance. He happens to be a Republican and conservative. According to Garrett, he was recently targeted by the so called tolerant left, because he is conservative. Garrett was beaten by a man who Garret discovered defacing his car. Some thug was scratching a vulgarity aimed at Ann Coulter whom Garrett was supposed to meet with to discuss gay marriage and to show that just because you do not support it (like Coulter) does not make you a bigot.

Garrett confronted the man who was scratching the words into his car and was assaulted.

How dare this guy stray from the plantation? Does he not know that the liberals own him along with the others who have been enslaved?

The violence of the Occupy crowd, the violence of the left toward TEA Party members, the racist remarks by the left, and the attacks on gays and blacks who happen to be conservative are examples of the intolerance toward those who do not follow the orthodoxy of the left. The violence is even more pronounced when the person involved is of a protected class the liberals have claimed as their property.

Truth be told, the liberal establishment is only mildly tolerant of those who remain on the plantation. As long as they know their place they are tolerated. The ones who stray get whipped by the liberal taskmasters. Those who leave the plantation get pummeled.

You just don’t see that coming from conservatives. We fought to end slavery so we don’t think we own anyone or are entitled to own anyone.

The left, on the other hand, considers them bought and paid for.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Tea Baggers Protest In DC

The Tea Party protests are comprised of people from all walks of life and all political persuasions. These are people who are tired of out of control government and want real reform in how it is run. The moniker Tea Party is a reference to the celebrated Boston Tea Party:

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Wikipedia

The morons on the left attacked Tea Party protesters (the modern day ones) as a bunch of conservative racists and used disparaging words when referring to them. One such phrase, used by the likes of Jeanine Garafalo and Anderson Cooper, is Tea Baggers. Tea Bagger is a vulgar reference to a sex act commonly associated with homosexual men though heterosexuals can engage in the act. Lesbian women are the only group that cannot engage in this particular act.

The references to the Tea Party protesters contained a lot of sexual innuendo and the phrase Tea Bagger is almost always one of them.

In DC this weekend, there is a protest going on and the group contains actual tea baggers. DC is the site of a gay protest where homosexuals are looking for Obama to keep his word on rescinding the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy of gays serving in the military, homosexual marriage, and any number of other gay agenda items. Those topics and their validity are for another post at another time.

Barney Fwank, an openly gay member of Congress, thinks the Tea Baggers in DC are not being as effective as they could if they stayed home and protested their members of Congress in home districts. He has a point with regard to this weekend because most members of Congress are in their home districts for the Columbus Day holiday (which is about a week long for them). The Tea Baggers will be protesting but just who will they be protesting to?

The Tea Bagging crowd even has dissension in its ranks because some in the group agree with Fwank, they think they should be protesting their own officials at their home bases. Those who decided on a national protest are tired of working the home crowd and want to appeal to Obama directly. He did not let them down and appeared at a dinner and vowed to end DADT:

“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,’” Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. He offered no timetable or specifics and he acknowledged some may be growing impatient.

“I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough,” Obama said. “Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” My Way News

Many of the Tea Baggers are skeptical because the agenda has not moved quickly enough for them. They want an end to DADT NOW. It might happen and if it does every gay who fought for it should have to enlist in the military and back up what they wanted. If that were a requirement they would not be fighting for it.

Obama is not moving quickly enough for them but they should cut him some slack. He has had to work on lowering sea levels (a messiah can do this), eliminating CO2 (so we can all die), wrecking the economy, fighting a losing battle for the Olympics, increasing unemployment, running up huge deficits, attempting to take over health care, going on a number of mini vacations with his Klingon wife, and selecting a dog. Along the way he had to make time for his I might do something in the future Nobel Appease Prize.

The Tea Baggers, like any other group that supports the left, expect payback NOW. They supported Obama and they want their piece of the pie right now. They see him paying back his supporters in the unions and in ACORN and they want theirs. This is why they sashayed into DC to protest.

They are entitled to that right as Americans but I wonder. Will Cooper, Garafalo and the other liberal morons report on this protest and if they do will they call the protesters Tea Baggers since it more aptly describes them.

Or is that vulgarity reserved exclusively for the people who protest out of control government?

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Another Reason Gays Should not Serve

I know there are many arguments about whether or not homosexuals should serve in the military. There are many homosexuals who are patriots and who would love to serve their country. Having that desire does not mean they should be able to serve or that they have a right to serve. I have my own views about why they should not serve, openly or otherwise, and many have taken me to task for my views. So be it. However, this story from Stars and Stripes shows how harmful allowing homosexuals to serve can be and this episode shows the dangers involved:

Eighteen British military members and six contractors are having their blood checked for infections and diseases after receiving emergency war-zone transfusions that might not have been properly screened by U.S. officials, British authorities said Thursday.

The transfusions were performed at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan at various times since 2001, according to the British Ministry of Defence.

While U.S. and U.K. policy is to use certified blood products in combat zones, donors are used in emergency situations or when there are supply shortages, according to an MOD release. Policy also dictates that these emergency samples be retrospectively tested to ensure they are clean.

“However, not all of the emergency collections had samples that made it back to the U.S. for retrospective testing,” according to a statement from Derek Twigg, the U.K. undersecretary of state for defence. “This is the key reason for offering testing to the recipients of these U.S. emergency blood collections.”

Why is this of concern? The blood is retrospectively tested. In other words it is tested after the transfusions. Unfortunately, some injuries require blood quickly and prior to proper screening in order to save a life. The homosexual male population accounts for the majority of HIV cases in the US and Western Europe:

In North America and Western Europe HIV infection and AIDS cases have been concentrated among men who have sex with men and among users of intravenous drugs. In some US cities up to half of homosexual and bisexual men are infected (440) (see Table 1, p. 4). In the population as a whole, however, infection is uncommon–0.12 percent among US military recruits in 1988, for example (442). BNET

Additionally, the US accounts for 60% of the world’s reported cases. This might just be because we have a better reporting system but no matter the reason, the fact is allowing homosexual men to serve would increase the likeliness that emergency transfusions would result in the transmission of the AIDS virus. The reason that the military tests low is because the test is required for entrance into the service which would exclude carriers prior to entry. This means that about 50% of gay men would be excluded from entering. It also means that those who make it through pose a risk to their fellow soldiers because the gays are most likely to get infected. We can exclude IV drug users because they would not make it in and it is unlikely, with drug testing, that those who took up that vice would remain in the service.

This will cause people to make all kinds of excuses and try to rationalize why gays should be permitted to serve. No matter what the argument, allowing them to serve poses a danger to others.

Imagine surviving a terrible injury only to be diagnosed with AIDS. Don’t ask, don’t tell could be a death sentence.

Big Dog